Big Beat

The janitor strike in Houston—which concluded last night with an agreement between janitors and cleaning companies—was historic and rare for many reasons. Texas is a right-to-work state. That means it’s illegal to require a person to join a union to keep or get a job, making the organization of a protest of this magnitude, which lasted more than four weeks, difficult. The right-to-work law also makes it illegal to fire someone for joining a union, but don’t be fooled, the law was adopted because of a long history of anti-union sentiment in this state. Reasons for anti-union leanings are as amorphous as a child’s fear of the dark, mostly driven by the conservative view that unions spawn unwanted social and political agents. But Texas’ anti-union sentiment also has its roots in the very concrete strategy of attracting outside industries to take advantage of cheap labor—a tactic that has worked well in this border state, with Mexico providing us a steady stream of exploitable employees. New York-based companies like ABM, Pritchard and JP Morgan Chase are all contractors of the Houston janitors that, until yesterday, refused to increase the paltry $9,000 a year average wage for janitors.

What little union labor was organized in Texas took a hit following the 1960s when the state grew more Hispanic and more female. Union organizers failed to adapt their recruitment tactics to the changing demographics. The growing number of high-tech jobs also decreased union membership in the state. Across the country, 11.8 percent of wage and salary workers were members of a union in 2011; but in Texas, union members comprised only 5.4 percent of the work force. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, Texas had about one-fourth as many union members as New York in 2011, despite having 2.3 million more wage and salary employees.

But with the advent of the immigration reform and Occupy movements, Texas’ traditionally lowest paid workers may be realizing their situation doesn’t have to remain the way it is. There is a support system if they seek it. Last week, janitors and human rights activists in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York City, Portland, San Diego, San Ramon, Seattle, St. Louis, Toronto, and Washington, D.C., protested in solidarity with those in Houston. Texas Observer reporter Emily DePrang described the scene from Houston on August 2, where members of the janitors’ union had gathered in front of the city’s swankiest mall, the Galleria, to demonstrate:

The crowd was largely middle-aged and Hispanic with lined faces, more women than men, some with children in tow. They were people with something to lose.

These are the people the other unions failed to organize and they now represent the new face of Texas. A promotional video created by the Service Employees International Union Local 1, which represents the Houston janitors, is full of this face: Poor, female and of color. Struggling, not only to feed their children, but act as primary caretaker too. The description on the YouTube page recalls the rallying cries of the Occupy Wall Street movement. “For the richest 1%, Houston is booming. Yet, Houston janitors, who clean the offices of some of the largest corporations in the world, live in abject poverty on less than $9,000 year.”

SEIU Local 1’s Paloma Martinez says it’s not the union’s goal to target members of color or female gender. “It isn’t about who you are or who does the job, but about the job itself. Is it actually going to help families thrive? Is it actually going to revitalize the community? That’s a really important point the janitors are making because we can’t get into identity politics. It has to be a more serious question of how we revitalize the middle class. That’s the conversation the janitors want to have.”

Regardless, SEIU is succeeding in Texas where few unions have, organizing a strike of this longevity that even managed to get mayoral support. Houston mayor Annise Parker urged contractors, in a press release on July 20, to return to the negotiating table remarking that, “Their unwillingness to talk has left the union with no other choice but civil disobedience. That is not good for the City of Houston or our economy and it is not how we do business in Houston. We work hard, we work together and we treat each other fairly. The union has made good-faith offers. Now it’s time for the janitorial contractors to sit back down at the table to work out an agreement that is fair and just.”

They began negotiating again on August 3, and late last night, the union announced a deal. As DePrang reports, the janitors will receive a one-dollar-an-hour raise in the next four years. That’s less than the $1.65-per-hour increase the union initially sought, but much higher than the paltry 50-cent raise the companies had offered. In that way, this historic strike proved a success.

Despite having the highest deportation record of any American president in recorded history, Barack Obama has managed to achieve a 70 percent approval rating with Latino voters by pandering in the 11th hour.

A new poll conducted by Latino Decisions found that 70 percent of registered Latino voters would vote for Obama, while 22% said they would support Mitt Romney. This is the first time a Latino Decisions survey has shown Obama with 70 percent support in the last 20 months, a change the group attributes to the president voicing opposition to Arizona’s harsh anti-immigration law the past 30 days.

Latino Decisions also credits President Obama’s June 15 pro-Dream Act announcement, which, let’s face it, amounts to a lot of election-time feel-good words and no permanent change for undocumented students. (“Now let’s be clear,” Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden, “This is not an amnesty. This is not a path to citizenship. It is not a permanent fix.”)

Here’s the thing: The president seems fond of (very) publicly decreeing liberal immigration policies for his administration without ever doing all that much to help pass liberal immigration legislation.

In June 2011, for example, the Department of Homeland Security issued an official memo instructing Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees to “refrain from pursuing non-citizens with close family, educational, military, or other ties in the U.S. and instead spend the agency’s limited resources on persons who pose a serious threat to public safety or national security.” This was widely circulated in the media and if you are the type of person who keeps up with the government through headlines, you’d think President Obama was pretty soft on immigrants.

In reality, though, the Obama administration arrested more than 150,000 noncriminal immigrants in fiscal year 2011. Two studies cited in a report from the National Association of Social Workers also found that, depending on the jurisdiction, anywhere from 55 percent to 87 percent of “serious criminal” arrests through ICE’s programs stem from misdemeanors such as traffic violations. This is because traffic violations are considered “level 2” crimes by ICE, placing them in the middle of the scale.

If voters would spend a modicum of time studying politicians’ actual records, they’d be a lot less inclined to vote based on campaign talking points and a lot more likely to demand a history of proven legislation that falls in line with their values before handing over their allegiance. Of course, the Democratic Party knows that no self-respecting Latino is going to vote for the Latino-hating Republicans, so they’ve really got us by the cojones. That’s a sad place for Latino voters to be.

It was Texas Justice vs. Federal Law Enforcement in the Rio Grande Valley last week after three U.S. citizens were arrested for shooting a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent they allegedly mistook for a suspicious vehicle casing their rural neighborhood at 3:30 in the morning Tuesday.

Pedro Alvarado, 41, and his 18-year-old son Arnoldo Alvarado were charged last Thursday with assault of a federal officer and knowingly using and carrying a firearm during a violent crime. A second, unnamed, 16 year-old son was charged with attempted capital murder in state juvenile court and was ordered detained pending another hearing later this month after the two sons shot and wounded ICE Special Agent Kelton Harrison. The charges came after the junior Alvarados shot and wounded Harrison while their father drove them in pursuit of the agent who was in an unmarked car near their home in Hargill, 25 miles northeast of McAllen. Harrison required surgery but is expected to fully recover.

There are three interesting parts of this case to me. 1. I didn’t know ICE was involved in drug enforcement to this degree. The court filings say that Harrison was conducting surveillance on an anticipated drug deal at a property near Hargill. 2. What would you do if you lived out in the boonies in an area known for drug trafficking and you saw a suspicious, unmarked car sitting in front of your neighbor’s house at 3:30 in the morning with the lights off? Would you go up to it and knock on the window and ask what they were up to? Me thinks not. I personally wouldn’t go shooting at the car, either. But then again, I’m not the sort of person who lives in the boonies, so I don’t own a gun. 3. Arnoldo Alvarado waived his Miranda Rights and gave a full confession to the police, an act that doesn’t give me the impression the family is hiding anything. According to court testimony, what ensued is out of a Robert Rodriguez film.

The senior Alvarado told his sons to get their guns. The two sons left the house with a 9mm handgun and a .22 caliber rifle. While their father drove with his lights out, the sons shot at Special Agent Harrison who was sitting in an unmarked silver vehicle with his lights out, as well.

Arnoldo ALVARADO stated the minor fired his .22 caliber rifle approximately six (6) times towards the silver vehicle. Arnoldo ALVARADO stated that he then fired two (2) rounds utilizing a 9mm handgun into the air, and fired numerous rounds at the silver vehicle.

That Arnoldo fired shots in the air would also indicate that the Alvarados were trying to scare the driver away. Harrison began driving away and Pedro Alvarado continued in pursuit while his sons continued shooting at the vehicle. Harrison eventually lost control of his vehicle at the intersection of FM 493 and FM 186. Home Security Investigations special agents arrived at the scene and discovered that Special Agent Harrison had been shot. He was transported to a local hospital.

The Alvarados also gave permission for a consent search, further indicating they had nothing to hide from the police. To complicate matters, two undocumented aliens from El Salvador were found there. Those men are being considered material witnesses because they were in the home before and after the Alvarados shot Special Agent Harrison.

The two Alvarado men could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted and the minor Alvarado is being charged with a state crime because the federal law is not set up to prosecute juveniles, but Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Treviño wants the youth certified as an adult “because he has committed an adult crime.”

If, in fact, the Alvarados were doing what they say they were doing—protecting their neighborhood from what they likely thought was a criminal element—this would be a gross misuse of the justice system.

On June 20th, the same day a House panel voted to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over failure to turn over documents concerning the Operation Fast & Furious gun-walking scandal, the parents of slain ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata and injured Special Agent Victor Avila filed notice that they would seek $62.5 million in claims from the U.S. government.  The notice came as President Obama asserted executive privilege involving the Arizona-based gun-walking program. 

Attorneys for Zapata’s family and Avila allege negligence and failure on the part of the government and several federal agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, regarding the attack against the two agents. Cartel members attacked Zapata and Avila on Feb. 15, 2011 in Mexico.

Gun-walking is when law enforcement agencies allow criminal suspects to “walk” off with guns, without stopping or even necessarily tracking them. In the Fast & Furious case, guns were allowed to cross the Arizona border into Mexico, ostensibly to follow the bad guys. The practice is considered highly irresponsible because the guns almost always end up being used to kill people.  A Fast & Furious gun was found at the murder scene of a U.S. border patrol agent in Arizona. The Zapata case has raised concerns about gun-walking in Texas after federal records showed agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) were watching when the gun that ultimately killed Zapata was sold in a store parking lot in Lancaster, Texas. The agents allowed the gun dealers to drive away and only apprehended them two weeks after Zapata’s highly publicized death.

Zapata’s family and Avila have not been able to obtain answers to many of their questions about the attack in Mexico. Questions such as:  Why were the agents driving a suburban from Mexico City to the U.S. when they could have flown? Why were they traveling without an armed escort of Mexican military or police—as is routine—on a stretch of highway known for narco-gang activity? Why were they traveling in a custom-made, $160,000 high-security vehicle that had locks that would disengage when put in park?  Why was the grand jury testimony of an FBI special agent in the investigation into the attack “accidentally taped over” and not re-recorded?

Attorneys Trey Martinez of Brownsville and Raymond L. Thomas of McAllen allege that “wrongdoing” on the part of the ATF, ICE and the FBI led to the murder and injury of the special agents, according to the Brownsville Herald.

“The struggle to obtain this information and find transparency amidst the massive efforts to deny access to some … of the significant information seems to be the priority at hand, not just for these two families, but for other law enforcement agents, families affected by some of these decisions, as well the legislative branch of our Federal Government,” said the lawyers on June 20.

The attorneys said the claims may be amended.  

Operation Too Hot To Handle, is one of a dozen other gun-walking operations the ATF has run in recent years. According to the ATF website, Too Hot To Handle involved about 300 weapons, mostly assault rifles and automatic pistols that were seized in Arizona, Texas and Mexico.

At the Texas Democratic Convention in Houston in early June, Gilberto Hinojosa of Brownsville, a former Cameron County judge and county Democratic chairman, was elected to lead the state Democratic Party. He’s the first Hispanic to lead either major party in Texas. That his election comes less than two years after the 2010 U.S. census is no surprise to me. This is the era of Tejanos taking back Texas through the power of sheer numbers. But will numbers translate to electoral gains for Democrats? Latinos, historically, have been apathetic about voting. Hinojosa says that’s the result of a flaw in the party’s strategy of late, its focus on so-called independent voters when Democrats should be courting the state’s sleeping demographic giant.

“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that [Hispanic turnout] is where we’re getting beat,” Hinojosa says. “Anything you want to look at with regards to the Democratic Party, it comes down to that. We’ve got African-Americans, the LGBT community, Asians, women. The one that’s under-performing in greatest numbers and the one that makes up the greatest number of [potential] voters is the Hispanic community.”

Hinojosa decided that his 23 years of living and working in Brownsville—with a population more than 90 percent Hispanic—as well as several years spent working as a legal services attorney for migrants and a member of the Democratic National Convention executive committee in Washington, D.C., was worth something to his party.

After the devastating 2010 elections, Hinojosa spent 18 months traveling around the state and developing what he believes is a winning strategy for Democrats.

That includes illustrating to Latinos just how badly not voting affects their everyday lives, whether through cutbacks in education or separation of families through a broken immigration system or engagement in wars America has no business fighting.

His plan is to tell people that much of what’s wrong in the state is a result of allowing the Republican Party to gain an overwhelming majority.

“People in our community need to understand that we are the party that helps people in a lower socioeconomic status. Public education programs, civil rights, women’s rights, minority students going to college—that was all done by Democrats.”

Hinojosa has walked the walk. The first in his family to go to college, the Rio Grande Valley native went from The University of Texas Pan-American in Edinburg to Georgetown University’s law school in Washington D.C. Graduating in 1978, he worked in legal aid until establishing a private practice in 1995.

The experience gave Hinojosa an appreciation for the subtle differences between Latinos in different areas of the state. For example, Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley, he says, are not as concerned with immigration as those in the major urban centers. “You didn’t see these huge demonstrations in South Texas that you saw in the big cities,” he explains. He plans an approach Democrats haven’t tried before: tailoring different messages to Latinos in different parts of the state. He hopes a fresh message from the party, more engagement in Hispanic communities, and more grassroots get-out-the-vote efforts will spur Latinos to the polls. Latino turnout in Texas is much lower than in heavily Hispanic California, Colorado and Nevada. In 2008, just 37 percent of Texas Latinos who were eligible to vote went to the polls, according to the U.S. Census Bureau—below the national average of 49 percent and far below the 58 percent of California Latinos who turned out. That has to change for Democrats to win elections in Texas.

Hopefully Hinojosa will succeed in influencing Blue Dog Texas Democrats, many of whom are Hispanic, to remain the party of the people. Of the three Democrats in the Texas Senate who voted for the anti-woman, pre-abortion sonogram bill, all were Hispanic. Of the five Democratic Texas House members who voted for it, three were Hispanic. That any of the Dems voted for it is disappointing.

Ultimately, Hinojosa knows the Dems have a secret weapon with Latinos—the angry rhetoric coming from some Republicans.

“What helps more than anything else is the [members of the] Republican Party who are so anti-Hispanic, to the point of being bigoted,” he says.

At the end of the day, that could be Hinojosa’s most powerful tool.