Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: Donna Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 15:36 > From: zwart geld <michaelnewport(a)yahoo.com> > Organization: http://groups.google.com > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:38:06 -0800 (PST) > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > On Jan 29, 2:08�pm, Donna Evleth <devl...(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: >>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>> <tribuyltinafp...(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to >>> those who �come after us. >>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:39:12 +0000 >>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >> >>> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote: >> >>>> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: >> >>>>> Gregory Morrow wrote: >>>>>> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: >> >>>>>> In the case >>>>>> of Borders the employees are not even told when this is going go to >>>>>> happen, >>>>>> and it's a condition of their employment that they not tell *anyone* when >>>>>> it >>>>>> does happen... >> >>>>> Frankly, I'd make it legal to access these materials in the >>>>> dumpsters. >> >>>> But they shouldn't reach the dumpsters at all! �With so many people in >>>> the world starving (even in "developed" countries), unwanted food should >>>> be made available to any who need it! >> >>> I think that food is often donated. I was more thinking of >>> supposedly unusable electronics or whatever. It amazes me what >>> people toss out. >> >>>>>> OTOH a number of food stores or restos will donate their over-stock or >>>>>> whatever to food pantries and charities...and OTOH some forbid this >>>>>> absolutely. >> >>>>> What I'm saying is that if this stuff matters to you, go to the >>>>> place that isn't wasteful. >> >>>> That's probably why the perpetrators don't make their actions public! >>>> Those of us who grew up during the Great Depression were taught not to >>>> waste food - meaning we ate what we were given, even if we disliked the >>>> items served. �Most American restaurants - although the portions may be >>>> over-generous - will provide a "doggy bag" for your leftovers, upon >>>> request. �I suspect that, in most cases, the "dog" never sees them - >>>> they provide the customer's next-day lunch. >> >>> That's a good thing, although Earl has some sort of problem with >>> it. >> >> The "doggy bag" has a down side. �If you are a tourist traveling from place >> to place you cannot take advantage of it. �Most motel rooms have neither >> refrigerators in which to store the left over food, nor microwaves in which >> to reheat it. �This is almost always our situation. �So the food is sent >> back to be wasted. >> >> BTW, I have also noticed that the doggy bag, once brought home, can get >> shoved to the back of the refrigerator, not eaten for the next day's lunch, >> eventually going bad and getting thrown out. �I have seen this problem at >> the home of a relative. >> >> Donna Evleth > > ...buy a dog I already have a dog, who went out to dinner with us here in France this very evening. She enjoyed what we did not eat (which was not much, because portions are reasonable here). She is our fourth dog. All of our dogs have enjoyed being the dog at the restaurant who comes well before the "doggy bag". Donna Evleth
From: Donna Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 15:38 > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to > those who come after us. > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:38:28 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > John Rennie wrote: >> >> Earl Evleth wrote: >>> On 28/01/10 21:11, in article hjsr1k0uv9(a)news5.newsguy.com, >>> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> She was a bit startled when I pointed out that >>>> she would not be able to use her electric typewriter, either. (She >>>> worked at home, typing scripts for free-lance screen-writers!) >>> >>> >>> Reminds me, we still have ours. An IBM selectric, which had a correcting >>> tape, a big thing at the time. It is down stairs in the cave. >>> >>> We had it with a French key board since generally the French keyboard is a >>> bit more universal than the American. The only problem is that several of >>> the letters are in different location, but when typing I can switch over >>> from the English to the French sequence in a minute or so. I only type using >>> the French sequence. Occasionally the Mac switches over without my noticing >>> until I hit the "m" or "a", or whatever. >>> >>> >> Blah, blah, blah. You did your best to miss the point, Earl. >> The lady possessed an IQ of 160 (snipped by you) and yet was >> quite dumb. >> > IQ might not measure your knowledge of which products you own use > mains power, I'm suspecting. Please explain this sentence. Donna Evleth > > > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said.
From: Donna Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 15:40 > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to > those who come after us. > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:43:50 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > Michael wrote: >> >> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) wrote: >>> >>> Donna Evleth wrote: >>>>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>>>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave >>>>> to >>>>> those who come after us. >>>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>>>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:04:25 +0000 >>>>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "tim...." wrote: >>>>>> "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>> news:4B604C46.808AB2A7(a)yahoo.co.uk... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The situation is different where the individual's job is to "dispense" >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> food as they could have some influence on deciding what is to be thrown >>>>>>>> away. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> If they want to fire someone for eating food, >>>>>> The charge is theft. >>>>>> >>>>> The problem is that if someone is going to be thrown away, then the >>>>> owner has abandoned it and *by defntion&* taking it cannot >>>>> logically be "theft". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> this seems like it >>>>>>> might make a good Victor Hugo novel, they aren't going to have a >>>>>>> workplace that is very positive for employees. And this won't get >>>>>>> the employees looking for ways to improve service or cut costs or >>>>>>> both. So I think it's a big mistake. But it's within the rights of >>>>>>> the employer absent a contact stating otherwise. >>>>>> Exactly. Usually this particular reason is used to get rid of someone >>>>>> that >>>>>> they want to be rid of, but can't find another way. >>>>>> >>>>> So you are essentially admitting that companies end up firing the >>>>> people they need to fire, there's just an additional cost and >>>>> effort, more involvement by the courts. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Which is why I am surprised by the secretary case. In the UK, employers >>>>>> have to treat everyone the same. You can't decide to sack someone for >>>>>> eating the left over food from a meeting, if it is "custom and practice" >>>>>> for >>>>>> that to happen. IME it is the norm for this to happen. >>>>>> >>>>> My point is that "at will" just means that the employer can fire >>>>> you if the employer doesn't want to employ you anymore. That lowers >>>>> the cost to employing people and makes it more efficient. The >>>>> problem is that people might worry about being fired easily, >>>>> although it might also make employers and employees have a better >>>>> and more open and honest relationship than exists when the entire >>>>> thing is based on taking each other to court all the time. >>>> What a bunch of horse puckey. If people are constantly worried about being >>>> fired for some ridiculous trivia, they are not going to have a "more open >>>> and honest" relationship with their employer. >>>> >>> Why would they have to worry about that if they had an honest and >>> open relationship with their employer? >>> >> It's neither honest nor open if the boss can fire you on a whim, >> > You can also quit on a whim. It kind of evens out. > > >> which >> is what I'd say it was in this case. It's dictatorial and random. I've >> > This comes down to whether or not you are owed a job by your > employer. If you have a contract, that contract should largely be > enforced. If you were hired "at will", then you can be let go "at > will". > > > >> seen it happen in restaurants, where the boss decides he wants to change >> the team and they are fired on the spot. It doesn't do wonders for >> morale for those remaining, I can tell you. They leave at the first >> opportunity, figuring it's better to control your departure than have it >> drop out of the blue. >> > So firing people on a whim isn't sensible business policy? The fact > that you can do that doesn't mean you should. But if you consider it "sensible business policy" then of course you should. That is basically what you are saying. Donna Evleth > > > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said.
From: Donna Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 15:43 > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to > those who come after us. > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:46:29 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > Donna Evleth wrote: >> >>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to >>> those who come after us. >>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:09:55 +0000 >>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >>> >>> >>> >>> Donna Evleth wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>>>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave >>>>> to >>>>> those who come after us. >>>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>>>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:17:26 +0000 >>>>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Donna Evleth wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>>>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>>>>>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we >>>>>>> leave >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> those who come after us. >>>>>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>>>>>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:44:01 +0000 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "tim...." wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Gregory Morrow" <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:AJqdnURCYeG8uP3WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >>>>>>>>> Earl Evleth wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/10 12:19, in article >>>>>>>>>> DsCdnWI0k5Crgv3WnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "Gregory Morrow" >>>>>>>>>> <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But the court said in its written judgement: "The dismissal was too >>>>>>>>>>> severe a measure. It is just a slice of cheese," reports AFP news >>>>>>>>>>> agency. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A reprimand was more in order. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Drastic treatment of workers is a hallmark of modern, >>>>>>>>>> profits-are-everything Capitalism. Basically >>>>>>>>>> terrorize the workers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To repeat, Capitalism has no social goals, it lacks >>>>>>>>>> human empathy. It ranks with Fascism in that regard. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This kerfuffle is something I'd expect in the US, not in the EU where >>>>>>>>> worker - protection laws are stronger... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When you have courts that enforce employment rights properly, >>>>>>>> individually, >>>>>>>> you don't need to belong to a union. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is in the contract? If there are rules for firing, then those >>>>>>> rules must be followed. If the work is at will, then the employer >>>>>>> should be able to fire the worker for any reason or no reason at >>>>>>> all. Regarding unions, they are a form of collusion which >>>>>>> interferes with the market. This is no different from any sort of >>>>>>> monopoly and should be limited. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kook alert. >>>>>> >>>>> Have you repeatedly refuted this comment? No. The comment is also >>>>> obviously true, unions are often monopolies. Consider the United >>>>> Auto Workers. Not only are they a monopoly against a single >>>>> company, they are a monopoly against most of an industry in a large >>>>> country. This allows the extortion I was talking about. >>>>> >>>>> Consider that the ploy unions used to raise their wages was to >>>>> strike *one* company in the industry. They told that company, and >>>>> not the others, that if it didn't cave in and give them the money >>>>> they wanted, they would strike it and only it until it was >>>>> destroyed. They wouldn't strike the other companies in the >>>>> industry, they'd let them continue to produce at the lower wage >>>>> rates. Who could withstand that? Now GM is bankrupt. >>>> >>>> There are a few other unions besides the Auto Workers. Are you claiming >>>> that this one example is the norm for all? >>>> >>> There is usually one main union in an industry. Or even across wide >>> swaths of the economy, the AFL-CIO. >>> >>> >>> >>>> BTW, the auto industry in Detroit had a few other problems besides the >>>> union. >>>> >>> Sure, but the cost of labour, including the many gold plated >>> benefits demanded, created a situation where, for example, small >>> low profit margin cars could not be built in the US. This helped to >>> push American car makers towards large trucks and SUVs, where >>> margins could pay for the benefits and high wages. Then the gas >>> prices went up. >> >> I seem to remember that one of the reasons American auto makers built large >> trucks and SUVs was because that was what the buyers wanted. When they >> tried smaller models, they did not sell well enough. This had nothing to do >> with cost of labour, it was market forces. >> > Wrong. Small cars have always sold. But they have lower margins and > Americans car makers couldn't compete. Why not? There was a lot of demand, and those demanding bought the foreign imports. Weren't the imports taxed? And if they were, why couldn't the American car makers compete? I do not believe that *the Unions* were the sole reason. Donna Evleth > > > > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said.
From: Donna Evleth on 29 Jan 2010 15:48
> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" > <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to > those who come after us. > Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:48:43 +0000 > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... > > > > Donna Evleth wrote: >> >>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to >>> those who come after us. >>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:16:41 +0000 >>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >>> >>> >>> >>> Donna Evleth wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>>>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave >>>>> to >>>>> those who come after us. >>>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>>>> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:11:00 +0000 >>>>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Donna Evleth wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>>>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>>>>>> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we >>>>>>> leave >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> those who come after us. >>>>>>> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe,alt.activism.death-penalty >>>>>>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:10:58 +0000 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "tim...." wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" >>>>>>>> <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:4B603511.C9863FF9(a)yahoo.co.uk... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "tim...." wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Gregory Morrow" <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:AJqdnURCYeG8uP3WnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >>>>>>>>>>> Earl Evleth wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/01/10 12:19, in article >>>>>>>>>>>> DsCdnWI0k5Crgv3WnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "Gregory Morrow" >>>>>>>>>>>> <rrrrrrrrrorrr(a)rrrnrjj.fi> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But the court said in its written judgement: "The dismissal was >>>>>>>>>>>>> too >>>>>>>>>>>>> severe a measure. It is just a slice of cheese," reports AFP news >>>>>>>>>>>>> agency. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A reprimand was more in order. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Drastic treatment of workers is a hallmark of modern, >>>>>>>>>>>> profits-are-everything Capitalism. Basically >>>>>>>>>>>> terrorize the workers. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To repeat, Capitalism has no social goals, it lacks >>>>>>>>>>>> human empathy. It ranks with Fascism in that regard. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This kerfuffle is something I'd expect in the US, not in the EU >>>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>>> worker - protection laws are stronger... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if this Dutch McDo's worker belonged to a union...??? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When you have courts that enforce employment rights properly, >>>>>>>>>> individually, >>>>>>>>>> you don't need to belong to a union. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is in the contract? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The contract will be based upon the national law. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> There may or may not be a form employment contract. Under the >>>>>>> freedom to contract doctrine, generally people can define their >>>>>>> contracts as they see fit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If there are rules for firing, then those >>>>>>>>> rules must be followed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem is that those rules will allow firing for an offence, the >>>>>>>> severity of which is subjective. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> That sort of contract is just asking for the court to become >>>>>>> involved. The problem with "firing" is that the person goes to get >>>>>>> another job and they have to explain that they were "fired". If >>>>>>> they were "laid off" or something like that, that would be >>>>>>> different. So "firing" is beyond just at will employment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is common for managers to over rate the >>>>>>>> severity of any particular offence for their own purposes. Thus the >>>>>>>> courts >>>>>>>> are there to reverse the decision if the manager gets it wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is that the employer should have the right to lay off >>>>>>> employees as he sees fit within whatever rules the contract >>>>>>> defines. Generally I would side with the employer on this because >>>>>>> no one should be forced to continue to employ someone against their >>>>>>> will. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the work is at will, then the employer >>>>>>>>> should be able to fire the worker for any reason or no reason at >>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Such contracts are completely banned in most European countries - even >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the UK which has one of the most lax set of employment rights. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The default situation should be that the employer can let people go >>>>>>> for any reason or no reason. Anything else is ridiculous: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment >>>>>>> #begin quote >>>>>>> At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an >>>>>>> employment relationship in which either party can break the >>>>>>> relationship with no liability, provided there was no express >>>>>>> contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship >>>>>>> and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargain >>>>>>> (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine: >>>>>>> � any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is >>>>>>> free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no >>>>>>> cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or >>>>>>> otherwise cease work.[1] >>>>>>> #end quote >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regarding unions, they are a form of collusion which >>>>>>>>> interferes with the market. This is no different from any sort of >>>>>>>>> monopoly and should be limited. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is (limited). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unions use their monopoly powers to extract wages from employers. >>>>>>> This is anti-competitive, no different to that situation that >>>>>>> Liberals complain about, the company with the monopoly. >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought the employers and the unions bargained, to come up with >>>>>> contracts >>>>>> that both sides could live with. >>>>>> >>>>> Unions are monopolies. I would replace the term "bargain" with >>>>> "extortion". >>>> >>>> Kook alert. This is a rant. Not rational. >>>> >>> What are you taking issue with? >>> >>> 1) Unions are often monopolies in an industry or even across >>> several or many industries. >>> >>> 2) When such a monopoly exists, the union can have the power to >>> require compliance from the company, I've explained this in detail >>> in others posts. >>> >>> 3) If you demand something and the other side has no choice, that >>> isn't a bargain. >>> >>> 4) Whether you think it goes to the point of being "extortion", I >>> think that's worth discussing. >>> >>> 5) So what is "Kook Alerted"? >> >> Your use of the word extortion. This can occur on the side of the employer >> as well. >> > Is the word "kooky" or not? You are now saying that it can occur on > the side of the employer. The way you used it was blatantly biased, and therefore "kooky". > > > >> Some employers like to use illegal immigrant labor because it is >> cheap. The employer demands certain working conditions, sometimes fatiguing >> and/or dangerous, the illegal immigrant employee has no choice but to comply >> if he or she wants to go on working. >> > Or see "Grapes of Wrath". I didn't deny this by not bringing it up > out of the blue. I saw "Grapes of Wrath" in real life, not just "the movie". Or even the book. Real life, in a park in downtown Bakersfield in 1938. BTW, the Okies of the Dust Bowl era were not illegal migrants. > > > >> Employers have been hiring illegal >> immigrants and imposing substandard working conditions for decades. >> Traditionally, the immigrant, if caught, is deported to where he came from, >> little or nothing happens to the employer, who will then turn around and >> hire other illegals. This certainly responds to your point 3 above. >> > It doesn't change what I said from being true to not being true. Everything you say is true, Billy, we all know that by now. Donna Evleth > > > > -- > "Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually > said. |