Also see below:     
Villaraigosa Tells Where He Stands    [

    Protest Rallies End in Job Loss for Immigrants
    By Monica Davey
    The New York Times

    Saturday 15 April 2006

    In Bonita Springs, Fla., 10 restaurant workers were fired this week after skipping their shifts to attend a rally against legislation in Congress cracking down on illegal immigrants. In Tyler, Tex., 22 welders lost their jobs making parts for air conditioners after missing work for a similar demonstration in that city.

    And so it went for employees of an asbestos removal firm in Indianapolis, a restaurant in Milwaukee, a meatpacking company in Detroit, a factory in Bellwood, Ill.

    In the last month, as hundreds of thousands of people around the country have held demonstrations pressing for legal status and citizenship for illegal immigrants, companies, particularly those who employ large numbers of immigrants, have found themselves wrestling with difficult and uncharted terrain.

    They worry about how to keep their businesses operating, fully staffed, but also not to appear insensitive to a growing political movement that in many cases sustains their work force.

    Some fired workers have complained that they were being singled out for their political views, and a few have filed formal complaints with the National Labor Relations Board. Other protesters have cut deals with their employers to work extra shifts in exchange for time off, or to close down their small businesses entirely, in deference to the sentiment behind the demonstrations.

    In at least one instance, nearly 200 fired workers in Wisconsin were reinstated, demonstration leaders said, after the leaders met with employers, discussed the significance of the protests and threatened to identify the companies publicly.

    "I have no problem with the demonstration, but this is a business," said Charley Bohley, an owner of Rodes restaurant and fishmarket in Bonita Springs, who fired the 10 workers there after posting a note warning employees that they could not miss work for a rally on Monday. "Couldn't they have protested in the morning before work? Couldn't they have protested in their hearts?"

    Though the number of workers who have lost their jobs across the country, estimated in the hundreds, is small compared with the numbers marching in the streets, some protest organizers say word of the firings had spread rapidly and might have a chilling effect on many more workers and on students, some of whom also say they have faced discipline for missing school for rallies.

    The firings have also forced some organizers to rethink how best to plan future demonstrations, and some are considering opting out of events now in the works.

    In Washington, Jaime Contreras, the president of the National Capital Immigration Coalition, said his coalition voted on Thursday night not to take part in a proposed national boycott or strike set for May 1. Jose I. Sanchez, an organizer in Texas, said his group was considering holding a rally on the Sunday before May 1 instead, just to avoid such strains.

    "We shouldn't put our progress in jeopardy," Mr. Contreras said. "That is a tool you use when you have to, but you have to be completely prepared for backlash and repercussions."

    In many cities, rally organizers said, plenty of businesses, many of whom have pushed for efforts to give legal status to immigrants, cooperated with the demonstrations and allowed workers time off. In Indianapolis, one company went so far as to let 2,000 people leave their jobs for Monday's demonstration downtown, said Ken Moran, an organizer.

    "The firings we've seen were an anomaly," Mr. Moran said, "but it's a sad situation."

    In complaints filed with the government in one case, Mark A. Sweet, a lawyer for two fired restaurant workers in Milwaukee, said the restaurant violated the National Labor Relations Act by firing the workers for what he considered legally protected activities: efforts to assist in the mutual aid and protection of themselves and other immigrant workers.

    Other legal experts, however, questioned whether such a provision would apply to a public rally, and suggested that the workers have few remedies. For the most part, "at-will" employees may be fired at any time, for any reason, said Charles B. Craver, a professor at The George Washington University Law School.

    "For private employers, there is normally no special First Amendment right to get out of work to engage in a protest," said Rodney A. Smolla, the dean of the University of Richmond School of Law. "A company might decide that it's good for morale to accommodate the exercise of freedom of speech on an issue that is very important to people, but that's an employment judgment not law."

    In Tyler, Tex., Maria Rodriguez described on Friday how she and others lost their jobs putting together equipment for air conditioners for Benchmark Manufacturing Inc. Ms. Rodriguez, 32, who said she had made $6.75 an hour after several years with the company, said she had always been given time off in the past for personal appointments. This time, though, she was fired, she said.

    "To me it seemed unfair," Ms. Rodriguez said. Even as she was being fired, she said, she saw applicants arriving at the company to replace her.

    Benchmark Manufacturing issued a statement outlining the company's absence policy, and adding: "This issue is not about going to the rally, it is about following the company policies that govern every employee."

    Against the backdrop of the broader immigration debate, the firings raised another tangled issue for some of the companies and for the workers: the legal status of those employees removed. Ms. Rodriguez, a native of Mexico, said she moved to the United States 14 years ago and does not have legal status. Some other advocates for those fired in other states said they did not know the legal status of the workers.

    Elsewhere, after advocates intervened, some workers were rehired this week. At Wolverine Packing in Detroit, company officials said they invited 21 fired workers - 20 of whom who are considered temporary workers - to return to their jobs, with back pay, on Monday. The company, meanwhile, issued a statement saying it planned to recheck employment documentation "due to reports that some of the temporary staffers may have been illegal."

    Elena Herrada, who met with the company on behalf of the workers, said she did not know if any of them were in the United States illegally. The employees were already unhappy with their working conditions, Ms. Herrada said, and none were planning to return.

    --------

    Gretchen Ruethling contributed reporting from Chicago for this article.

    Go to Original

    Villaraigosa Tells Where He Stands
    By Jim Newton
    Times Staff Writer

    April 15, 2006

    Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa did not pick immigration to top his public agenda. He rarely discussed the issue during last year's mayoral campaign and had hoped to spend the spring talking about his first budget - a controversial package that includes a significant fee hike to pay for more police.

    But on March 25, a crowd estimated by police at half a million people massed outside Villaraigosa's office at City Hall to register their opposition to a bill in Congress that would have imposed new criminal penalties on immigrants who entered the country illegally. Since then, smaller protests and a series of student walkouts have kept the issue near the top of Los Angeles' agenda and have spread across the nation as well.

    As one of the country's most recognizable Latino politicians, Villaraigosa has naturally been drawn to the emotional debate. He addressed the marchers to express his support for their cause, called on students to return to school and discussed immigration in general terms. Still, Villaraigosa has not weighed in on many of the issue's specific implications for city services or commented on some of the bills before Congress. On Thursday, he agreed to discuss those details with The Times:

    Question: Overall, is immigration a positive or negative issue for you?

    Answer: Over the years, as both a legislator and now as mayor, I've focused on education, healthcare, jobs, because those are the issues that touch the lives of most of my constituents.

    But when 500,000 people march in peace on an issue that's so important to their lives, their livelihood and their families, I feel compelled to get involved, regardless of whether it's a good issue or a bad issue for me.

    Q: Since you got involved in a very visible and active way a few weeks ago, what has the reaction been?

    A: The letters and e-mails have been overwhelmingly negative, maybe 500 to 1, maybe a little more.... But I think we're elected to do what's right, not necessarily what's popular.

    Q: Illegal immigrants place some burden on city services, whether it's fire or police or sewer or whatever. Is there any way to measure the cost that the city of Los Angeles pays to care for people who are here illegally, and is that a cost worth paying?

    A: I don't know what the cost of providing services to the undocumented would be, but I do know this: The responsibility for those costs is the federal government's, and for more than a decade I have maintained that the federal government, which receives the Social Security and income taxes generated by these immigrants, should reimburse cities and counties for any expense incurred.

    Q: Would the Los Angeles Unified School District do a better job of educating if it excluded children who are undocumented?

    A: Our schools are compelled by the Constitution to provide all residents with a public school education, so that's a hypothetical that the law doesn't provide for.

    Q: Are there any proposals before Congress that you support?

    A: For many years now, I have said that every country in the world has immigration laws, we have every right to have immigration laws, and, as a nation founded on the principle of the rule of law, it is our responsibility to enforce those laws and to have consequences when our laws are broken.

    Finally, I've said that while we have every right to enforce our immigration laws, that in a great and good America founded on the backs of immigrants, we must enforce those laws in a humane and constitutional way.

    Q: Which, if any, proposals in Congress would do that?

    A: I believe that the McCain-Kennedy framework is the best vehicle to do that.

    Q: What makes it superior to other bills?

    A: It rejects the idea that we would take 12 million immigrants and turn them into felons. It includes tougher enforcement, employer sanctions for businesses that hire the undocumented. Smart border security. Collaboration with our neighbors. And it gives the 12 million undocumented immigrants a pathway to legal status, provided they pay a fine, pass a background check and learn to speak English. This is important.

    Finally, it doesn't pull these people ahead of the line.

    Q: Would legislation that legalizes some immigrants, based on how long they have been in this country, and leaves some others illegal help or hurt this situation?

    A: I think it's impractical, and it would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

    Q: How has this issue affected the national political equation? Are Republicans in danger of heading down a Pete Wilson path? Are Democrats at risk of seeming to coddle lawlessness?

    A: I haven't spent a lot of time speculating on the political ramifications of this issue. I approach it as an issue about values, not politics.

    Q: What do you see happening next on the national front? And what do you imagine your role will be in this?

    A: My hope is that upon return from recess that the Congress will realize that the McCain-Kennedy framework is the most sensible, bipartisan immigration proposal that secures our borders, enforces our laws but provides a pathway for citizenship....

    My role, you know, my focus, is on the city that I was elected to serve, but I will continue to advocate for a sensible, bipartisan immigration reform.

    I'm a third-generation American who believes in the American Dream and has an unbreakable faith in the generosity of the American people.

    Q: We've had a lot of protests here in recent weeks, from the 500,000-person march that you mentioned to the smaller demonstration last week and the school protests. Obviously, this has been at some disruption - police services, loss of attendance-based money to the schools. Would you like to see these protests continue, or do you think the time has come to move the action back to Congress?

    A: America was founded on protest, freedom of speech ...

    Q: ... And of the press.

    A: Right. Freedom of speech is a long-held principle, a guiding principle of our democracy. So I respect the right of people to make their voices heard.

    But I do believe that it is imperative that these demonstrations continue to be peaceful and have as a tone and tenor a hopeful and optimistic character. I do strongly believe that we should distinguish between adults and school-age children who, while also having a right to demonstrate, should do it before or after school and not during.