Legislative — 7

Prison Labor
Another form of job erosion in the U.S. is the growing use of prison labor. The IAM has led the fight against legislation that would expand the use of Federal Prison Industries (FPI). While the IAM believes that prisoners should not be idle and need to learn the necessary skills to be productive citizens on their release back into society, we strongly disagree with FPI’s growing practice of using prison labor to take employment from, and compete directly with, the jobs of our members. We have also actively supported legislation which would eliminate the preferential purchasing power given to FPI products for federal contracts.

Last November, we won a major victory in our fight for Prison Labor Reform. The House by a 350-to-65 vote passed legislation that would eliminate the “mandatory source” requirement. Under the current law, FPI had a preferential status in the government procurement process that forced federal agencies to buy only from FPI rather than use a competitive purchasing process. The passage of this legislation will eliminate preferential sourcing and allow American manufacturing workers and their employers a fair opportunity to compete for work now being done by FPI. In addition, the legislation provides inmates with alternatives to the prison work programs that do not come at the expense of our members and their employers. Senate action is still pending on this matter.

Contingent Workers
Big business has been very creative in its efforts to suppress wages and benefits of workers. The percentage of the workforce that is considered to be “contingent” has been steadily growing. Even during an era of large corporate profits and skyrocketing executive salaries, corporations have been consistently finding methods to keep their employees from sharing the wealth and in the process have created a growing population of second class workers.

Independent Contractors—The IAM strongly supports pending legislation that would protect workers’ rights and benefits by making it more difficult for unscrupulous employers to mis-classify employees as independent contractors. Workers classified as independent contractors are less likely to receive health and pension benefits and must pay both the employer and employee share of social security taxes. These workers also lose coverage under OSHA, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, and their right to organize.

Part Time—To escape paying benefits to all of its workers some employers have raised the percentage of their workforce that is part-time. Most part-time workers receive significantly less benefits than their full-time counter parts. The IAM has supported legislative efforts that would create disincentives for employers trying to eliminate benefits to their workers by converting full-time jobs to part-time jobs.

Temps—The amount of temporary workers has doubled in the last ten years. A majority of these workers want full-time jobs and steady employment. Some workers have been considered temporary even though they may have worked for a particular company for years, leading to being termed “perma-temps. The IAM is fighting for the rights of workers to earn a fair wage and decent benefits and resists the attempts by business to erode the standard of living of workers.

H1-B & L-1 Visa’s—The high-tech community, in particular, has been relying on the increased use of foreign worker visa programs to keep its wages artificially low. As the economy boomed during the late 1990s, Congress raised H1-B immigration caps in 2000 from 115,000 to 195,000. The IAM opposed this and other proposed increases that lacked specific and enforceable protections for workers. On October 1, 2003, H1-B visas were capped at 65,000 for fiscal 2004, down considerably from the 195,000 permitted in both fiscal 2003 and 2002. New legislation is required to set H1-B visa limits for future years and close loopholes that allow foreign workers to remain in U.S. Jobs after their temporary visas expire.

Congressional committees also have bills addressing L-1 visas, which allow multinational companies to transfer workers based in other countries to their own clients’ facilities in the United States. Unlike the H1-B laws, there is no annual cap on L-1 visas. In 2002, 57,700 L-1 visas were issued.

The “USA Jobs Protection Act of 2003,” introduced last summer in both the Senate and House, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to H1-B and L-1 visas, with the goal of protecting citizens’ jobs. We believe that tighter L-1 controls would protect visa holders as well. H1-B holders are supposed to be paid the prevailing U.S. wage; L-1 holders have no such protection. That means foreign workers can displace U.S. workers and be paid lower wages. This form of “insourcing” threatens U.S. workers’ jobs every bit as much as the more publicized outsourcing of jobs to locations overseas.

With domestic unemployment at its highest level in nearly a decade and with 9 million Americans looking for work, abuses inherent in the H1-B and L1 visas are intolerable. Employer abuse of the system—whether through displacement and unfair treatment of domestic workers, intimidation of guest workers or artificial depression of their wages and working conditions below the standards of the domestic labor market—is unacceptable. Congress created these programs; and now we are urging Congress to reform them so America’s workers are not disadvantaged and foreign workers are protected from exploitation.