Proposal for an American
Temporary Worker Program
Certain categories of employers in the United States have, over the past three decades, become dependent on illegal aliens. Chief among these are agriculture, construction, and services, but there are others. They allowed themselves to be seduced by the allure of an endless supply of undemanding labor, made cheap by its sheer quantity. For nearly two generations now, they have had only to snap their fingers and unskilled and semiskilled labor came running from around the world. It has reached the point that they cannot imagine life without that supply of cheap sweat available to them, so they claim disaster will flow if that supply is cut off or diminished.
They call for a Guest Worker Program, with foreign workers being brought to this country to take American jobs. For reasons one can only speculate at, the current administration professes to believe there will be a labor shortage without a Guest Worker Program, or worse still, an amnesty by some other name. We will not undertake here to refute that claim of a labor shortage—we have addressed it elsewhere, both as to the substance of the claims and the deleterious effects of trying to indulge them.
Despite what they say, there is more than ample evidence to indicate that the American employer and the administration have either talked themselves into a delusion, or are, in some cases, outright lying in the face of the obvious.
The basic, underlying fact is this: while the generally reported unemployment rate is quite low, under five percent as this is written in March, 2008, the true unemployment rate (although that’s not what the report calls it) is nearly double that at 9% (see first sidebar comment). The government publishes the latter figure, too, but it is seldom cited, probably because it paints a bleaker picture than an administration would like to tout. In fact, the 9% figure reflects that nearly fourteen million American workers are looking for jobs -- and things do not look good for the future at this writing. The U.S. does not have a labor shortage—in fact, there are clear indications of a labor surplus in this country.
To be sure, there are places in the United States where there are not ample workers for particular jobs at any given, transient time. Agricultural jobs in some areas during harvest season is an example, or unskilled construction during a building boom—but even then, what constitutes a “shortage” is disputed.
However, assuming for the sake of argument that there are genuine, localized labor shortages, NAFBPO says that a foreign guest worker program is both unnecessary and undesirable for any number of demonstrable reasons. The point is this: there are enough American workers to fill the jobs, but they are often in the wrong places.
So, we call upon our federal and state governments, American employers, unions, and the American worker to develop a national program we will, for the moment, call American Jobs for American Workers (AJAW). (Before we go further, let us stress that here, and in every instance where we refer to an American worker we include those legal immigrants who are legitimate guests in our country.)
Our proposal is this: create a domestic temporary worker program. Instead of recruiting foreign workers who come and compete with American job seekers and drive down wages, recruit American workers from across the country to fill jobs where labor shortages exist. Offer to our own workers the same benefits that any formal guest worker program must offer to foreigners, that is, transportation to the temporary work area, training for the job, decent housing or an allowance, basic medical care, guaranteed wages and working conditions, and finally, transportation back home when the job is over.
Such a program must be accompanied by concurrent action to diminish some of the disincentives to work that exist now, particularly welfare benefits. In short, if a recipient of public benefits is offered a job through AJAW and declines it, there will be an impact on his or her benefits, an impact that increases with repeated refusals to participate.
There will be loud cries from advocates for those on the public dole that it is unfair to expect them to relocate, even temporarily, to obtain work. NAFBPO is unsympathetic to that argument. A very substantial percentage of employed Americans relocate, often at their own expense, for the sake of a job, to obtain it or to improve it. To allow someone to remain indolent simply because he or she does not feel like going somewhere else is not reasonable if the taxpayer is bound to support that irresponsible decision.
Now, to state the obvious in order to forestall an expected argument from the opposition, we do not propose that those unable to work (as opposed to unwilling) or unable to relocate (as opposed to unwilling) be dragged into the AJAW program. There will certainly be sympathetic cases where a move would wreak genuine hardship. We do not propose Draconian measures in such cases.
This is not the place to propose or discuss details. Here, we propose nothing more than a concept. It is this: Bring the American worker out of the shadows by making it possible for him to connect with American employers who need him, and do it in a fashion that will create a stable, reliable workforce for the American employer. We owe each other no less.
Back to Top