Hocus-Pocus: I Guess it's that Simple

"In these political dark ages, it’s important for us to stand up for one another. These hotel workers by the airport make 20-percent less wages than hotel workers around the rest of Los Angeles. We’re here to express our solidarity with them, to help them unionize and to help them close the gap between their sub-poverty wages and the millions and millions of dollars the people who own these hotels make."

Noted economist Tom Morello of Audioslave.

I like Audioslave. I'm not so sure, however, I agree with Mr. Morello's passionate but odd assertions. I just could not let this go by without offering a comment or two - for what it's worth anyway.

It would have to be agreed upon that we may very well be witnessing political dark ages - though I wonder what exactly he meant by this. I take it to mean "in these days ruled by George W. Bush." Did he feel this way with Clinton in power? If he did, score points for his intellectual integrity. If not, it's just another piece of pop drivel.

As for the notion of demanding illegal immigrants be unionized and given the rights American citizens enjoy is absurd on many grounds. What body of civil or legal discourse would possibly agree to this? America is the land of opportunity and freedom but there are limits to its openness.

There has to be standards and rules by which all must follow. If one enters the country by breaking the law they are jumping ahead of someone who is following it. How is this fair?

Look at it this way, if the government was to ever tighten immigration laws who would pay the price? The people who abide by the law and all potential immigrants who planned to apply faithfully. That's who. What Tom Morello is advocating is rather irresponsible socially and inefficient economically.

The truth is that whenever draconian laws are enacted it's usually as a result of someone who abused it. Humans are funny that way. Socialists (Morello is a millionaire socialist) are then the first to criticize a law that they unwittingly helped spawn.

Does he not realize what kind of an impact granting amnesty will do to wages? Does he not realize that corporations are not a license to print money? That they do have budgets and those budgets are set according to the realities of the market place? What kind of economic logic is this?

Faced with this labour versus management conundrum it may be fair to consult the "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" riddle. From one side, if it weren't for enterprising minds, there would be no labour market and the "millions upon millions" they are apparently entitled to as illegals. On the flip side albeit a weaker argument, corporations or companies don't earn profits without workers.

There is also a shocking and willing indiscretion on his part to not see unions for what they are: a cynical outfit of bandits that care little of worker's rights. A drag on society and the human spirit that operates in the same efficient and ruthless style as any corporation they so loathe.

In addition to having protection under labour laws, codes and standards, corporations have made strides in ensuring their worker's are taken care of. This is not to suggest there aren't any problems, but corporations are more aware than they ever been when it comes to worker's rights. There is such a thing as freedom of economic mobility and the market will pay accordingly. We all feel we are under paid (well, everybody except celebrities) but this is not the proper way to look at things in my opinion.

The question is: Why are illegals being hired by corporations to begin with? If it's to take advantage of lower wages then this is not right either.

I wish I could agree with all this. It would make finding solutions to major problems rather easy.

Political dark ages these are indeed, it is ironic to point out that these are also musical dark ages as well.