posted
Well, alright, I see the misunderstanding then. This discussion is about immigration, and America's relationship with its neighbors and the world and how restrictive or inclusive we want that to be. I was operating from the given that the things I said about Americans were in comparison to the rest of the world.
We were talking about immigrants into America, and I said that Americans are largely born on third and some think they've hit a triple. I mean that most especially when I hear people complain that immigrants should fix their countries first.
quote:Why would they not be considered as well off as me if they have all the same things - the same economic status, job security, etc.? Are you insinuating there is something inherently bad about being African-American, Asian, or Hispanic that makes them inferior to me even if they have all the same things I do?
So...wealthy or at least well-off minorities in America are immune from the forces of racism, marginalization, stereotypes? These are forces which you face to the same degree living in America, of course, right?
That's my point. My point was obviously not that minorities in America are guaranteed to have it awful. I should have been more specific when I said 'better off'. I did not mean which family was more worthy, or happy, or more fulfilled. I meant, "Which of these two hypothetical families in America do you imagine would face greater hardship?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, I have a hypothetical plan to float to deal with the illegal immigration thing. First, we do an amnesty. However, we make it a conditional amnesty. That is, we get the illegals here now to come forward, get all the paperwork done and all, and confer on them legal status. However, this legal status is predicated on the number of new illegal immigrants we get. If it grows past a certain point, we'll have no choice but to revoke the bestowed legal status on all these people whom we now have documentation for.
I think this, combined with a guest worker program, may actually be one of the better options in dealing with the problem. At the very least, I think it's better than the unconditional amnesty or "Let's say they're all criminals." options. What do people think?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I know that today's immigrant walk out day has backfired for some people. My brother is a regional manager for a restaurant chain. They had so many people not show up for work today that he had to scramble to get things covered and barely did.
He said there will be many firings of the people who didn't come in and didn't have valid reasons to be off work. His reasoning is if he can't count on them he doesn't want them as employees. His business is so high in turn over anyway, he can hire more people to replace them. He'd rather have people working for him that appreciate their jobs and won't leave their employer in a lurch.
Since we're in a right-to-work state and they violated company policy by being out without calling in, he can fire them at will. And he is.
Probably not the result people were hoping for.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you honestly think that people didn't expect for some of the people who walked out to get fired?
Acceptance of negative short term consequences in the pursuit of postive long term goals is a corner stone of nonviolent protest.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Easy to say unless you're a family who depends on that income to survive.
Hopefully, since these are all fairly low wage earning jobs, it is going to affect mostly students or people who only worked part time, not people supporting families.
I'm just sad for those that are going to be put in hardship because of this. As my brother said, he didn't need to see them walk out to appreciate them, he appreciates them when they show up and work hard for his company not when they take unscheduled days off. They took his willingness to hire and give an opportunity to people who for the most part were unskilled and didn't speak the language, and threw it back in his face by betraying the trust he had put in them. He hired them and they promised to do a job. They didn't do it, and left him in a bad situation.
It has probably made him less likely to hire immigrants in the future, I don't know. I hope not. But I know he was very angry, and very hurt today.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I was kinda wondering about the irony of that as well. In part, the walk-out was meant to make people aware of Hispanic and immigrant workers. On the news all day various stations have been asking viewers to write in about their experiences. It seems the people who work in jobs or certain geographical locations where these workers are prevalent, are not blind, they see them and recognize them in some form (whether its simple use or admiration.)
The people who are not exposed to this part of the population because of the types of businesses they visit or the city/state in which they; they are the ones most likely to be critical of the value of immigrant workers. But most likely they will only see the numbers in the streets in other cities and it won't touch their daily lives, which is a shame.
It was a great show of unity, pride, and organization, even if it seemed to lack a certain sense of practically.
I hope your brother would at the very least recognize that they did not leave work out of laziness or disrespect, but to protest and take part in the American civil process. It says a great deal about the character of these people and the goals they had in mind when they came to this country.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So...wealthy or at least well-off minorities in America are immune from the forces of racism, marginalization, stereotypes? These are forces which you face to the same degree living in America, of course, right?
Nope, they aren't....and neither are white people. More people are discriminated due to their income level that due to race, IMO, regardless of what race they are.
And most of the bigots I know...not all, but most....are not white.
posted
Here's the deal Shanna. We've talked about this many times, because my mom is in the employment industry and my brother does a lot of hiring and my husband and I used to own a business as well so employment law and problems with recruiting and maintaining employees is frequent dinner conversation.
All of us agreed with one thing. That we'd rather hire a man trying to support a family than a teenager who just wants money to put gas in the shiny new car Daddy bought her for her sweet sixteen. For several reasons - the family man is usually more commmitted to his job because he needs it more, therefore he's more reliable, and we'd rather that if we have to pay someone, we pay somebody who really needs and appreciates the paycheck. All of us have experienced the teenager who will blow off his or her work schedule because they stayed out late last night and got drunk or because they have a hot date coming up.
Immigrants with families usually are reliable, dependable hard working people who respect the fact they have a job. We respect them in return. My mom has put her faith in immigrants before, she's gone so far as to arrange English classes for them, to have translators available to help them understand the benefits forms they're filling out, she has bent over backwards to be accomodating. Not entirely out of the goodness of her heart - but because they make darn good employees, usually. It's a win-win - good for her company, good for the immigrant.
But today they betrayed the trust, and destroyed what credibility they had with my brother for sure. My mom not so much, she didn't have as many problems as he had today. So now, why should he bend over backward to hire an immigrant over an American-born teen, if the immigrant is showing him that he is not any more reliable or any more dependable? Why not just make things easier for everyone and hire the teenager who speaks the language, instead of going out of his way to accomodate the Spanish speaking immigrant instead?
See, that's why it's hurtful. They may have lost their job over this, but sure they can probably get another one. But will the next employer be just as hesitant because he/she also got burned today? Perhaps. They may have in fact, set themselves back instead of leaping forward. Like I said, my brother and mom already appreciated immigrants. They admired their work ethic and respected them. Remember that it's harder to work with people who don't know your language, so my brother and mom were going out of their way to accomodate, it wasn't the path of least resistance for them. Now they feel hurt, and betrayed, and they honestly may hesitate to hire immigrants again next time.
And honestly, I can see why. If there are enough people available to hire, and it's easier to hire the English speaker, and neither group has shown itself to be more dependable than another, hire the English speaker. Why not?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But today they betrayed the trust, and destroyed what credibility they had with my brother for sure.
Oh, come on. That's RIDICULOUS, Belle. It was a planned march and walkout. No "trust" was betrayed; no implied social contract was trampled, here. I think your brother is just being a kneejerk counter-reactionary.
If he wants to fire them for missing a day of work and inconveniencing him, fine. It's entirely his right to do so -- and as you've observed, they're disposable labor anyway, so it's not a huge issue for him to do so. But for him to stomp around and complain that his feelings were hurt by the fact that they put an issue that's clearly of some importance to them before a job that you freely admit is disposable is more than a little whiny.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the local protest here failed due to lack of solidarity among the legal and illegal immigrant community. Those who wanted to protest were overwhelmed by those who desired to maintain their job. I would know considering a lot of the people who work at the company I work for are illegal. The company I work for obviously turns a blind eye simply because those who are the policy makers line their pockets with larger annual bonuses because they do not have any obligation to provide these workers benefits, in turn that responsability is given to the taxpayer to pay any medical expenses they have. It is another scenario of the rich getting richer and the middle class being crushed closer to the poverty line with the illegal workers caught in between. Who's fault is all of this? Well there are a lot of reasons why it happens, but the major one comes from greed of those in positions of authority within the major businesses. In this case the company I work for is German not American though located in The United States and most of their money is shipped back over to Germany. Even so American businesses have the same practices just look at the news and the businesses that had a 'holiday' today for the protests. The illegal workers just want a chance to prosper and the middle class and poorer Americans just want a chance to rise above their parents station in life which is becomming more difficult every day mostly due to the economical elite.
So solutions? There are no (zip,zero,nadda) easy ones. For one thing Mexico is in dire need of a clean up, unfortunately no one wants to take care of this mess. The corruption has deep roots and will not die easily no matter what force acts on it and without it being taken care of any solution would eventually fail. Border enforcement would be an expensive proposition no matter how it occurred. With no physical barrier the border patrol would require a huge ammount of man power and a support system similar to the military more then law enforcement. With a safisticated physical barrier the number of personnel on the ground could be greatly reduced, but either way the taxpayer will eat the bill which will make most politicians fear for their future (political cowardice is such an annoying disease). The last problem is the humanitarian issue in dealing with those already here. Returning them all home or even half home is nearly impossible for many reasons. One many of their children by birth on United States soil are now American citizens (a law that should be revised). Also, how can The United States claim to be the nation it is and turn a blind eye to those suffering when we evict them from what has been their home for most quite some time now? Either way you deal with the problem everyone of the illegal immigrants need to become documented and screened by some process. If they want to become citizens and be productive good have them pay a fee that will provide means to run the administrative costs of processing them and have them learn English as soon as possible. Why learn English to become a citizen? For many reasons one immigrants legal or otherwise who do not understand or speak the language are abused frequently and second if you really want citizenship this is a very small price to pay. Also, if they have a criminal background they get to go back to where they came from after all we have our fair share of domestic criminals to deal with. If you are not documented as a citizen or in processing for citizenship with in a certain time period of this going into effect then guess what your hiding for a reason and if your caught you get to leave the country.
If the Mexican government doesn't like this well then we can build a really strong concrete and steel barrier on the south border and drop off every illegal immigrant on the Mexican side and give them all guns and let them sort out their differences with their own government. On a side note do some research on how Mexico treats illegal immigrants and their naturalized 'citizens' you will find that it is definately not a good comparison by any stretch of the imagination.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowing about this almost a month in advance, my scheduling manager at the restaurant I work at didn't schedule any immigrant labor unless he'd talked to them beforehand to specifically ask them if they planned on participating.
We had maybe a dozen of them show up, between front and back of the house staff.
Turnover in restaurants is high. If you nocall/noshow once, you're fired, and that's that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I felt similarly about students who didn't show in class today... I *kind of* support the cause and I support the right to protest, but that's a sacrifice you make; and if you miss a quiz when your out protesting, then that's your call, but I have too much self interest. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
First, just let me say..Haha...okay...moving on...
quote: I don't know what station you been listenin to but it's been on 93.9, 94.3, 95.5, 99.1, 103.5, 107.7. Dude I'm seriously doubting that you can live in D.C. and not know about the rally. I don't think that you can make a statement like that and say that you're from DC
Well, you sure showed me. I must not live here. Or I just don't listen to "Hot 95.5" or the recently flipped-to-Spanish 99.1 (long live WHFS!). I also don't often read the local rags as it's quicker and more reliable to get my news on-line.
Suprisingly, none of the news that I saw or heard yesterday mentioned anything other than a couple hundred people who held a rally in NW...(most talked about L.A., Chicago, Dallas).
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also found it alittle odd to compare missing work for a civil march to a hangover excuse.
You obviously don't run a business. As a business owner, you care that your business functions and you make money. It doesn't matter why they miss work. You can say they aren't the same thing, but they end up with the same result - the owner has no employees, and he's in a bad spot.
Exceptions are made for valid reasons to be off - sickness, planned vacations, etc., but if you don't show up and leave your employer in a terrible situation, you don't get a free pass because it was a civil march. We have a right to protest in this country, but no where does it say we have the right to do it without consequences.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:but if you don't show up and leave your employer in a terrible situation, you don't get a free pass because it was a civil march
Which is fine, and he's well within his rights to fire them. But his feelings shouldn't be hurt.
Frankly, if they DIDN'T consider the future of immigrants in this country to be at least slightly more important to them than one of a dozen available menial, unskilled jobs, I'd be more concerned.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Tom, I don't know what kind of bosses you've had in your life, but I feel sorry for you if you've never had one that cares about the people he hires and thinks more of them than "disposable workers" as you put them. His feelings are hurt because he's invested in the people that he hires and work for him, and I think he's a damn good manager.
He's the type of guy that comes in and asks about families and cares about people for more than just the profit they bring him, which is why as I've said, he's made a point to hire immigrants in the past.
You can criticize my brother all you want, but you don't know a damn thing about him besides what I've posted about him, and personally I'm proud of him and think it's a good thing he feels hurt.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, Tom, I don't know what kind of bosses you've had in your life, but I feel sorry for you if you've never had one that cares about the people he hires and thinks more of them than "disposable workers" as you put them. His feelings are hurt because he's invested in the people that he hires and work for him, and I think he's a damn good manager.
Yes. And his employees, no matter how much they appreciate his investment in them, are aware that at the end of the day they're just employees who'll get fired if they take the day off to demonstrate on behalf of something very, very important to them. It's not remotely unreasonable to assume that they honestly and sensibly felt -- no matter how much they like him -- that the few dollars a day he pays them would be worth less than the chance to make a larger point.
Why should HE feel hurt by their "betrayal," when he doesn't actually care enough about them to understand and appreciate why they felt the march was necessary?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're talking past each other. You're not an employer, you don't understand. So let's agree that we disagree and drop it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've BEEN an employer (albeit never of minimum wage laborers), and I DO understand.
And I'm saying that their interactions with him are primarily financial and basically menial. As much as he's "invested" in them, the primary coin of that interaction -- actual coin -- is not particularly excessive.
So they have to weigh the financial value of their job -- which is very low -- and the cost of disappointing someone they care about -- which might be quite high -- against the importance of this march to them and their perceived society.
But here's the thing. The cost of disappointing someone they care about varies based on how disappointed he allows himself to be. If he chooses to recognize the dilemma and respects them for choosing something demonstrably more important than whatever menial role they play in his organization, his disappointment -- and thus the cost to him of their actions -- decreases enormously.
In other words, by choosing to feel betrayed rather than sensibly outshopped by something more important, he's actually increasing the cost of the march to himself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here in Chicago, we didn't have a walk out. We did have a lot of employers allow their employees the day off if they wanted to march. Many, many of them with pay.
It does seem that, since Belle's brother is concerned with his employees as people and has an emotional connection with them, giving them the day off for something important to them might have been an option. Then he wouldn't feel betrayed and his employees would have felt supported.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So now, why should he bend over backward to hire an immigrant over an American-born teen, if the immigrant is showing him that he is not any more reliable or any more dependable?
I think this might be stretching the truth just a bit. They obviously are more reliable, as you've attested to above. I don't see how taking off one day to attend a well-publicized, politically important demonstration makes them on par with irresponsible teenagers. Also, I find it somewhat telling that this "unreliability" is now apparently applied, in your mind and your brother's, to all Spanish speaking immigrants.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
