OT: On the killing floor; immigrations impacts on wages

User Forum Topic
Submitted by no_such_reality on August 22, 2013 - 3:42pm

A very good article in the WSJ today on a beef plant that was raided for illegal immigration in the mid-2000s and the challenges and changes they're doing to try and hire a workforce.

On the Killing Floor, Clues to the Impact of Immigration on Jobs

They're paying $11.75/hr to start and top out at $13.95. They've done massive outreach to hire. They've done tours of local towns, outreach, signing bonuses, referral bonuses and targeting refugee groups in the Denver area.

They have a 29% annual turnover. It cost $12,000 to $15,000 to train a new hire they claim. They've incurred the expenses of the massive advertising and hiring campaign and compliance campaign they talk about.

Yet they obstinately refuse to increase wages to attract and keep workers.

Stunning, IMHO.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 22, 2013 - 4:34pm.

I just got back with staying with a friend in Eaton, CO, a grain-producing town (one of my many stops in that state) about 15 miles northwest of the ever-present Monfort Meat Packing Co (nka "Swift"). In the past, I have had several relatives who lived within a five-mile radius of Monfort ("Kersey" area) and I could still smell the feedlots while standing on their lots and in their houses with the windows open. The locals are used to it because the plant is a "fixture" in the area.

Monfort's cattle is/was literally stacked on top of one-another in their dozens of feedlots.

Immigration (mostly Mexican and central American) was ALWAYS available locally to staff Monfort and to farm onions and sugar beets.

The plant was raided in 2006 and lost about 1300 workers due to not having I-9's filed or not having the proper documents as represented on their I-9's which were filed with the employer fraudulently. Most of the workers without proper documentation were deported at the time. The plant literally had to start from scratch hiring quickly again.

In the past 35 years or so, I have made over 60 road trips from San Diego to this immediate area. Longtime Weld and Morgan County residents have always complained vociferously about local immigrants (not necessarily race-specific) using their schools and social services but I have YET to see ANY American citizen who lives there, young or old, state that they wanted to work in any of these agricultural jobs.

http://www.smfws.com/articles2006/2006oc...

In fact, as of 2012, both Weld and neighboring Morgan County's population was comprised of more than 28% and 34%, respectively, "Hispanic or Latino" individuals, much the same as most California counties.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/...

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/...

In fact, 21% of the population of the entire state of CO claims to be of "Hispanic or Latino" origin.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/...

The work at Monfort is very hard, dirty and grueling and workers run equipment which can easily maim or kill them if they are not very careful. They supply a very large amount of restaurant chains across the US (ex: Black Angus).

In spite of all this, what they pay is a very good wage to their employees whose families are using indigent healthcare and other state services.

I don't see American citizens of any race ever wanting these jobs, nor taking them. Most High school graduates who grow up around the area of Monfort go onto college and many leave the area after college graduation to take employment elsewhere. There are a handful of GREAT universities in and within 35 miles of Greeley, CO.

Submitted by no_such_reality on August 22, 2013 - 5:08pm.

At what wage would American workers start to take those jobs?

How much of that 29% turnover is due to the job paying $12 and having 3X the risk of injury of San Diego police officer?

How much does recruiting 29% of your work force a year cost?

How much does that turnover affect the injury rate?

how much does that injury drive their worker's comp and insurance through the roof?

Americans don't want those jobs because they know they don't pay well and they are brutally hard. CO minimum wage is $7.78/hr. The slaughter house is an assembly line and the human cogs in it are driven as fast as they can.

When I read the efforts the business is going through is like reading about a person driving an 15 minutes out of their way to save 2 cents a gallon on gas in car with a ten gallon tank.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 22, 2013 - 5:34pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
At what wage would American workers start to take those jobs?

How much of that 29% turnover is due to the job paying $12 and having 3X the risk of injury of San Diego police officer?

How much does recruiting 29% of your work force a year cost?

How much does that turnover affect the injury rate?

how much does that injury drive their worker's comp and insurance through the roof?

Americans don't want those jobs because they know they don't pay well and they are brutally hard. CO minimum wage is $7.78/hr. The slaughter house is an assembly line and the human cogs in it are driven as fast as they can.

When I read the efforts the business is going through is like reading about a person driving an 15 minutes out of their way to save 2 cents a gallon on gas in car with a ten gallon tank.

I understand everything you're saying here, NSR. I'm not even sure Americans would take these jobs if they paid $15 or $18 hr. These employees can rent old farmhouses cheaply and easily get 12 people in there for <<$400 mo. Americans don't want those either because they are all situated out on Weld County Roads (WCR-#), most of them dirt or gravel and within smelling distance of the plant. With 1-3 workers per hsld and their assorted other relatives and children living with them and getting EBT, Medicaid and indigent health coverage, and other social services, these families are making out okay. Really .... they ARE! My friend in Eaton works for a social service agency in Greeley that serves a good portion of this population. They even have "free" dental care available at their clinic. I personally toured the clinic and was amazed at the (very expensive and state-of-the-art) medical and dental equipment they had - all paid for by well-heeled longtime locals' donations. The Weld and Morgan County school districts have been serving this particular population for more than 50 years. The wheel has been invented. It's all good ... I guess :=]

Submitted by SK in CV on August 22, 2013 - 6:00pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

I understand everything you're saying here, NSR. I'm not even sure Americans would take these jobs if they paid $15 or $18 hr. These employees can rent old farmhouses cheaply and easily get 12 people in there for <<$400 mo. Americans don't want those either because they are all situated out on Weld County Roads (WCR-#), most of them dirt or gravel and within smelling distance of the plant. With 1-3 workers per hsld and their assorted other relatives and children living with them and getting EBT, Medicaid and indigent health coverage, and other social services, these families are making out okay. Really .... they ARE! My friend in Eaton works for a social service agency in Greeley that serves a good portion of this population. They even have "free" dental care available at their clinic. I personally toured the clinic and was amazed at the (very expensive and state-of-the-art) medical and dental equipment they had - all paid for by well-heeled longtime locals' donations. The Weld and Morgan County school districts have been serving this particular population for more than 50 years. The wheel has been invented. It's all good ... I guess :=]

BG, do you think maybe the possibility exists that living in an old farmhouse with 11 other people isn't their first choice in how to live? Maybe, if their employer paid them 25% more, there would be much less turnover, they'd save recruiting and training costs, and their employees wouldn't have to live 12 people to a house. They might even have enough income so that don't need SNAP or Medicaid. And the employer would probably decrease their costs.

The short-sightedness of some business operators is truly mind-numbing.

Submitted by no_such_reality on August 22, 2013 - 6:46pm.

SK in CV wrote:
Maybe, if their employer paid them 25% more, there would be much less turnover, they'd save recruiting and training costs, and their employees wouldn't have to live 12 people to a house. They might even have enough income so that don't need SNAP or Medicaid. And the employer would probably decrease their costs.

The short-sightedness of some business operators is truly mind-numbing.

Yes, that's my point. Are they that short sighted? That incompetent? Oblivious, like the person driving around ten minutes trying to save a couple cents a gallon on gas? Or are they that cynical and jaded and they've actually run the numbers?

I really don't think they've run the numbers. Other than the most basic, if we increase wages $1/hr across 3000 employees, that's $6 million a year.

Not stopping to think they're spending $10+ million on new hire training a year. They're spending how much on hiring bonuses? They're spending how many millions on compliance? etc.

They lost a 1/3rd of their staff on the raid. New management's response was a massive media campaign, newspaper campaign, billboard compaign, pound the pavement town visit campaign, refugee hiring campaign, hiring bonuses, rework the operations to support multiple languages to replace ~600 workers and then expand another 1000.

All that instead of saying "hey, let's try $2/hr more, it's only $6 million and maybe it'll slow down our $12 million new hire training expenses due to attrition and cut down on our 6% injury rate".

Submitted by SK in CV on August 22, 2013 - 6:58pm.

no_such_reality wrote:

Yes, that's my point. Are they that short sighted? That incompetent? Oblivious, like the person driving around ten minutes trying to save a couple cents a gallon on gas? Or are they that cynical and jaded and they've actually run the numbers?

I really don't think they've run the numbers. Other than the most basic, if we increase wages $1/hr across 3000 employees, that's $6 million a year.

Not stopping to think they're spending $10+ million on new hire training a year. They're spending how much on hiring bonuses? They're spending how many millions on compliance? etc.

They lost a 1/3rd of their staff on the raid. New management's response was a massive media campaign, newspaper campaign, billboard compaign, pound the pavement town visit campaign, refugee hiring campaign, hiring bonuses, rework the operations to support multiple languages to replace ~600 workers and then expand another 1000.

All that instead of saying "hey, let's try $2/hr more, it's only $6 million and maybe it'll slow down our $12 million new hire training expenses due to attrition".

Yes, I think they are that short-sighted. Compare the business models of Costco and Walmart.

Costco (and Price Club before them) employees are well paid, well above the average for retail. They offer benefits that even some much higher end employers don't offer, and their employees love working for them and stick around a long time. They're loyal. As are their customers, because we know we will almost always be treated well when we walk into one of their stores.

Compare that to Walmart, where employees are paid at the bottom of the retail scale, are horribly unhappy as a whole, they have high turnover, they cut hours leaving their shelves unstocked. And who would be the biggest beneficiary of jacking up the minimum wage across the country? Walmart. And who vociferously objects to raising the minimum wage? That would be the biggest welfare recipient in the country, Walmart.

I read somewhere over the last couple days that 10 cents of every retail dollar spent in this country is spent at Walmart. That number seems really high to me, but if it's true, it can only mean that an extra $2 or $3 an hour in low paid workers pockets will end up as Walmart revenue, because it's not the people making $100K a year spending all their money at Walmart.

Have they run the numbers? I'm sure they have. But it doesn't fit into their budgets. The recruiting costs are off-budget. The lost revenue from empty shelves is off-budget. Employee turnover is off-budget. But direct employee costs are on budget, and management can be held accountable when that goes up. So they ignore the effects to the bottom line, and maintain a staff that qualifies for public assistance, living at poverty levels. And tell them to take a 2nd job to make ends meet.

They really are that short-sighted.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 22, 2013 - 9:46pm.

SK in CV wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

I understand everything you're saying here, NSR. I'm not even sure Americans would take these jobs if they paid $15 or $18 hr. These employees can rent old farmhouses cheaply and easily get 12 people in there for <<$400 mo. Americans don't want those either because they are all situated out on Weld County Roads (WCR-#), most of them dirt or gravel and within smelling distance of the plant. With 1-3 workers per hsld and their assorted other relatives and children living with them and getting EBT, Medicaid and indigent health coverage, and other social services, these families are making out okay. Really .... they ARE! My friend in Eaton works for a social service agency in Greeley that serves a good portion of this population. They even have "free" dental care available at their clinic. I personally toured the clinic and was amazed at the (very expensive and state-of-the-art) medical and dental equipment they had - all paid for by well-heeled longtime locals' donations. The Weld and Morgan County school districts have been serving this particular population for more than 50 years. The wheel has been invented. It's all good ... I guess :=]

BG, do you think maybe the possibility exists that living in an old farmhouse with 11 other people isn't their first choice in how to live? Maybe, if their employer paid them 25% more, there would be much less turnover, they'd save recruiting and training costs, and their employees wouldn't have to live 12 people to a house. They might even have enough income so that don't need SNAP or Medicaid. And the employer would probably decrease their costs.

The short-sightedness of some business operators is truly mind-numbing.

SK, it probably isn't their first choice, but these (rural) farmhouses, for the most part, are 75+ yo 1500-2500 sf homes which have long dirt driveways and may or may not have a detached garage. Due to the roads they sit on, they can be very dusty inside. Many of these workers also live in Greeley (abt 7.5 mi west of the plant). Greeley has many 90+ yr old largish houses in wildly varying states of condition on its east side which have full (finished) basements. I'm sure the rent is higher there (than Kersey) but these renters would live in close proximity to more public services, including public transportation.

I think these (agricultural employers') mindset is just a permanent cramdown in wages because they can get away with it with this particular population! A dollar or two an hour here and there leads to future raises based upon percentages and also higher payroll taxes.

The exact same thing has been happening over the years with Tyson (pork processing plants) in the states of AR and IA.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/usa0105/...

http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpres...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postville_Raid

http://www.theworld.org/2011/12/storm-la...

...Workforce

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor reported 146,400 workers employed in the meat packing industry, of which 128,100 were production workers. In the food industry as a whole, meat packing and processing is the largest employer.

As a result of the need to keep expenses low, the meat packing industry has been a longtime opponent of workers' unions and paid well below the national average. Employing recent immigrants has become standard practice. According to David Bacon in The American Prospect, "Today, Spanish is the language on the floor of almost every plant. Most workers come from Mexico, with smaller numbers from Central America. Refugees from Bosnia, Vietnam, and even the Sudan are a growing presence in some areas, but the vast majority of meatpacking workers are Latinos." During the late 1990s and early 2000s, the meat packing industry received negative publicity for its employment of illegal aliens, as well as its dangerous and low-paying working conditions.

Meat packing also is a highly labor-intensive industry, and a large majority of the total employees (84 percent) were production workers, compared to 72 percent in all food preparation sectors and 67 percent in all manufacturing industries. Because of the industry's low wages and demanding working conditions, employee turnover remains high...

http://business.highbeam.com/industry-re...

And the 1300 undocumented workers found in the 2006 INS raid in the OP were actually based in six states:

In 2002, Swift & Company was purchased by Hicks Muse Tate & Furst, a leading, Dallas-based private equity firm, and Booth Creek Management.

In December 2006, six of the company’s meat-packing facilities in Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Iowa, and Minnesota were raided by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, resulting in the apprehension of 1,282 illegal aliens from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Peru, Laos, Sudan, and Ethiopia, and nearly 200 of them criminally charged after a ten month investigation into identity theft...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBS_USA

FYI, in 1993, the INS "set up shop" along with the DEA and NTF in a group of nondescript permanently-skirted trailers just west of Brush, CO (Morgan Co). At that time, this (I-76) corridor was discovered to be a BIG illegal drug-trafficking artery.

SK, if you are a meat-eater, would you be willing to pay $35-$40 (as opposed to $20-$28) for your steak dinner out in order to subsidize better wages for US meat processing/packing-industry employees?

Submitted by SK in CV on August 22, 2013 - 10:02pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

SK, if you are a meat-eater, would you be willing to pay $35-$40 (as opposed to $20-$28) for your steak dinner out in order to subsidize better wages for US meat processing/packing-industry employees?

If it lowered their total costs, why would prices rise by 40 to 75%? Beyond that, there is no chance that raising wages by even $5 an hour should raise retail prices that much, even if all other costs remained the same. Low level meet handlers process hundreds of lbs of meat per hour.

And I don't think I've had a $28 steak dinner in a restaurant in my life. Probably been a decade since I've had a steak dinner at any price in a restaurant. I make it a lot better at home for a lot cheaper.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 23, 2013 - 7:59am.

I remember reading some guy ran the numbers and a big mac meal would need to go up about a dollar to make up the cost if the wages went from current about $8.00 to $15 an hour.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor...

I think I could live with that.

Submitted by dumbrenter on August 23, 2013 - 8:07am.

SK in CV wrote:

BG, do you think maybe the possibility exists that living in an old farmhouse with 11 other people isn't their first choice in how to live? Maybe, if their employer paid them 25% more, there would be much less turnover, they'd save recruiting and training costs, and their employees wouldn't have to live 12 people to a house..

Hard to say if that is their first choice, but we know for sure that living with 11 other people in CO farmhouse definitely ranks above the standard of living where they came from.
Nobody force marched them to CO.
It is a set of rational people making rational choices, they are dealt a bad hand in life and by their place of birth and they are making the best of the set of choices available to them.

Maybe if their employer paid 25% more, they'd buy more Tequila or bling or send some via western union back home. What makes you think they will move out to say 8/farmhouse just because the wages went up?

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 23, 2013 - 8:15am.

Ummm Shoveler as Forbes points out, actually, is that the price of the meal may not move at all.

McDonalds would simply find out a way to keep the overall labor costs the same. They would pay the workers 15 bucks an hour and then reduce the workforce by the same amount through automation.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 23, 2013 - 8:44am.

dumbrenter wrote:
Maybe if their employer paid 25% more, they'd buy more Tequila or bling or send some via western union back home. What makes you think they will move out to say 8/farmhouse just because the wages went up?

Because I think they're probably just like you and me. If they're married with children, they want a home with their spouse and kids, not a farmhouse with 8 other people they didn't know from adam's cat when they moved in. If they're single and over 25, they probably don't want to live with more than a single roommate or two. If they're immigrants, I doubt they moved here to live in similar conditions as where they came from, but better. Would you buy bling and tequila with your 25% raise? That would never be on my radar. Why would you even consider that an option for these workers?

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 23, 2013 - 9:02am.

SD Realtor wrote:
Ummm Shoveler as Forbes points out, actually, is that the price of the meal may not move at all.

McDonalds would simply find out a way to keep the overall labor costs the same. They would pay the workers 15 bucks an hour and then reduce the workforce by the same amount through automation.

They are going reduce the workforce by automation regardless.

It's going to become cheaper and cheaper to use more and more sophisticated automation very quickly.

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 23, 2013 - 10:17am.

I believe the point of the article is that McDonalds or any other corporate entity will strive to keep labor costs a constant regardless of the wage scale in one way or another.

It is quite likely that a place like McDonalds could have already automated easily but chose not to because the cost may not make sense. Give them a nudge and they might.

It is all about net profit. McDonalds is an example that looses the wage scale battle. As NSR pointed out in his argument about the place in Colorado, paying those employees more makes sense because it saves the company money in the long run due to retention and employee training costs. Thus the company becomes more profitable by doing so. This is a valid argument and makes alot of sense.

If McDonalds can improve the bottom line by paying a guy 15 bucks to flip a burger then it will.

Employees are not entitled to anything. They don't like the pay, they can quit and look for another job.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 23, 2013 - 10:32am.

SD Realtor wrote:

Employees are not entitled to anything. They don't like the pay, they can quit and look for another job.

Are you entitled to a commission when you sell a house?

Submitted by livinincali on August 23, 2013 - 10:35am.

SD Realtor wrote:

It is all about net profit. McDonalds is an example that looses the wage scale battle. As NSR pointed out in his argument about the place in Colorado, paying those employees more makes sense because it saves the company money in the long run due to retention and employee training costs. Thus the company becomes more profitable by doing so. This is a valid argument and makes alot of sense.

In this particular example of the meat packing facility it looks like there's an actual shortage of labor. If you do indeed have an actual shortage of labor the first response might be to market or expand recruiting operations, but if that doesn't work the next step would be to raise the wages. At some point these facilities will have to come up with a solution whether it's automation, raising salaries, or increasing the total compensation package for the employees.

McDonald's doesn't seem to have a labor shortage. In a certain locations like Aspen, CO maybe they do and are forced to pay employees more and charge higher prices, I don;t know but it wouldn't surprise me. Of course in most cities there's plenty of low skilled labor available just looking for a part time job to get some discretionary income. They aren't trying to raise a family on a single minimum wage job.

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 23, 2013 - 11:03am.

No I am not entitled to anything. Commissions are negotiable in the state of California. People employ me at the rate I promise to them. They are free to choose whoever they want to work with.

Funny how that works isn't it? Just like someone is free to work for McDonalds or not.

Sorry about your snarky comment not working out.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 23, 2013 - 11:08am.

SD Realtor wrote:
No I am not entitled to anything. Commissions are negotiable in the state of California. People employ me at the rate I promise to them. They are free to choose whoever they want to work with.

Funny how that works isn't it? Just like someone is free to work for McDonalds or not.

Sorry about your snarky comment not working out.

It worked out fine. You say you're not entitled, but then want to get paid based on an agreed upon commission. I think you're entitled to that. Exactly the same as McDonald's employees are entitled to get the pay they're promised.

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 23, 2013 - 11:23am.

Nobody is entitled to anything. Payment for services is set by the marketplace. At least for the most part in free markets. Consumers shop the marketplace for the goods and services. They make the purchase based on the quality/price of the product, it is a sliding scale. Similarly employees are free to shop the marketplace to find employment. The salary they receive is set by the employer. The salary is not arbitrary. It is determined by the skills needed for the job, the cost of that labor to the employer, and other factors that the employer takes into account.

The salary has NOTHING to do with the employee being able to provide for his family. The employee is not ENTITLED to receive a salary that can support his family. He is ENTITLED to search for a job that can do that.

It should not be an encumbrance upon the employer.

*******************************************************

In fact, the standard listing agreement for the state of California states that the brokerage is under the employ of the principle. The rate of payment is negotiable. It has nothing to do with whether that will be enough to support my family.

My gosh....

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 23, 2013 - 11:27am.

Very interesting older article of the history of the plant.

http://www.answers.com/topic/monfort-inc

Monfort WAS unionized up until about 1994, when they paid out $10.6M in back wages for hiring scabs during and after a long strike by their workers and then shutting down for two years in effort to break the union's hold.

During the unionized employees' tenure, the plant developed several innovative meat processing procedures. From 1987 thru 1994, Monfort was mired in ULPs and the resulting lawsuits as well as a lawsuit they filed themselves alleging monopolies. They were also victims of a large recall for an e-coli outbreak in their hamburger (they themselves invented the testing procedure), big fines for DOT violations, a shortage of grain due to the PTB sending too much abroad, changing consumer tastes and unfair monopolies by other regional meat packers. The subsequent consolidations and buyouts apparently ended up crushing the union's hold on the workers, which were constantly being replaced. But not before Ken Monfort (son of founder Warren Monfort) passed and left his two sons a fortune. They now own the Colorado Rockies baseball team and other businesses and are also well-known philanthropists.

http://extras.denverpost.com/business/bi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monfort_bro...

So Monfort apparently DID have well-paying local jobs with benefits for nearly 40 years (1955-1994).

And the phenomenon we are now experiencing with no loyalty and high turnover amongst employees is just what today's Big Business and Government want. They're not looking for high levels of skill or "institutional knowledge" anymore. Most of today's employers just want "warm bodies" doing "face time." And that is what they have :=0

You get what you pay for.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 23, 2013 - 11:30am.

They have wage riots in China all the time, we just don't hear about them.

Coming soon to a city near you!

The only thing that has stopped it so far is welfare

Anyway just my opinion.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 23, 2013 - 11:35am.

SD Realtor wrote:
Nobody is entitled to anything. Payment for services is set by the marketplace. At least for the most part in free markets. Consumers shop the marketplace for the goods and services. They make the purchase based on the quality/price of the product, it is a sliding scale. Similarly employees are free to shop the marketplace to find employment. The salary they receive is set by the employer. The salary is not arbitrary. It is determined by the skills needed for the job, the cost of that labor to the employer, and other factors that the employer takes into account.

The salary has NOTHING to do with the employee being able to provide for his family. The employee is not ENTITLED to receive a salary that can support his family. He is ENTITLED to search for a job that can do that.

It should not be an encumbrance upon the employer.

*******************************************************

In fact, the standard listing agreement for the state of California states that the brokerage is under the employ of the principle. The rate of payment is negotiable. It has nothing to do with whether that will be enough to support my family.

My gosh....

Nice straw man argument. I never made any argument that pay should be enough to support a family. Only that employees are entitled to their agreed upon pay. Exactly the same as you are entitled to your agreed upon pay. And under the law, both are entitlements.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 23, 2013 - 11:50am.

If it were not for food-stamps and medi-Cal the walmart and mcd's workers would have been throwing stones a long time ago.

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 23, 2013 - 11:55am.

Throwing stones? At what? Why?

Tell me, when did Walmart and McDonalds hold a gun to peoples heads to work there?

What about the 7 Elevens? What about every employer who pays a salary in that range?

*************

So you are saying people should get paid on what their bills are and not what the employer offers as a salary?

That is quite a concept.
*********************************************************

SK the thread has nothing to do with fulfilling a contract (ie - the employer paying the wage that he/she is obligated under an employment contract) It has to do with an employer paying low wages and the poster pointed out that paying higher wages may help this particular employer due to longer retention.

Yes I, and anyone else who enters into a contract is entitled to receive compensation under the terms of the contract. However the terms of the contract are not set by the needs of the employee. Sorry you were confused by the point of the thread.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on August 23, 2013 - 12:01pm.

When you are working and you can't feed and get medicine for your kid's

Well you will throw a stone at something.
The only thing that has prevented it so far is food stamps and Medi-Cal.

Submitted by livinincali on August 23, 2013 - 12:09pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
If it were not for food-stamps and medi-Cal the walmart and mcd's workers would have been throwing stones a long time ago.

Why must we constantly insist that every job in America must pay a wage that allows someone to support themselves living alone or even better a family. There's plenty of zero skill labor in America that wants to work part time for discretionary income and experience. There's plenty of businesses that want to hire those people. Those businesses don't seem to be experiencing any shortages of labor because there's plenty of people in households that do not need to be the sole breadwinner.

Why do we constantly insist on trying to tell everybody else what to do. Lets force businesses to pay more for employees and when they cut/replace employees then we can argue about how it's a good idea to force businesses to hire employees. You're never going to win this game via forced government policy because every step you take makes it harder for an employer to employee people. You worry that McDonald's might make too much money but you have no consideration for how much harder you just made it for Joe the Pizza guy to start his 2nd restaurant.

Submitted by SK in CV on August 23, 2013 - 12:10pm.

No SDR, I wasn't the least bit confused about anything in this thread. You were the one that said employees aren't entitled to their pay. You were the first to bring up the issue of pay relating to taking care of a family. You are now the one that is arguing that the terms of a contract should not be set by the needs of an employee, when neither I nor anyone else in this thread ever claimed it was an issue.

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 23, 2013 - 12:12pm.

Your not having enough for food and medicine is not their fault. For every honest hard working poor person that you are depicting here, there are others who are drug addicts, junkies, and slackers who are in the same boat and enjoying those same government benefits.

The bottom line is that medicare, and food stamps are exactly the situation that you have described. It is not the responsibility of Walmart or McDonalds.

My wife employs people and so do I. We don't pay them based on their needs. Neither should any corporation.

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 23, 2013 - 12:14pm.

Seems like everyone who was reading the thread knew exactly what I was talking about and the point I was making SK. Only you were the one who was confused. Hopefully you now understand and are up to speed.

Submitted by bearishgurl on August 23, 2013 - 12:17pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
When you are working and you can't feed and get medicine for your kid's

Well you will throw a stone at something.
The only thing that has prevented it so far is food stamps and Medi-Cal.

Shoveler, it's not just EBT/WIC and Medicaid/CICP. The CO meat plant workers also have access to limited free dental care, college scholarships based upon need, free maternity and well-baby care, free delivery services provided by local midwives and birthing centers, free counseling, free STD testing and free diabetes tests, among an array of other esoteric goods and services geared to this population.

The above services are all donated by private organizations and individuals.

It seems the local well-heeled cohort value this population and don't want to see them on the street. Many of them undoubtedly grew up in rural farm homes themselves and KNOW FULL WELL how hard the work is in the plant.

Most of them now enjoy their full freezers in the garage stacked with a variety of home-grown meat, cut just the way they like it ... as they ALWAYS have. They have l-o-o-o-ong memories and for this, they are grateful :=]

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.