SEIU announces Arizona boycott

[kpete]

Source: The Hill


SEIU announces Arizona boycott
By Eric Zimmermann - 05/06/10 11:53 AM ET

One of the nation's biggest labor organizations announced today it will boycott Arizona.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) said its 2.2 million members will not attend any meetings or conventions in Arizona as long as the new immigration law is in place.

“On behalf of working families and the more than 8 million residents of Arizona, we will not back down until the Arizona state legislature, the courts or the Federal Government invalidates this dangerous and discriminatory law," said Eliseo Medina, SEIU Executive Vice President.

SEIU joins other civil rights groups, including National Council of La Raza, in boycotting the state.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/96457-seiu-announces-arizona-boycott

[Cha]

1. Great News! nt

[virgogal]

2. Wouldn't this penalize the SEIU workers who are employed in AZ?

Boycotts can be confusing,at least to me.

[No Elephants]

3. No confusion on your part.. It's simply that life is not always perfectly neat or perfectly just.

I was once late to a meeting at the then small company where I was a relatively lowly employee. The minutes of the meeting, however, said all had arrived to the meeting on time except for Partner, Michael X, who did not attend at all.

Thinking I had slipped into the meeting unnoticed, I went to the partner who had recorded the minutes of that meeting and turned myself in for being late. He said only, "I had bigger fish to fry." So, I was unjustly spared being singled out to the rest of the company.

Turned out, the minutes were part of building a case for terminating Partner Michael X's highly lucrative partnership agreement.

Similarly, the SEIU may think it has bigger fish to fry.

[sabrina 1]

4. The workers can attent conventions elsewhere, just not in Az.

I have a feeling most workers will support this decision since many members are probably minorities. Sometimes the battle for Civil Rights gets a little uncomfortable. So far no one is being asked to risk their lives, just some financial hardship.

The more who follow this lead, and the quicker they do it, the faster the law will be rescinded. Money is all our leaders understand, nothing else matters. Appealing to their sense of justice would work if they had any, but most don't anymore.

The people's power when they are united, is enormous and this ought to show renegade legislators that while the people do often seem to be asleep, they shouldn't count on it.

There has already been success. The OTHER Arizona law, the Birther Law, has gone away with State Senator saying 'we don't need the controversy' and Sheriff Joe has decided not to run for Governor. I guess as a supporter of any law that targets minorities, he's getting the message that he better stay in his own little territory where his nazi tactics have been accepted, at least so far. But I bet he's shocked at the reaction from around the country and in Az itself, not to mention the rest of the world.

Boycotts Work!

[DrDan]

10. how would they be penalized?

I am sure if their boss calls an in-state meeting, they are allowed to attend that.

[virgogal]

14. Less customers.less work.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. No, it's not. Read post #15...

Are you opposed to any boycott at all that you think might have any sort of impact on anyone? Would you have opposed the boycott of Apartheid South Africa using similar arguments that yr using in this thread?

[hfojvt]

15. not really

as it turns out, most SEIU members are in health care, government and cleaning commercial and residential buildings. At least, I do not see a huge connection to tourism, although I was thinking they worked in hotels and restaurants.
http://www.seiu.org/a/ourunion/a-closer-look-inside-labors-fastest-growing-union.php

[olegramps]

34. When organizing, workers often went for months without a paycheck.

Some even payed with their lifes when attacked by company paid thugs. Its the price that often must be paid if you want fair treatment.

[sui generis]

5. hey Arizona, why don' t you just secede and call it a century.

You haven't seen anything until you figure out how many undocumented Swedes cross your porous northern state borders every day . . . .

I recommend caltrops, land mines, state border checkpoints and detention centers and armed state border patrols with license to kill for border infractions. Oh wait . . . you're already doing that.

dipshits.

[happygoluckytoyou]

45. ARIZONA : proving that even in these trying times there is always ROOM AT THE BOTTOM

[HALO141]

6. The only people this hurts are the union members.

I assume, then, that SEIU will also not be collecting dues from the AZ member then, right? No?

[Bette Noir]

7. That's not true, and you know it.

It hurts the business owners who would cater to visitors. From there, it hurts the politicians who imposed this discriminatory law.

Should we have not boycotted South Africa all those years ago, on the grounds that the boycott would have hurt native Africans? Most Latinos (myself included) are foursquare behind the boycott.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. How does this hurt union members?

They are discouraging members from GOING TO Arizona. This has nothing to do with members who live there.

[EFerrari]

33. I guess I woohooed too quickly. So, is a local boycott

up to the local union?

[Dora]

9. Not true. I lived in Arizona during the Ev Mecham years.

Arizona lost significant tourist revenues because of the MLK Day embarrassment. Tourism is a primary industry in AZ.

[classysassy]

19. Those republican governors

I go back to 1967 when Jack Williams was the gov,then we were burdened with Ev,then we impeached one,now Jan the hag.

[AlbertCat]

22. Tourism is a primary industry in AZ.

I've never seen the Grand Canyon. I was gonna go next spring.

We'll see......

If all this is hurting Arizonians, then they'd better elect someone who's not nuts for a change!

Of course, their current Governor was not elected... exactly.


Don't get mad at the Unions..... get mad at the stupid politicians.

[DrDan]

11. how does it hurt union members?

[Bluebear]

18. :crickets:

[lunatica]

24. You're wrong

This is what unions are all about. Solidarity. Union members are quite willing to feel the pinch for the better good of all. It hurts them much worse to let the stupid law stand.

[tavalon]

30. No

Short term pain for long term gain. Poor people are going to be hurt in the short term and in the long term, no other state will ever put out such an abomination. Ever. Get it?

[olegramps]

35. Take your anti-union crap to Freeper Site.

[fishwax]

43. wrong.

[SoapBox]

12. Yes!

...fyi...

Companies in AZ:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arizona_companies

Also, Amazon.com has a distribution center in AZ...not sure how
people might like to handle that.

[county worker]

13. My union! Way to go!

[tavalon]

31. I wish this was my union!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. Good. This AZ law is horrific. anyone who can defend it in any form, should be ashamed of themselves

[Spoonman]

20. Would "any form" include a reference to the federal law?

Aliens and Nationality - 8 USC Section 1304(e)

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any artificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days,or both.

[AlbertCat]

23. Would "any form" include a reference to the federal law?

I didn't see where it required law enforcement officers to check anyone who might look suspicious. Can you point that out to me? The new law doesn't just say they CAN check for documents, it says they MUST check.... anyone who looks illegal. What does an illegal look like? Where is that in the federal law?

If you cannot point out these things in the federal law, then you should be embarrassed.


I'm waiting...

[blondeatlast]

38. This Arizonan is gonna get a t-shirt that says "Make me prove I'm not Canadian."

Hell, I've lived in AZ most of my life and I still have a Canadian accent from a brief growing-up stay in Montana.

This law is profiling, just as sure as I'm sittin' here.

[MarshallGood]

41. a smidge of federal law

Fair warning, I'm not a lawyer and have mixed emotions on all of this.

The piece of the AZ law that is mostly causing uproars:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

with...of course...numerous amendments like changing 'LAWFUL CONTACT' into "stop, detain or arrest". The sort of thing you would expect with
any legislation with a lot of opposing sides.

A bit of Federal law:

1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

I get the distinct impression that the Arizona law lights more of a fire under the LEO, while the Federal law has far less protection for the individual. It's a funny thing.

The various strings of weasel words (what is 'reasonable'?) no doubt get fought out in court cases, but that'll always be the case when a few sentences of rules hits the reality of everyday life.

[Spoonman]

46. Embarrassment should be on those

who have failed to read the new law, and base their opinions on "jump on the bandwagon mentality".

The Az law does not mandate any such action that you claim.

A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

Sound familiar?
It should, because it’s called a “Supremacy Clause”.
In the same manner the US constitution holds that all federal laws trump state laws, the State is simply implementing the same “Supremacy Clause” language to prevent the establishment of “safe havens” or “sanctuaries”.

For example, state environmental laws must meet or exceed the federal standards.
The process of a federal law overriding a state law is known as "preemption."
This prevents industries or companies from operating in a state because that state allows them to pollute more.

This concept is completely acceptable to everyone, but applying the same concept to illegal immigrant is somehow wrong.

B. For any lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).
A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

I don't see anywhere it states they "must" stop, or where it "required law enforcement officers to check anyone who might look suspicious".

Please feel free to read the entire text of the new law including it's amendments included and if I've missed something, please enlighten me.

[blondeatlast]

47. Right--because Sheriff Joe Arpaio just LOVES him some US Constitution.

No one on earth respects it more than tax-money tank Joe Arpaio.

[EFerrari]

49. I bet you also read the clause where LEOs can be sued

by ciizens who believe they are not enforcing the law, right?

So, no matter what they do, LEOs are screwed under this law.

No, this law doesn't "mirror" anything and for a big fat extra helping of bullshit, it usurps federal jurisdiction WHILE it impedes community law enforcement.

[MarshallGood]

50. Looking at the law..

A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

It looks to me that the issue is not whether the police enforce this law, but federal law.

Also, FWIW:

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.

[EFerrari]

51. No, that's wrong. The Sherrif of Pima Co. talks about it here:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/6/pima_country_sheriff_refuses_to_enforce

Audio, video and transcript at link.

[MarshallGood]

53. Not seein' it.

Honestly I can't see anywhere in the law or it's changes that say that a state law enforcement official would be sued for not following the state law. It does say that they can be sued (I assume that the section on going to Superior Court means 'suing') for not applying and following federal law. It appears that the department (and likely the department's policy makers) would be on the hook and not the individual officers.

If there some section of the actual law that I'm missing, please point it out. It's hard enough to parse this kind of thing, so perhaps I skipped over something.

[EFerrari]

54. Watch the video or read the transcript. He addresses this

very specifically. And no, this POS does not "mirror" Federal law no matter what Faux News tells you.

[MarshallGood]

55. I saw that he said what you are saying in the transcript...

...that he was required, under threat of lawsuit to follow state law, but it simply isn't in the text of the passed law.

The law says that he must follow, to the full extent, applicable federal law. No doubt it was designed with this wording in order to avoid federal preemption.

The whole she-bang is a truly interesting issue since it's fairly simple to make a justifiable argument for this kind of legislation, both pro and con, from the viewpoint of both sides of the political aisle. The important thing is to somehow escape the echo room of opinion and look at what the law actually says, plus the context of course.

[EFerrari]

56. Yes, it does. It's on p.3 beginning at line 11.

What this language doesn't say is that state and local law enforcement officials don't have jurisdiction and in fact, haven't had it because for locals to try to enforce immigration policy puts local LEOs at odds with the very community that it is their duty to secure. That's no small consideration and probably why this was left to the feds in the first place.

This law makes everyone less safe.

[MarshallGood]

57. Page 3, Line 11 of SB1070

11 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.
15 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE
16 PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

[Omaha Steve]

17. Good old organized labor

K&R!

[progressoid]

21. Ha Ha!

[BumRushDaShow]

25. K&R!!!

:kick:

[Jefferson23]

26. Bravo! K&R for having balls too!

[orbitalman]

27. I am very happy to see this. nt

[AllyCat]

28. My union!!! Way to go everyone!

:loveya: :fistbump:

[eagertolearn]

29. I'm still confused...don't republicans hate unions and they would see this as

a positive outcome?

[EFerrari]

32. Try to run a hotel without hotel workers.

Republicans need public approval. People lose money on tourism, their approval goes with it.

ETA: :woohoo:

[blondeatlast]

39. I"m certain you can google. Read up on the boycott of AZ regarding not honoring MLK day.

It hurt our far and away #1 industry VERY badly (tourism) and that was the only reason the leggies changed their fickle minds.

[flyarm]

36. are they boycotting the National ID's that dems are trying to ram through congress?

seriously..are they boycotting the fingerpriniting and chips that congress is ready to shove down all Legal Americans throats ..in order to get a job you will have to carry?

Shades of another evil empire..I seem to remember my dad talking profusely about when he fought them in WWII??

Where is your national ID ...and did you get your fingerprints yet..if not ..you will...with an embedded chip..

want a job..come and get your ID!!

Where is the SEIU on that?? What does that do to all of our civil rights?????????? And our Bill of Rights and our Constitution??????

[EFerrari]

42. I can't find anything for SEIU but AFL-CIO is against it.

Happy early Mother's Day, Fly!

[flyarm]

48. We all ought to be screaming our bloody heads off about it! ..but then again..

Look over there>>>>>>> no there<<<<<<<<< opps no there>>>>>>>>>>

And a very Happy Mothers Day to you as well Beth..Hope you can enjoy it with your kids!! :) :hug: :hug: :hug:

I am going to be working on Mother Earth..and walking my beaches looking for more and more dead birds..we keep getting them coming into shore ..(breaks my heart)....so we can track them..watching for Turtle eggs as well..but last year we had many..this year so far..none..sooo dang sad..I truely fear for our beautiful Gulf..

Then the grandbaby comes..wooo hoo..It makes Mothers day all that more wonderful!:bounce: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo:..
but sad, as I won't put the tot in the water..we don't know if it is safe or not..no one knows..

Have a wonderful day!!

[lonestarnot]

37. Hells yeah!

:applause:

[blondeatlast]

40. I love my geographical state but hate my political one. Go SEIU (and, um, Viva los Suns!!!) nt

[fishwax]

44. go SEIU!

:kick: