Alabama new immigration law—the most restrictive in the nation—could force union workers at government-owned utilities to cut off power for undocumented immigrants. The new law considered the most restrictive in the nation would prohibit any government or government-owned institution from entering into a “business transaction” with undocumented people. Government-owned utilities are traditionally heavily unionized.
The law, which took effect on September 29 after it was upheld by a federal judge, could also be interpreted to mean
that private utility companies, like Alabama Power, will have to cancel business transactions with undocumented residents as well. Initially, Alabama Power chose to do this, but has since reversed this policy, according to reports.
Pending federal appeals mean that certain aspects of the law are not yet in effect, but already workers—mainly Latino—across Alabama are beginning to take action. Whether or not unionized utility workers will enforce the law will be a test of the newly emerging solidarity that the AFL CIO and other groups have been trying to cultivate between organized labor and recent
immigrants.
Some unions appear slow to develop a public position on whether or not they will potentially shut off power to undocumented residents. IBEW Communications Specialist Alexander Hogan, whose union represents utility workers in the state (including at Alabama Power), said the IBEW would not be issuing a statement on Alabama’s new legislation. However, Hogan did not rule
that the union would condemn it.
Stewart Acuff, chief of staff of the Utility Workers Union of America, whose union does not represent Alabama workers, has much
stronger feelings on the law. “It’s completely and terribly wrong that the Alabama law would cut utilities to workers. We know better than anybody how dangerous it is to cut off utilities especially in the winter time. We are opposed to treating immigrants as second-class citizens or in a discriminatory manner,” says Acuff.
The silence of the IBEW on the law stands in contrast to Latino workers who have taken militant action on the jobs to protest the
immigration law. Last month on October 12, thousands of Latinos across the state walked off the jobs in wildcat strikes to protest the immigration law. Six major poultry plants were closed in the northeast of Alabama, according to the AP and more than 40 businesses were shut down due to the protests according to Labor Notes. Business across the state reported than usual
absentee rates at worksites. The actions were not sanctioned by any union and organized primarily through word of mouth and using social media, according to reports.
The militant actions and wildcat strikes demonstrate how deeply unsettling the new immigration law is to Latino workers. Over the past few years, the AFL-CIO has been attempting to build stronger relationship with Latino communities that were in the past not as closely linked to organized labor. This was symbolized by the recent affiliation of the National Taxi Worker Alliance (a largely immigrant workforce) and strategic partnerships formed between the AFL-CIO and the National Domestic Workers Alliance and the Alliance of Guest Workers for Dignity.
At the Alabama AFL-CIO Convention last week, AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Liz Shuler, a former top staffer of the IBEW, said
Today, we know an employer can replace workers with those who have no rights. We know he can pay less and get away with it because workers who live and work in the shadows, outside our labor laws, can’t complain. Our current immigration system is broken, and is a blueprint for employer manipulation and abuse.
Fairness, justice and equality – these are the pillars that unite us – and as we navigate through what we all agree are difficult waters, we must remain focused on the foundational principles that make the labor movement strong.
Will we accept the politics of division, and join those who blame the uninsured for the health care crisis, teachers for state budget problems, the foreclosed for the housing crisis, or immigrants and jobless workers for the jobs crisis? Or will we live by the
words we say often enough: We Are One?
If utility companies did indeed agree to shut off power to undocumented workers, Shuler’s former union as well as others would be faced with a challenge: Will unions go out of their way to stand in solidarity with undocumented workers, to say “We Are One”? Or will they go along with the state’s new anti-immigrant climate? Answers may be forced soon enough, as the labor movement seeks closer ties with undocumented workers increasingly under attack.
Title: Alabama Immigration Law May Soon Test Union Solidarity
By: Mike Elk
Source: In These Times
Date: Wednesday Nov 2, 2011
TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Gov. Rick Scott “overstepped his constitutional authority and violated the separation of powers” with an executive order freezing all pending rules until he could approve them.
In a 5-2 opinion, the court concluded that rule-making authority belongs to the Legislature, not the governor.
“The Legislature retains the sole right to delegate rulemaking authority to agencies,” the majority justices wrote, “and all provisions in [Scott’s executive orders] that operate to suspend rulemaking contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act constitute an encroachment upon a legislative function.”
Scott called the decision a “disappointment” and “not right,” saying he didn’t understand the court’s logic.
“Think about it. Secretaries of these agencies report to me. And they work for me at will,” he said. “And I’m not supposed to supervise them? It doesn’t make any sense.”
Rosalie Whiley, a blind woman from Opa-locka, charged that Scott took over the Legislature’s constitutional authority to direct rule-making when he signed an executive order hours after his Jan. 4 inauguration requiring his approval of all proposed rules through the newly created Office of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform.
Whiley wanted the executive order lifted. The court, though, declined to honor that request.
Instead, justices concluded the order “will not be enforced against an agency” unless the Legislature specifically grants the governor rule-making authority.
The order was part of Scott’s effort to eliminate “burdensome” and “duplicative” rules and “job-killing” regulations he believes hinder economic growth.
State agencies develop thousands of rules each year to implement laws.
Of the nearly 900 proposed rules reviewed by Scott’s office of Regulatory Review, only a few dozen were rejected through the order. They related to such procedures as record-keeping by home health aides and management of documents by the Agency for Workforce Innovation.
But Scott’s order delayed many rules, and Whiley argued it delayed one that would make it easier for her to apply for food stamps online. The governor ultimately approved the rule specific to her case.
Whiley said she didn’t come up with the idea of suing on her own. Miami attorney Valory Greenfield approached her, asking if she would put a face to those hurt by the governor’s action. Whiley agreed.
“The impact is just letting him know, even though we elected you and we put you there, you have to respect us in all different ways,” she said Tuesday.
Scott attorney Charles Trippe had argued that the “supreme executive power” granted the governor by the state Constitution is among the reasons he has final say over rules developed by state agencies under his control.
The court rejected that argument, saying such an interpretation “ignores the fundamental principle that our state Constitution is a limitation upon, rather than a grant of, power.”
Trippe said he believes even with the ruling, the governor, who has hiring and firing authority over agency heads, still can voice his opinion on rules proposed by agencies. He just can’t add a formal OK to the administrative process of rule approval.
Chief Justice Charles Canady and Justice Ricky Polston disagreed with the majority.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, a Scott supporter, described the court’s opinion as “bizarre,” questioning why justices would decline to quash the executive order but expect the governor to not implement it.
“It proves how outcome driven the opinion is,” he said. “The court doesn’t like the governor’s policies.”
He also warned that the Legislature might give the governor more rule-making authority.
“When the court invites the Legislature to the dance on rule-making, they may not like the song that we pick,” he said. “The Legislature clearly has the intent of curbing the authority that each individual agency has to promulgate burdensome rules.”
In the 2011 session, lawmakers passed a law giving the governor’s Regulatory Review office authority to review existing rules, but not suspend pending rules.
So far, the office has analyzed more than 11,400 existing rules, and identified more than 1,600 for repeal. More than half of those are in the departments of Business and Professional Regulation and Environmental Protection, according to floridahasarighttoknow.com, which tracks the governor’s rule review.
House speaker designate Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, said the GOP-led Legislature has no issue with Scott’s objective.
“We have a need for rules. But it got a little bit out of hand,” he said. “We recognize that the excessive rule-making is drowning businesses. Regardless of what the Supreme Court decision is, we are going to continue to scrutinize rules being made to make sure they’re helping our economy and not hurting it.”
Eric Draper, executive director of the Audubon Society, one of three groups that filed court briefs supporting Whiley, said the ruling serves the public well.
“There is no mechanism by which ordinary people can get into or even figure out what’s going on,” he said. “It substitutes for public participation the personal judgment of the governor, and, we think, the special interests the governor is listening to.” Scott has been named in nine lawsuits since he took office. This is the first where a court has ruled against him.
Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, earlier this year unsuccessfully sued the governor in the Supreme Court, saying he overstepped his authority when he killed a high-speed rail project approved by the Legislature.
She said Tuesday’s decision underscores the limits of Scott’s power in a government with three equal branches.
“He’s the governor, he’s not a king,” she said. “The court is saying, that’s it. You can’t run state government like a business. … You are the governor of Florida and you don’t have the authority to run every facet of state government.”
Title: Courts: Gov. Scott overstepped his authority: Case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by a blind Opa-locka woman who charged governor’s action was causing delays
Author: Janet Zink; Times/Herald staff writers Steve Bousquet and Michael Vasquez contributed to this report.
Source: Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
Date: August 16, 2011