Why Business Can't Solve the Immigration Mess

[WifeOHunkyJohn 2]

Why Business Can't Solve the Immigration Mess

Readers weigh in with sharp retorts to our story on how businesses are playing a central role in the immigration debate

by Chi-an Chang

August 20, 2007

C.F. Neubert is furious with businesses that hire immigrant workers. He doesn't even care if they are legal or illegal. What he cares about is that they are making his business less competitive. Neubert, a former manager in the satellite-systems business at Boeing (BA), runs a small machine shop in Los Angeles that does aerospace work. He says the prevailing wage in his business should be about $25 an hour, instead of the $13 an hour that his competitors pay. So he runs the shop himself and refuses to hire anyone else. "I just won't because it's against my principles," he says. "I would like to hire somebody at the wage that the job deserves."

Neubert is just one of many readers who had a sharp reaction to a recent BusinessWeek story on whether businesses will play a key role in solving the immigration mess in the U.S. (see BusinessWeek.com, 7/30/07 "Can Business Solve the Immigration Mess?").

Cheap-Labor Addiction

The article examined how companies have been pushed into a central role in the immigration debate, as government officials have begun to require employers to make sure the people they hire are in the country legally. Business owners in Arizona, the state that was the focus of the story, said that putting the burden on them is unfair. "Instead of the government stepping up and dealing with [the immigration issue], they are expecting businessmen to become document specialists and to be their enforcement tool," Kevin Rogers, the cotton and alfalfa farmer who is president of the Arizona Farm Bureau, was quoted as saying. "It's not fair to punish businesses."

But from U.S. workers to small businessmen like Neubert, the readers who wrote in had little sympathy for the businesses tangled up in the immigration debate. Most of them feel that American companies have contributed to the surge in illegal immigration (there are an estimated 12 million undocumented workers in the country) by looking the other way when people without proper qualifications apply for a job. "Just as cocaine addiction in the U.S. causes drug smuggling, cheap-labor addiction causes illegal immigration," writes reader Rich Pedersen.

Readers question why businesses don't use the seasonal worker visa program known as H-2A to satisfy their need for labor. Some readers argue businesses do not use the program because it requires higher wages, while labor-intensive businesses claim they cannot find workers even by paying higher wages. Michael Francis, a farm owner in Arizona, tried using the program many years ago, but says it is "ineffective" because it required too much paperwork. Even when he used the program, Francis says, his company advertised for workers and people showed up, but they only worked for a couple of hours. "There are never enough [workers] and they never last," he says.

Willing to Pay Higher Prices

One of the more surprising reactions was from the number of readers who said they'd be willing to reach into their own pockets to help solve the immigration problem. Many readers say they would not mind paying extra for products if they were made by companies that did not use illegal immigrant labor, even if that meant 10% to 15% price hikes. They say the price increases would make jobs more attractive for unemployed Americans. "There is no overall labor shortage, but there is a shortage of employers who are willing to pay Americans enough money to do certain jobs," writes Allen Jernigan, president of My Marketing Department, in response to the article.

Others noted that this kind of Americans-first loyalty can be tricky. It is, after all, what the American automakers Ford (F ), General Motors (GM), and Chrysler hoped would protect them from foreign competition. But it hasn't worked out that well, and Toyota and others have grabbed swaths of market share.

Many readers are in favor of tough immigration laws like the one passed in Arizona, which would revoke a business' license if it is found to have hired illegals. Jernigan says governments should even consider tossing a few employers in jail for hiring illegal workers, "in order to send employers a message that their illicit hiring practices must stop."

Stepping Up Enforcement

There is plenty of support for tougher enforcement of existing immigration laws. The Bush Administration is taking action, with a planned crackdown in the next few weeks on companies that hire workers without the proper documentation. The Homeland Security Dept. says it will begin to implement the higher standards through the Social Security system. Companies with workers whose Social Security numbers don't match up with those on file will receive what's known as "no-match" letters. If companies can't reconcile the discrepancy, they will need to jettison the workers in question.

The federal crackdown is similar to the Arizona law, which is scheduled to go into effect in January, 2008. Some business owners have complained about using the Social Security system to check on legal status. One reason is that an audit of the E-Verify system, formerly known as the Basic Pilot Program, found a 4% error rate. Still, readers say such reasoning is absurd. "That's like saying I shouldn't buy a bag of apples because a few of them are bad," writes reader John Weiland.

More states and towns are following Arizona's lead. A recent report issued by the National Conference of State Legislatures says 171 immigration bills were enacted in the first six months of 2007, compared with 84 similar measures in the year-earlier period. Many readers say they support government's move to get tough with businessesâ€â€whether they like it or not. "I think it's a great idea to have companies use the Basic Pilot Program," wrote one reader who identified himself as DM. "I know that it has a 4% error rate, but it will catch more illegals than not. The program is there to be used and we should encourage all businesses to get on board now."

Chang is a reporter for BusinessWeek.

Edited August 21, 2007 by WifeOHunkyJohn

[mawilson 2,133]

C.F. Neubert is furious with businesses that hire immigrant workers. He doesn't even care if they are legal or illegal. What he cares about is that they are making his business less competitive. Neubert, a former manager in the satellite-systems business at Boeing (BA), runs a small machine shop in Los Angeles that does aerospace work. He says the prevailing wage in his business should be about $25 an hour, instead of the $13 an hour that his competitors pay. So he runs the shop himself and refuses to hire anyone else. "I just won't because it's against my principles," he says. "I would like to hire somebody at the wage that the job deserves."

If he thinks the job deserves $25 an hour, why doesn't he hire someone and pay them $25 an hour?

[thesnowman 1]

C.F. Neubert is furious with businesses that hire immigrant workers. He doesn't even care if they are legal or illegal. What he cares about is that they are making his business less competitive. Neubert, a former manager in the satellite-systems business at Boeing (BA), runs a small machine shop in Los Angeles that does aerospace work. He says the prevailing wage in his business should be about $25 an hour, instead of the $13 an hour that his competitors pay. So he runs the shop himself and refuses to hire anyone else. "I just won't because it's against my principles," he says. "I would like to hire somebody at the wage that the job deserves."

If he thinks the job deserves $25 an hour, why doesn't he hire someone and pay them $25 an hour?

Thats what I was wondering. If I was getting more than I expected for that type of job I would work my as$ off to make sure I didnt get fired.

[peejay 327]

C.F. Neubert is furious with businesses that hire immigrant workers. He doesn't even care if they are legal or illegal. What he cares about is that they are making his business less competitive. Neubert, a former manager in the satellite-systems business at Boeing (BA), runs a small machine shop in Los Angeles that does aerospace work. He says the prevailing wage in his business should be about $25 an hour, instead of the $13 an hour that his competitors pay. So he runs the shop himself and refuses to hire anyone else. "I just won't because it's against my principles," he says. "I would like to hire somebody at the wage that the job deserves."

If he thinks the job deserves $25 an hour, why doesn't he hire someone and pay them $25 an hour?

Because his competitors hire cheapo foreign labor for half price and he can't compete while paying a living wage.

Good news if you are buying his competitor's services. Bad news if your an American worker or a taxpayer subsidizing his competitor's workers when they suck up on taxpayer funded social services.

It's a race to the bottom in my opinion and benefits the few at the expense of the many.

[Lansbury 19]

Be nice to be offered $13 an hour to do a job. One I went for I was offered $9 and they got upset when I laughed. That was a supervisors job.

[Jasman0717 9]

Be nice to be offered $13 an hour to do a job. One I went for I was offered $9 and they got upset when I laughed. That was a supervisors job.

Wow, a suprevisor's job for $9