Magazine

Day labor poses a dilemma for cities because they must struggle to balance community interests and individual rights with limited policy tools. City officials are often hampered by a lack of understanding about the issue. Public opinion about day labor is decidedly split, leaving officials in a no-win situation where almost any government action can fuel intense controversy. Day labor is viewed primarily as a public safety issue, and secondarily as a long-term human services challenge. The issue is further complicated by its connection to the national immigration debate. While details on the demographics of day laborers vary, studies conclude that the majority of laborers are undocumented immigrants. “It is virtually impossible to separate immigration from the day labor debate,” says Propeack. As a result, day laborers may be viewed as outsiders who should be rounded up and deported.

But rash government policies can lead to fierce community backlash. Many municipalities drastically oversimplify the issue by handing it off to police, who treat laborers as loiterers or trespassers. Aggressive police action in response to gatherings on public sidewalks can quickly run afoul of constitutional rights and community sentiment. And yet some officials still push police to arrest or detain laborers for immigration violations. They may also propose controversial solutions without first seeking community input. As a result, policy toward day labor is characterized by fits and starts, and cities are often forced to reverse course - no matter what their stance.

In California, the city of Glendale passed an anti-solicitation ordinance in 2004 to prevent workers from seeking employment on its streets, but a judge later overturned the law. In Costa Mesa, officials opened an official hiring site but then closed it because they were concerned it was attracting undocumented immigrants. In New York state, Suffolk, Westchester, and Nassau counties have faced repeated controversy and changes in direction. The village of Mamaroneck is facing federal litigation after closing an informal day labor hiring site and targeting laborers with police action. Farmingville, New York, faced similar legal trouble after closing day labor gathering places and raiding Latino residences suspected of overcrowding violations. In Woodbridge, Virginia, in October 2004, officials directed police to arrest 24 laborers on loitering and trespassing charges, then cart them off to immigration officials. But the community was outraged, which led to a series of public meetings and the formation of a task force to study the issue. In the end, officials felt unable to take any action. “We have decided to do nothing,” County Supervisor Hilda Barg explained at a regional summit on day labor in March.

The Policy Void

In addressing day labor issues, local governments are often forced to deal with the consequences of failed federal policies. Conflicting immigration bills in the House and Senate have led to further uncertainty. In December 2005, the House passed HR4437, which would increase punitive measures against employers and undocumented immigrants and ban publicly funded day labor centers. In May, the Senate passed an immigration bill to allow for a guest worker program and a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. The two bills spell out completely different directions for immigration policy. Local officials are understandably frustrated. “We have no context to work in,” explains Tony Tomasello, Assistant City Manager in Gaithersburg, Maryland. “On the one hand, Congress could pass legislation that would make a publicly funded day labor center illegal. On the other hand, we could have a guest worker program, which might make the day labor debate a non-issue.”

State legislative activity also has an impact. According to the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL), more than 500 bills concerning immigrants were introduced in 2006, with a total of 78 laws enacted in 33 states. Ann Morse, Director of the Immigration Policy Project at NCSL, believes immigration has become a significant state issue because “there is a general feeling in state legislatures that they need to fill the void.” But the limited state mandate on immigration issues has posed significant barriers. “The challenge is finding where they can act that isn’t preempted by federal authority,” she says. Many states have focused on limiting access to public benefits, but state interest in limiting day labor activity has also grown in recent years. In 2005, Arizona banned local governments from funding day labor centers. Georgia and Virginia have considered similar legislation.

Advocacy groups on all sides of the political spectrum are mobilizing as the immigration debate intensifies. In San Bernardino, California, Save Our State petitioned for a ballot measure that would outlaw publicly funded day labor centers. The Minutemen, a border patrol and immigration advocacy group, opened chapters across the country to follow and photograph day labor activity. In 2005, conservative activists launched wehirealiens.com to publish photos of employers that hire day laborers. Liberal activists responded with weareracists.com, which published photos of the Minutemen photographers. The “we are racists” website was later shut down after heavy criticism, but activists threatened to file suit against the publishers of wehirealiens.com. The National Day Labor Organizing Network (NDLON) organized national conferences of day laborers in 2005 to help them file litigation to protect their rights in such potentially slanderous situations. In August, NDLON announced a partnership with the AFL-CIO to strengthen its network.

Until federal immigration reform is enacted, local day labor issues will serve as battlegrounds for a proxy war among competing advocacy groups. “We are in a bit of a dilemma,” explains Chris Newman, legal programs coordinator of NDLON. “At this point, there is no way a good compromise bill can come out of Congress this year. Therefore, we are left to inherit a lot of pernicious local fights. It is a major challenge.”

Immigration Battle in a Quiet Town

The town of Herndon, Virginia, offers a prime example of how such strife plays out. Located approximately 25 miles west of the nation’s capitol, the town was thrown into the national spotlight in 2005 when it considered creating an official workers’ center. During the 1990s, according to census data, Herndon’s population grew by 35 percent, and its percentage of foreign-born residents doubled. It also had a swelling day labor population, and an informal site - a 7-11 store parking lot - where more than 120 workers gathered daily. The locally divisive issue was picked up by national media as a signal event in the immigration debate, further fueling outside interest in the outcome. During Herndon’s town council deliberations, a talk radio show launched a telephone campaign to pressure town officials, swamping the municipal switchboard with so many calls that it was shut down for almost a week. When the town approved a conditional use permit granting a local non-profit permission to operate a formal workers’ center last August, the decision caused widespread reaction.

Herndon’s decision was an issue in the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial elections, with Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore stating that day labor centers “reward and encourage illegal behavior.” The conservative Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group Judicial Watch announced its intention to sue the town for “aiding illegal immigration.” The Minutemen formed a local chapter with the intent of following laborers and employers to photograph and document alleged “illegal activity.”

Even people thousands of miles away got involved. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), an outspoken opponent of illegal immigration, sent an official request to Paul McNulty, U.S. Attorney from the eastern district of Virginia, suggesting he launch an investigation because the center’s opening constituted a conspiracy to violate federal law. In May 2006, Herndon elected a new mayor and a slate of candidates who oppose the day labor center. Many of them have vowed not to renew its permit in September 2007. But until that time, the workers’ center will continue to operate under its existing permit. During its first eight months of operations, the center had more than 7,000 hires.

Big-City Strategies

Large cities have also experienced intense day labor controversy. In May, Houston city officials drew fire over their decision to commit $100,000 in public funding for a day labor center. This was particularly significant because the city had been funding the center since 1994. City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado explained that Houston had never anticipated such a battle. “We have a good program here in Houston. It has been working fine all along. It has never been a problem before. Some council members had voted in favor of funding for the center before, but then they suddenly had concerns.” Houston also felt pressure from federal representatives. In July 2005, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) wrote a letter to Secretary Michael Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security, reacting to a story printed in The Wall Street Journal concerning Houston’s partial use of federal funding for its workers’ center. Senator Grassley complained that “federal taxpayers should not be footing the bill for illegal aliens to find work on U.S. soil.”

With more than 10 million residents, Los Angeles County boasts the largest population of any county in the nation. It is also home to the largest concentration of day labor activity in the country, with estimates of as many as 35,000 laborers. It includes 88 separate municipalities within its boundaries, many of which have applied divergent approaches to address day labor issues. “There is an incredible amount of knowledge about what worked and didn’t work,” says Robin Toma. As a result, jurisdictions are beginning to learn from each other’s experience.

In Burbank, city officials took the unusual step in 2005 of requiring The Home Depot to provide resources for a day labor center in order to build a store in the city. Mary Alvord, Burbank’s city manager, explains that the city “didn’t put its head in the sand” on the issue. “We did what we thought was the responsible thing” by requiring the company to provide resources to “mitigate any issues arising from day labor activity associated with its store,” she says. Although The Home Depot maintains a non-solicitation policy at its stores, “we were required to make a concession in order to serve the community,” explains Ron DeFeo, senior manager of external affairs.

The company, which has faced issues with day laborers using store parking lots as gathering places, seems to understand what is at stake. “Day labor is not a Home Depot issue,” Defeo explains. “It is a complex concern that requires the leadership of federal and local government in cooperation with civic groups, law enforcement, and businesses.”

Lessons from New Studies

After years of blind policy approaches to the subject, a wealth of new data about day labor is now available. In 2001, the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission published Day Labor Hiring Sites: Constructive Approaches to Community Conflict, a practical manual for local governments seeking best practices. Their research included a survey of 49 localities across the country and site visits in ten diverse locations. In 2006, the release of On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States, by Edwin Melendez, a professor at Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy, provided an important portrait of the day labor phenomenon, as well as regional surveys that offered localities a wealth of new information. A team of researchers surveyed 2,660 day laborers at 264 hiring sites in 139 municipalities. “It has helped humanize the day labor issue by detailing the lives of workers and the daily challenges they face,” Melendez explains. It has caught the attention of public officials. In the New York City area, the survey identified 57 separate day labor hiring sites. It also reported that 85 percent of day laborers experience workplace abuse, ranging from non-payment to harassment. In response to this information, Mayor Michael Bloomberg appointed a Temporary Commission on Day Labor to study the issue. Melendez, who serves on the Commission, believes that New York is “poised to make progress on the issue because the city has made a level of commitment.”

The current solutions available to cities come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Creating official day labor hiring centers has emerged as a mainstream technique, with more than 65 communities taking this approach, according to the National Day Labor Survey. Two-thirds of official centers utilize some public funding, such as those in San Francisco, Denver, Kansas City, Houston, and Los Angeles. Some centers are government-run, but most are operated by local non-profits. While information regarding opinion on publicly funded day labor centers remains sparse, regional studies in Washington, D.C., and Las Vegas indicated a majority of citizens support this approach. Yet the main challenge for cities is the need to develop a place-based response that incorporates local needs and realities. “What works in one place may not work in another,” says Melendez.

The ultimate challenge for city officials is to balance competing interests. While day labor may be a national phenomenon, it is a distinctly local issue. Its effects are felt most acutely at the regional, local, and neighborhood level, and therefore the intensity of public opinion grows dramatically with increased proximity. A March survey by the Pew Research Center found that 54 percent of respondents in the D.C. region were in favor of publicly funded day labor centers. Yet outer suburbs such as Herndon and Gaithersburg have experienced significant conflict and forceful opposition to such centers. Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Center, explains the center’s most significant finding: “Native-born Americans who live in areas with the highest concentration of immigrants hold more positive opinions of them,” he says. Conversely, people living in areas of low concentration are far more concerned about the impact of immigrants. As a result, rapidly changing demographics on the urban periphery often experience the most intense conflict.

People ultimately hold local government responsible for issues they observe in their neighborhoods, says Robin Toma, executive director of the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission. In fact, the Pew Center poll showed that citizens have higher levels of confidence in local government to address immigration (56 percent) than either state governors (54 percent) or President Bush (42 percent), even though local officials have no legislative authority over the issue. “Most people don’t make much distinction between different levels of government. They don’t care who solves the issue as long as it gets done,” says David Robertson, executive director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. It places an enormous burden on local government to incorporate a wide variety of community input while educating citizens about their role.

Cities are learning that their citizens want to be involved in crafting policy solutions to day labor problems, and they are increasingly organizing citizen-led stakeholder groups to tackle specific issues. As Kim Propeack explains, “We’ve learned over the years that we can’t let the political process rush us into making mistakes on operations.” Many local governments are now using tools such as public commissions or task forces, rather than a traditional government-led approach, and learning that early stakeholder involvement - particularly from day laborers themselves - are key components of success.

Officials are also finding that outside expertise and mediation can be as helpful as local input. In Cicero, Illinois, a local day labor dispute appeared headed toward deadlock in January when laborers gathering at a local Home Depot were arrested. Store managers and customers had filed complaints. The Home Depot took the unusual step of hiring a professional mediator, Trudy Nichols, to work toward compromise and agreement. In 2002, local officials in Graton, California, sought assistance from the North Bay Consensus Council to design a process to discuss day labor. A stakeholder group of 20 representatives formed. The process resulted in wider agreement about Graton’s approach to day labor, and in 2003, Graton opened a day labor center.

The day labor issue is not going away. Economists project that the demand for day labor will continue to increase in the coming years, and cities will continue to face tension around the issue. But there is hope in the new sense of partnership across jurisdictions and between cities, and it is encouraging that some city officials believe they can benefit from the expertise of others. It is also encouraging that serious researchers are turning their attention to day labor, and that their work is resulting in a wealth of new information and awareness. City and local officials must now use this information to facilitate open discussion, ultimately creating informed public policies that consider local realities and seek common ground.

This article appeared in the Winter 2007 issue of Next American City magazine. SUBSCRIBE NOW!