Case for Need to Import Taxi Dancers Is Unconvincing

Federal labor and immigration officials wisely have rejected ludicrous pleas from Los Angeles dance hall operators for permission to import about 500 foreign taxi dancers to work in clubs catering to Latinos.

There are more than 2 million Latinos in Los Angeles County alone. In such a huge population, there surely are a few hundred women who speak Spanish, know some dance steps and would like jobs as hostesses in the dance halls--if the jobs are worth having.

But the owners of Seven Star Inc. and other dance halls claim they are suffering terribly because there just aren’t enough Spanish-speaking “girls” here legally to replace the illegal aliens they used for decades as dancing partners for their customers.

The owners say they don’t dare use undocumented dancers because the 1987 immigration reform act imposes stiff penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

The illegals were used in the past because only they--not their bosses--were punished when they were caught. The workers’ punishment was, and still is, deportation.

So the owners, through their well-paid lawyers, now are going to higher immigration authorities in Washington and to appellate courts to overturn previous rulings that prevent them from importing the taxi dancers. (The dancers got their name in the 1930s because, like taxis, their services were hired by customers for short periods.)

The potential impact of the case of the missing taxi dancers goes far beyond the profits of a few dance hall operators and the entertainment of their customers. Other employers, particularly in the garment industry and in agriculture, are making dubious claims that they, too, are suffering because of immigration reform, which might break their long-standing habit of using the cheap labor of illegal aliens.

Like the dance hall owners, these employers are begging the government to let them legally import temporary foreign workers under the special “H-2” provisions of the immigration law.

One New York company--the Chinese Agricultural Manpower Center--is appealing for permission to import thousands of Chinese peasants to work temporarily for growers in California and other states. Garment manufacturers, mostly Californians, have applied for temporary foreign workers, too.

The pleas for the foreign workers will multiply if these employers succeed in upsetting the previous rulings.

Their chances for a reversal probably are slim under present laws, and may become even slimmer in California, long the nation’s biggest user of illegal aliens.

Los Angeles area garment industry spokesmen insist that their multibillion-dollar industry--which helps dress some of the world’s wealthiest and most famous men and women--is suffering because it can no longer depend on a large supply of illegal aliens to make the often-costly garments.

The California Employment Development Department, however, says that despite the claims of worker shortages by industry spokesmen, only a few garment manufacturers actually are reporting shortages.

But if some employers get foreign workers through their appeals, they could set an unfortunate pattern that would allow many unneeded H-2s to be imported as replacements for domestic workers.

California Assemblywoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles) soon will introduce a proposal to toughen requirements for getting permission to import H-2 workers.

The law is being designed especially to catch cheaters.

For instance, under her proposed law, the state would have to check its unemployment lists to make sure that would-be users of temporary foreign workers have not rejected job applicants or dismissed domestic workers to make room for the lower-paid foreigners.

Also, she wants to prevent employers from applying for temporary foreign workers as a ruse to get a continuous flow of foreign temporaries.

When the dance hall operators ran into trouble on this point, they promised to close down their dance halls, or at least fire the H-2s after 364 days, to prove their good-faith intention to use the dancers only as temporaries. So far, the government agencies and the courts see such promises as only a ploy.

Stephen Nutter, Western regional director of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, says that garment manufacturers, especially small ones, often claim they are closing down only to reopen under another name. He also points out that there are many unemployed garment workers seeking jobs.

But the real problem of using illegal aliens, temporary or not, in any industry also can be demonstrated by the case of the taxi dancers: The jobs almost always pay too little and provide too few benefits to attract any but the most desperate domestic workers.

The dancers are paid $5 an hour or less, and rarely, if ever, get fringe benefits. They usually work only a few hours a night, mostly on weekends. To survive, presumably they must have another source of income. But regulations governing H-2 workers allow them to work only for the employer who imported them.

That provision makes sense, and it, along with the entire immigration reform act, can be effective if all provisions are rigorously enforced, including the crucial one that punishes employers who violate the law, not just the illegal aliens.

It need not be a burden on honest employers who have relied on illegal help in the past, since many illegals already here are now taking advantage of the immigration amnesty program. And better wages and job conditions will attract domestic workers who can fill any gap left by a reduced number of illegals.

Russell L. Williams, president of Agricultural Producers, contends that few growers exploit their workers, legals or illegals. But he admits frankly that “the existence of the large and seemingly inexhaustible pool of illegal labor has lessened the need for (growers) to . . . use workers in the most efficient ways possible (or) to plan and manage our labor needs. “After all, why plan when you know the workers you need, plus many more, will just show up when you want them?”

Russell predicts that farm labor costs will rise as a result of immigration reform. But he maintains that growers can cover the higher costs by better planning and more efficient use of available workers.

The same good logic should be adopted by all employers who claim they cannot break their dependency on illegal labor.

Disney’s Gravy Train Passes Union Station

An arbitrator will soon issue a decision to resolve a dispute between Walt Disney Co. and its workers. But his decision will be based on the legalese of the unions’ contracts, not on the company’s shameful action.

The arbitrator, Joseph Gentile, has to decide only whether the company was justified under its union contracts in saddling about 35,000 workers with substantial increases in the amount they must pay for their union-negotiated health-care program.

On the one hand, the workers are being required to pay a larger share of their medical bills in the form of higher deductibles and higher maximum payments. The savings to the company--estimated at $2.4 million annually by union attorney Kenneth Sackman--will cost the average worker several hundred dollars a year.

That isn’t much for those who can afford it, but for workers at Disneyland and Disney World, who average between $5 and $8 an hour, it can be a significant burden.

Let’s put this in a perspective that, under arbitration rules, Gentile cannot consider: Disney announced last week that it paid a cash bonus of nearly $6 million to Chairman Michael D. Eisner during its last fiscal year, in addition to his $750,000 salary.

The previous year, Eisner got a tidy $2.6-million bonus, his $750,000 salary, and an option to buy 816,000 shares of Disney’s common stock. And don’t forget that extra $750,000 he got just to accept the job a couple of years ago.

Eisner’s buddy, Disney President Frank G. Wells, was apparently a decisive player in raising the workers’ medical costs to save the estimated $2.4 million. He was awarded nearly $3 million last year in bonuses, in addition to his $400,000 salary.

But then, these interesting details will not be relevant factors in Gentile’s legal decision of the case.