In 2003, Kimberly-Clark Health Care unveiled a global business plan that called for a reduction in U.S. manufacturing plants.

Earlier today, Kimberly-Clark announced the closure of two more locations: Draper, Utah and Pocatello, Idaho.

In 2003, the Draper facility employed 850 workers. Today, the facility operates with 451 and the Pocatello facility with 318 employees. In less than two years, Kimberly-Clarke has transferred 40% of their health care manufacturing operations to Mexico.

An AP article [Kimberly-Clark Health Care will phase out Utah, Idaho operations 7/27/05] ran this statement from Joanne Bauer, President of Kimberly-Clark Health Care:

“We have come to the difficult but necessary conclusion that realigning our manufacturing operations will enable us to improve our operating efficiency and cost-competitiveness.”

The same AP article quotes John Dodd, executive vice president of global operations for Kimberly-Clark Health Care. According to Dodd, the first firings won’t take place for another month.

“We’ll be sitting down with our employees on a one-on-one basis to discuss their plans,” Dodd said. “We’ll be working with them and helping them prepare for their next career path.”

Whew…let me wipe my forehead in relief. Well, not just yet. Here is a list of common household products manufacted by our friends at Kimberly-Clark:

Kleenex
Scott
Viva
Cottonelle
Huggies
Pull-Ups
GoodNites
Little Swimmers
Kotex
Depend
Poise
Neat Sheet

I want to “improve the operating efficiency” of America so I’m going to have to let Kimberly-Clark go.

It’s nothing personal, I’m just downsizing. I’m “realigning” my consumer dollars with another company in my own effort to boost “cost-competitiveness.”

As for “helping” Kimberly-Clark on their “next career path” by all means, I shall. I will mail Ms. Bauer and Mr. Dodd a book that might help them better understand the Mexican officials with whom they conspired and to whom they are now beholden.

It’s called Beware the Naked Man Who Offers You His Shirt by Harvey MacKay.

Lesson #58 pg. 246 But Will You Love Me In The Morning?

Then take a closer look at Lesson #28 pg. 135 Your Company Is No Better Than It’s Reputation In The Community.

It seems I have come to the “difficult but necessary conclusion” that Kimberly-Clark products are expendable…much the way American workers are for Kimberly-Clark.

The AFL-CIO convention opened yesterday in Chicago.

Organized labor in the US has been facing decades of declining membership and influence. In the 50s and 60s, about 30% of all private sector employees were unionized.
Change to Win Coalition.

My view: one reason for the decline in organized labor’s appeal-particularly among younger potential members- is that unlike historic leaders like Asa P Randolph and Cesar Chavez, these contemporary folks aren’t yet addressing immigration-and are in fact actively working to disenfranchise working Americans. The AFL-CIO is actually endorsing the Kennedy-MeCain proposal to increase immigration to the US dramatically which would decimate wages of American workers. Increased immigration exactly correlates with he decline of unionism.

Lest you think that the AFL-CIO breakup might indicate some sanity in this direction, look at the web page of one of the breakaway unions, the SEIU [Service Employees International Union], led by Andrew Stern.They are also endorsing the Kennedy-McCain guest worker expansion proposal—as is the hotel and garment workers’ union Unite Here. Both of these unions are heavily immigrant, but run by oligarchic leaderships calloused towards the effects of uncontrolled immigration.

But Sweeney said in a letter addressed to [UNITE HERE's] Wilhelm that the UNITE HERE official is misrepresenting the work of the committee. Sweeney said UNITE HERE’s positions on immigration — including its support for a guest-worker program — made the work of supporting immigration efforts more difficult. He also noted that UNITE HERE has dissented from most unions on immigration legislation proposed by U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

“Two of the most active and vocal unions on the Immigration Committee LIUNA (Laborers) and UFCW, strongly disagreed with the UNITE HERE position of abandoning prevailing wage standards and allowing for a significantly expanded temporary worker program without effective labor protections,” Sweeney wrote. “The Teamsters also objected to the UNITE HERE-backed construct of a guest worker program.[Wilhelm: AFL-CIO 'bureaucratic,' 'disconnected' from workers By Alana Roberts LAS VEGAS SUN, July 21, 2005]

The Change to Win leadership is obviously divided on the issue of immigration-but seems leaning towards the Open Borders side. The division of the between the AFL-CIO and Change to Win seems to be around issues of

a) outsourcing/trade

b) relative emphasis of local organizing vs. national political action

There’s a widespread idea on the left that trade and outsourcing are what matter-and that immigration is unimportant. The Change to Win folks seem to think their service and home construction jobs are less affected by trade practices. Both sides of this divide are in serious denial of how artificially high trade deficits (driven by financial arrangements that can change rapidly) and immigration are combining to decimate the American middle class.

To address issues like immigration, the American Labor movement may need to be completely rebuilt

Recently, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich suggested that we round up and deport the millions of illegal aliens who currently reside in the U.S.

Silly mortal…what on earth was he thinking? Simple solutions to complicated problems just confuse the powers that be–he should have used graphs and flow charts…you know, visual aids that provide an opportunity for interpretation.

To discourage the idea, the Center for American Progress (CAP–whatever that’s supposed to be) prepared a sort of makeshift cost/benefit analysis for deporting millions of illegal aliens.

Hmm…I wonder what they determined?? Surprise, surprise, surprise…the cost is astronomical. In fact, according to CAP, the solution is cost prohibitive.

[extracted from the report linked below]

“Using publicly available data, we estimate the costs of a mass deportation effort to be at least $206 billion over five years ($41.2 billion annually), and could be as high as $230 billion or more. Spending $41.2 billion annually would exceed the entire budget of the Department of Homeland Security for FY 2006 ($34.2 billion) and more than double the annual cost of military operations in Afghanistan ($16.8 billion).”

Ok, so what? Should the cost be triple that amount, I still say so what. The pricetag is our penance–we should pay it.

And by the way, I do not believe there is a sum greater in value than the DHS budget. Last I checked, the ascending order for monetary denominations was: Million–Billion–Trillion–DHS Budget

In any event, the Center for American Progress just published their full accounting.

Arm yourself with a long, tall drink–I recommend a Costco-sized vat of Pepto Bismol–before you click [here] to read the complete report. The report is titled Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment.

The report should be titled :Deporting the Undocumented: Who are we kidding?

Those who feel compelled to do so can click [here] to email the Center for American Progress.