Labor, Immigration, and the Search for a New Common Ground in the Wake of Iowa's Meatpacking Raids
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Miami Business Law Review Volume 18 Issue 2 Volume 18 Number 2 (2010) Article 5 July 2010 Still in 'The Jungle': Labor, Immigration, and the Search for a New Common Ground in the Wake of Iowa's Meatpacking Raids Khari Taustin Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umblr Part of the Immigration Law Commons, and the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Khari Taustin, Still in 'The Jungle': Labor, Immigration, and the Search for a New Common Ground in the Wake of Iowa's Meatpacking Raids, 18 U. Miami Bus. L. Rev. 283 (2010) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umblr/vol18/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Business Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STILL IN 'THE JUNGLE': LABOR, IMMIGRATION, AND THE SEARCH FOR A NEW COMMON GROUND IN THE WAKE OF IOWA'S MEATPACKING RAIDS KHARI TAUSTIN* I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 283 II. THE LABOR MOVEMENT AND IMMIGRATION LAws ............. 286 A. The Immigration Reform and Control Act ...... ......... 287 B. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant ResponsibilityAct... 290 1. Basic Provisions ............................. 290 2. Concerns with IRIRA's Application ........... ..... 291 C. FairLabor StandardsAct................ ............. 294 D. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB..... ..... 296 III. THE MEATPACKING INDUSTRY: HISTORY, DEVELOPMENT, AND TRANSFORMATION ........................ ...... 299 A. The History of Unions and the Searchfor a New Model.......... 302 IV. AGRIPROCESSORS MEATPACKING PLANT: A SHOCKING EXAMPLE ..................................... ..... 304 A. The 2008 Raid................................ 304 B. Legal Controversies:A Refusal to Change..... .............. 309 C. A New York Case............................... 310 D. Back in Iowa.......... ................. ...... 312 V. LOOKING OUTSIDE THE CASES: GETTING OUT OF THE BIND.............................................. 313 A. Rethinking Hoffman - One Avenue for Change..... ..... 315 B. Turning to the InternationalPlaying Field -A Second Avenue for Change .............................. ..... 317 1. Failed CorporateResponsibility ........... ............ 323 VI. CONCLUSION ...................................... 325 I. INTRODUCTION "There are able-bodied men here who work from early morning until late at night, in ice-cold cellars with a quarter of an inch of water on the floor-men who for six or seven months in the year J.D., University of Miami School of Law, 2010; Franklin & Marshall College, Bachelor of Arts, 2005; Research and Writing Editor for the UNIVERSIY OF MWv BusINEss LAW REvIEW. For insightful comments, I thank David Abraham. I would also like to thank my family and specifically my brothers Cole and Kyler for the fruitful discussions and challenges that gave rise to my desire to take on this article's subject matter. 283 284 UNIVERSIY OF MIAMI BUSINESS LAWREVIEW [Vol. 18:283 never see the sunlight from Sunday afternoon till the next Sunday morning-and who cannot earn three hundred dollars in a year."' In 1906, Upton Sinclair described the conditions of the Chicago meatpacking industry and the struggle of an immigrant worker in an industrial workforce. In 2008, immigration authorities raided the nation's largest kosher slaughterhouse uncovering hundreds of undocumented employees, and revealing Agriprocessors, Inc. as a prime example of the egregious employer exploitation that will occur amidst a broken immigration system.2 This raises questions; what will it take to bring justice to the workplace and how much longer will it take for positive change in employment practices to take root? Current immigration laws often obstruct enforcement of labor and employment laws. National immigration policies, codified specifically in the Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA"),' the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ("IIRIRA"),4 and the Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc., v. NLRB,s undermine the legislative force needed to uphold and implement fair and nondiscriminatory practices in the workplace for all employees irrespective of immigration status.6 Where laws inadequately protect immigrant workers, employers repeatedly take liberties to maximize profits at the expense of all workers. When employment laws are invoked, it is typically with little or no reprimand to the employer despite the fact that the companies' hiring practices created an environment in which serious violations occurred. The publicity given to Postville, Iowa and the raids of the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant raised awareness of these issues nationwide. Stemming from the raid, federal court cases against Agriprocessors and its operators reinforce the position that the current law has little deterrent effect on employers. For a transformation to take place, the United States ("U.S.") must alter its view of global standards and enforcement, and businesses need to I UTON SINClAIR, THEJUNGLE 15 (W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. 2003) (1906). 2 UFCW, RAIDS ON WORKERS: DESTROYING OUR RIGHTS 38 (2009), available at http/v/www.ufcw.orgfdocUploadUFCW%/2OICE%2rpt%2OFINAL%20150B%5FO61809%/ 5Fl30632/2Ep dPCFID= 10217037&CFTOKEN= 65919529. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359. Mega Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L No. 104-208, SS 401-421, 110 Stat. 3009 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1324a). s 535 U.S. 137 (2002) (precluding the NLRB from awarding backpay to undocumented workers). 6 See Leticia M. Saucedo, A New "U": Organizing Victims and ProatingImmigrant Worken, 42 U. RiCH. L REv. 891,894 (2008). 2010] STILL IN 'THEJUNGLE' 285 take the lead as part of a broader corporate responsibility to uphold the law. But other than doing the "right" thing, what mechanisms are in place to change the way we look at the intersection of labor laws, immigration laws, and good business practice? The law must be enforceable, it must be manageable, and it must be reasonable; it cannot overly burden business in such a way that employers focus on methods of successfully circumventing the law. In a society in which the immigrant population is so tightly woven into the workforce, these laws need to make the employer equally responsible to all workers regardless of legal status. The deliberate nature with which many labor violations are present in the workplace calls for rethinking the law and requires doing so with particular attention to migrant workers. In meatpacking plants, other industrial work, and even more critically in service industries where workers do not regularly congregate, the breakdown in union representation means the bargaining power of workers is at an all time low. Where the workers are immigrants, employers are typically less concerned that their violations will be recognized or reported by workers who are more concerned with staying in the U.S. and maintaining whichever job they have acquired. If these workers know they can enforce their right to work for minimum wage in a safe and clean environment, they often forego taking a stand in hopes of remaining undetected by immigration authorities. This comment will analyze the particular failures that arise where labor and immigration intersect while considering the general forces that curb or drive corporate behavior; it will provide two ways in which the law might better deter violative behavior and transform the global interpretation of labor rights. This comment will begin by examining the current intersection between immigration and labor laws using key case examples, like Hoffman Plastic,' to illustrate the ways in which the law has failed to move in the same direction as economic activity with respect to workplace demands, failed to provide protection to workers, and failed to offer guidance to employers. The first part will look at key statutes where immigration and labor intersect and consider their influence on the current climate for migrant workers by pointing to the specific provisions that inadequately afford protection or inadequately make enforcement a priority. This part will also address the Hoffman decision directly and the court precedents on which it relies in order to propose a change in the 535 U.S. 137 (2002). 286 UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI BUSINESS LAWREVIEW [Vol. 18:283 current rationale, which so often leads to policies that undermine equal treatment for migrant workers. The second part will cover the evolution of the meatpacking industry and union presence in the U.S. by exploring the factors that have contributed to the role unionization plays (and does not play) in today's workforce. It will also address theories about how immigration factors complicate the traditional union model for organizing workers in order to provide the context under which exploitation of workers becomes as pervasive as it does in particular industries, like meatpacking. Third, this comment will closely look to the 2008 raids in Iowa that led to the filing of multiple criminal cases against employees, managers, and the company itself, Agriprocessors, Inc. This part will focus on the parties' assertions and motions and consider the relevance of particular discourse used to serve the parties. This part will also