Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A day without immigrants

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Yes, let's have a day without illegal immigrants.

    Comment


    • #17
      We had a ''day without immigrants'' a few years back... whether legal or illegal I don't know... what I do know is that the freeways were actually free, lines in stores were shorter, and it was generally a peaceful, non-busy day. Quite pleasant. Beyond that, I didn't notice any differences. I was still served everywhere I went, got what I needed, my lawn got mowed (wait, I do that myself)...

      I would agree that many of us would not be against a workable, legal, migrant worker program... I'd even be for changing the current immigration laws to make it easier for profitable immigrants to come into this country. The key, however, is profitable, and would have to employ a very strict vetting process.

      Comment


      • SoCalN8tiv
        SoCalN8tiv commented
        Editing a comment
        Absolutely not!! No more god damn legal worker programs. That's what keeps this shit going in the first place. HELL TO THE EFFIN NO!!!!

    • #18

      #15.7

      DJ4SC commented


      I understand that there are many forms of assistance in the form of welfare, SS, and Medicare etc.

      SS, in my opinion, is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Should be individual trust funds that cannot be touched by the government.

      Medicare should only be available to those seniors who have worked, period but should also be a choice not a forced instrument.

      Welfare recipients should have to work some sort of community service to obtain their assistance.

      We must change the thinking of the populous that they are owed something. They are not. We are self supporting through our own contributions.

      No where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to be a nanny.

      There is nothing better in life than allowing people to work for themselves, not be fed at the teat of the tax payer.

      Actually, you don't seem to understand that there are many forms of assistance; and then, there are transfer costs. SSN and Medicare are not assistance, they are transfer costs. There is a huge difference.

      If you took the time to examine the two aspect of immigration, you might get a better understanding as to how they fit into society. You have the economic and fiscal aspect of immigration that are constantly being confused.

      The economic surplus for immigrants is $50 billion. The wealth transfer effect is $500b. In other words, immigrants produce $50 billion more than they consume and their output creates $500b in corporate earnings. Now, there is a legitimate argument that Trump is exploiting regarding the $500b being lost wages for natives without high school educations. But, as Canada discovered in the meat packing industry, natives won't do the work.

      Thus, before condemning the immigrants you should realize that in 25 SIC groups, immigrants make up the majority of the workforce. Those SIC groups include meatpacking, picking fruit & vegetables, etc. Before you boot all of the immigrants, you might want to find out if natives will fill those jobs at any wage.

      On the fiscal side, immigrants that pay taxes (75% pay taxes), contribute $13b to SSN each year, for which they are not eligible to receive benefits. Also, they contribute a like sum to state and local taxes that do not show up in the CIS studies being conducted.

      The bulk of the social services received by immigrants are in the form of SNAP and Medicaid. The cost to the taxpayer is approximately $35b per year.

      Over the next few months, you will be hearing a lot about dynamic scoring as Trump attempts to pass a tax plan without any cuts in spending. Just remember, the same concept applies to immigration. The economic surplus and welfare effect have a multiplier that benefits the US beyond the surplus and wealth effect provided by immigrants working.

      Finally, Trump has the immigrants in the shadows today. In reading agriculture reports, there is already concern that the agriculture industry is going to experience skyrocketing prices when the contracted seasonal workers can't be found this year. If you believe that Mexicans are going to enter the country under a guest worker program, while families are being ripped apart and mothers deported, you are living in a fantasy world.

      Be careful what you ask for because you are about to get it....

      Comment


      • GaryB
        GaryB commented
        Editing a comment
        denali - Don't let facts get in the way of your story. If 30m helps your narrative, go for it.

      • Jpltrojan
        Jpltrojan commented
        Editing a comment
        Another look at the subject:

        http://www.heritage.org/immigration/...he-us-taxpayer

        Executive Summary

        Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:

        Direct benefits. These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.
        Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
        Public education. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.
        Population-based services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.


        The cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.

        The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. For example, in 2010, in the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that government used to finance benefits for other households.

        Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a “fiscal deficit” that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing. For example, in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113.

        The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education. Half of unlawful immigrant households are headed by an individual with less than a high school degree, and another 25 percent of household heads have only a high school degree.

        Some argue that the deficit figures for poorly educated households in the general population are not relevant for immigrants. Many believe, for example, that lawful immigrants use little welfare. In reality, lawful immigrant households receive significantly more welfare, on average, than U.S.-born households. Overall, the fiscal deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.

        In contrast to lawful immigrants, unlawful immigrants at present do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare. This does not mean, however, that they do not receive government benefits and services. Children in unlawful immigrant households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children; these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And, of course, when unlawful immigrants live in a community, they use roads, parks, sewers, police, and fire protection; these services must expand to cover the added population or there will be “congestion” effects that lead to a decline in service quality.

        In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.

        If enacted, amnesty would be implemented in phases. During the first or interim phase (which is likely to last 13 years), unlawful immigrants would be given lawful status but would be denied access to means-tested welfare and Obamacare. Most analysts assume that roughly half of unlawful immigrants work “off the books” and therefore do not pay income or FICA taxes. During the interim phase, these “off the books” workers would have a strong incentive to move to “on the books” employment. In addition, their wages would likely go up as they sought jobs in a more open environment. As a result, during the interim period, tax payments would rise and the average fiscal deficit among former unlawful immigrant households would fall.

        After 13 years, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and Obamacare. At that point or shortly thereafter, former unlawful immigrant households would likely begin to receive government benefits at the same rate as lawful immigrant households of the same education level. As a result, government spending and fiscal deficits would increase dramatically.

        The final phase of amnesty is retirement. Unlawful immigrants are not currently eligible for Social Security and Medicare, but under amnesty they would become so. The cost of this change would be very large indeed.

        As noted, at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.
        During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.
        At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.
        Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.


        In terms of public policy and government deficits, an important figure is the aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households. This equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.

        Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.
        In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.
        At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.
        In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.


        These costs would have to be borne by already overburdened U.S. taxpayers. (All figures are in 2010 dollars.)

        The typical unlawful immigrant is 34 years old. After amnesty, this individual will receive government benefits, on average, for 50 years. Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only a marginal impact on long-term costs.

        If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.

        Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents who will actually receive amnesty and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.

        The debate about the fiscal consequences of unlawful and low-skill immigration is hampered by a number of misconceptions. Few lawmakers really understand the current size of government and the scope of redistribution. The fact that the average household gets $31,600 in government benefits each year is a shock. The fact that a household headed by an individual with less than a high school degree gets $46,600 is a bigger one.

        Many conservatives believe that if an individual has a job and works hard, he will inevitably be a net tax contributor (paying more in taxes than he takes in benefits). In our society, this has not been true for a very long time. Similarly, many believe that unlawful immigrants work more than other groups. This is also not true. The employment rate for non-elderly adult unlawful immigrants is about the same as it is for the general population.

        Many policymakers also believe that because unlawful immigrants are comparatively young, they will help relieve the fiscal strains of an aging society. Regrettably, this is not true. At every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants, on average, generate fiscal deficits (benefits exceed taxes). Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once generate a “fiscal surplus” that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society. This situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty.

        Many policymakers believe that after amnesty, unlawful immigrants will help make Social Security solvent. It is true that unlawful immigrants currently pay FICA taxes and would pay more after amnesty, but with average earnings of $24,800 per year, the typical unlawful immigrant will pay only about $3,700 per year in FICA taxes. After retirement, that individual is likely to draw more than $3.00 in Social Security and Medicare (adjusted for inflation) for every dollar in FICA taxes he has paid.

        Moreover, taxes and benefits must be viewed holistically. It is a mistake to look at the Social Security trust fund in isolation. If an individual pays $3,700 per year into the Social Security trust fund but simultaneously draws a net $25,000 per year (benefits minus taxes) out of general government revenue, the solvency of government has not improved.

        Following amnesty, the fiscal costs of former unlawful immigrant households will be roughly the same as those of lawful immigrant and non-immigrant households with the same level of education. Because U.S. government policy is highly redistributive, those costs are very large. Those who claim that amnesty will not create a large fiscal burden are simply in a state of denial concerning the underlying redistributional nature of government policy in the 21st century.

        Finally, some argue that it does not matter whether unlawful immigrants create a fiscal deficit of $6.3 trillion because their children will make up for these costs. This is not true. Even if all the children of unlawful immigrants graduated from college, they would be hard-pressed to pay back $6.3 trillion in costs over their lifetimes.

        Of course, not all the children of unlawful immigrants will graduate from college. Data on intergenerational social mobility show that, although the children of unlawful immigrants will have substantially better educational outcomes than their parents, these achievements will have limits. Only 13 percent are likely to graduate from college, for example. Because of this, the children, on average, are not likely to become net tax contributors. The children of unlawful immigrants are likely to remain a net fiscal burden on U.S. taxpayers, although a far smaller burden than their parents.

        A final problem is that unlawful immigration appears to depress the wages of low-skill U.S.-born and lawful immigrant workers by 10 percent, or $2,300, per year. Unlawful immigration also probably drives many of our most vulnerable U.S.-born workers out of the labor force entirely. Unlawful immigration thus makes it harder for the least advantaged U.S. citizens to share in the American dream. This is wrong; public policy should support the interests of those who have a right to be here, not those who have broken our laws.
        Last edited by Jpltrojan; 02-17-2017, 03:31 PM.

      • Jpltrojan
        Jpltrojan commented
        Editing a comment
        "If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes."

        A takeaway from the lengthy article above

    • #19
      Originally posted by IETrojanFan View Post
      We had a ''day without immigrants'' a few years back... whether legal or illegal I don't know... what I do know is that the freeways were actually free, lines in stores were shorter, and it was generally a peaceful, non-busy day. Quite pleasant. Beyond that, I didn't notice any differences. I was still served everywhere I went, got what I needed, my lawn got mowed (wait, I do that myself)...

      .
      Day #2 today and it seems much the same. It's like a disgruntled worker who over-estimates their value and thinks by quitting, "I'll show them". And then they realize that the machine just continues on and they really aren't missed.

      This protest is much like all the others we've seen recently. They start off saying it's about one thing, then it becomes other things, and they have no proof to back up anything they claim to be protesting. The only message coming across is that there are lots of people who just enjoy complaining.

      Case in point...
      .In Seattle, government employee Asha Mohammed is organizing a protest outside Amazon Inc. headquarters.

      Mohammed told NBC News that Amazon was chosen because of a lawsuit filed in October, in which a Syrian Muslim alleged that he was fired after complaining about religious- and ethnic-based harassment at work. But Mohammed said the overarching motivation was opposition to the Trump administration.

      "With this administration, it has really woken up the fears in me. I know what it's like to live in an authoritarian regime," said Mohammed, who came to the United States as a refugee fleeing Somalia."
      So Amazon was chosen because of a lawsuit filed by a Syrian who was alleging discrimination. However,
      the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated Haydar’s concerns, found no violation of law, and dismissed his charge, and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights accepted the EEOC’s decision and also dismissed his complaint.
      I read the issues and Haydar's attorneys claimed that in 3 years, Haydar added "billions" to Amazon's bottom line. Hilarious. He also left behind a trail of complaints and arguments with his immediate supervisors over whether they were qualified to be his boss. I know employees just like Haydar. He's full of it.

      But wait....did Mohammed the protester REALLY just equate our country and our government with Somalia? Just go on back to Somalia and stop whining about the country that let your ass in here in the first place.

      Comment


      • #20
        Originally posted by GaryB View Post

        Actually, you don't seem to understand that there are many forms of assistance; and then, there are transfer costs. SSN and Medicare are not assistance, they are transfer costs. There is a huge difference.

        If you took the time to examine the two aspect of immigration, you might get a better understanding as to how they fit into society. You have the economic and fiscal aspect of immigration that are constantly being confused.

        The economic surplus for immigrants is $50 billion. The wealth transfer effect is $500b. In other words, immigrants produce $50 billion more than they consume and their output creates $500b in corporate earnings. Now, there is a legitimate argument that Trump is exploiting regarding the $500b being lost wages for natives without high school educations. But, as Canada discovered in the meat packing industry, natives won't do the work.

        Thus, before condemning the immigrants you should realize that in 25 SIC groups, immigrants make up the majority of the workforce. Those SIC groups include meatpacking, picking fruit & vegetables, etc. Before you boot all of the immigrants, you might want to find out if natives will fill those jobs at any wage.

        On the fiscal side, immigrants that pay taxes (75% pay taxes), contribute $13b to SSN each year, for which they are not eligible to receive benefits. Also, they contribute a like sum to state and local taxes that do not show up in the CIS studies being conducted.

        The bulk of the social services received by immigrants are in the form of SNAP and Medicaid. The cost to the taxpayer is approximately $35b per year.

        Over the next few months, you will be hearing a lot about dynamic scoring as Trump attempts to pass a tax plan without any cuts in spending. Just remember, the same concept applies to immigration. The economic surplus and welfare effect have a multiplier that benefits the US beyond the surplus and wealth effect provided by immigrants working.

        Finally, Trump has the immigrants in the shadows today. In reading agriculture reports, there is already concern that the agriculture industry is going to experience skyrocketing prices when the contracted seasonal workers can't be found this year. If you believe that Mexicans are going to enter the country under a guest worker program, while families are being ripped apart and mothers deported, you are living in a fantasy world.

        Be careful what you ask for because you are about to get it....
        Garyb isnt wrong HERE.

        Comment


        • GaryB
          GaryB commented
          Editing a comment
          Southbay - Excellent point. Some of the data is conflated, which distorts both sides of the equation. I took the information from George Borjas' speech to Congress in July (Its on NBER), and as your pointing out the devil is in the details.

          The immigration surplus is the illegal immigrants total (.0024 x GDP = surplus); but, the wealth effect includes everything except permanent immigration, which is a whole different story.

          BTW - Borjas' speech was sponsored by our new Attorney General and was not in support of immigration. I guess southerners will pick the fruit and veggies?

        • GaryB
          GaryB commented
          Editing a comment
          DJ - As you point out, there are plenty of Americans that need/want jobs. Perhaps you will explain why Trump is hiring immigrants to pick the grapes at their winery? They just announced that they ran local ads for workers unsuccessfully. Now, they have contracted to bring in immigrant workers.

        • DJ4SC
          DJ4SC commented
          Editing a comment
          When Trump cuts all the free Obama shit, they'll be knocking on his door.

          You libtards have muddied the waters for a number of years, it's not going to be fixed overnight. I hear raisins are a good crop also.

      • #21
        87% of the jobs lost are because of automation.Simple fact Americans don't want the jobs immigrants have they rather take welfare.Trump doesn't understand the real reason for job loss.His rethoric is plane wrong.Blaming job loss on trade imbalances and immigrants sounds good to people in Midwest who are truly suffering is doing them a disservice.We need to move on to the next wave of high tech jobs.

        Comment


        • SouthbayTrojan91
          SouthbayTrojan91 commented
          Editing a comment
          Again, a partially on point comment.

          Yes we need to move on to high tech or at least skilled jobs. that has been the story for 30 years. BUT we continue to import mass amounts of uneducated and unskilled labor.

          You can't speak out both sides of your mouth and say we should let all these illegals in and don't worry about it because what we need for the Americans already hear is skilled jobs and unskilled jobs are decreasing.

        • GaryB
          GaryB commented
          Editing a comment
          This is a real slippery slope discussion. On the one hand, the return of manufacturing is tied to a border adjustment tax which needs a strong dollar to offset the elasticity of demand. On the other hand, oil and gas exports are dependent on a weak petrodollar for the same reasons.

          On the surface, the proposed policies requiring propping up the dollar seem to be conflicting. I read Navarro's plan and it certainly didn't make it any more clear. And, to top it off, Trump has been talking down the dollar since coming into office.

          If I didn't know better, I would think that the President and Congress are headed for an epic battle.

        • Jpltrojan
          Jpltrojan commented
          Editing a comment
          Let's not forget what the US liberal schools are doing to the future of the labor force. How far is the US behind the globe in math skills? Hard to talk about highly skilled positions with an uneducated workforce.

      • #22
        Originally posted by Stork43 View Post
        87% of the jobs lost are because of automation.Simple fact Americans don't want the jobs immigrants have they rather take welfare.Trump doesn't understand the real reason for job loss.His rethoric is plane wrong.Blaming job loss on trade imbalances and immigrants sounds good to people in Midwest who are truly suffering is doing them a disservice.We need to move on to the next wave of high tech jobs.
        I just can't stop laughing. Where to start....



        Comment


        • #23
          Originally posted by GaryB View Post

          Actually, you don't seem to understand that there are many forms of assistance; and then, there are transfer costs. SSN and Medicare are not assistance, they are transfer costs. There is a huge difference.

          If you took the time to examine the two aspect of immigration, you might get a better understanding as to how they fit into society. You have the economic and fiscal aspect of immigration that are constantly being confused.

          The economic surplus for immigrants is $50 billion. The wealth transfer effect is $500b. In other words, immigrants produce $50 billion more than they consume and their output creates $500b in corporate earnings. Now, there is a legitimate argument that Trump is exploiting regarding the $500b being lost wages for natives without high school educations. But, as Canada discovered in the meat packing industry, natives won't do the work.

          Thus, before condemning the immigrants you should realize that in 25 SIC groups, immigrants make up the majority of the workforce. Those SIC groups include meatpacking, picking fruit & vegetables, etc. Before you boot all of the immigrants, you might want to find out if natives will fill those jobs at any wage.

          On the fiscal side, immigrants that pay taxes (75% pay taxes), contribute $13b to SSN each year, for which they are not eligible to receive benefits. Also, they contribute a like sum to state and local taxes that do not show up in the CIS studies being conducted.

          The bulk of the social services received by immigrants are in the form of SNAP and Medicaid. The cost to the taxpayer is approximately $35b per year.

          Over the next few months, you will be hearing a lot about dynamic scoring as Trump attempts to pass a tax plan without any cuts in spending. Just remember, the same concept applies to immigration. The economic surplus and welfare effect have a multiplier that benefits the US beyond the surplus and wealth effect provided by immigrants working.

          Finally, Trump has the immigrants in the shadows today. In reading agriculture reports, there is already concern that the agriculture industry is going to experience skyrocketing prices when the contracted seasonal workers can't be found this year. If you believe that Mexicans are going to enter the country under a guest worker program, while families are being ripped apart and mothers deported, you are living in a fantasy world.

          Be careful what you ask for because you are about to get it....
          Then you should hire all of them and become mega rich (however, I have some serious doubts that it would work out as you say). But at least that would get them out on MY hair.

          Comment


          • #24
            I've been out of town but my goddamn yards better be done when I get home. If not, I'm calling ICE!

            Comment


            • #25
              Stopped while riding my bike at Mc D's for some coffee, ..... they were installing kiosks. Another 80 miles down the road another Mc D's is doing the same. So legal or illegal, someone will be looking for a job soon.

              Comment


              • #26
                Dozens of workers lose their jobs for participating in Day Without Immigrants protest

                The Day Without Immigrants protest shut down businesses nationwide last week, but it didn’t come without some consequences for a handful of workers who decided to take part in the demonstrations.
                Dozens of workers said they lost their jobs after taking part in Thursday’s protest. The boycott was aimed squarely at President Trump's efforts to step up deportations, build a wall at the Mexican border and close the nation's doors to many travelers. It was unclear how many participated.
                Twelve Latino employees from the I Don’t Care Bar and Grill in Tulsa, Okla. told Fox 23 News they were fired over text message because they didn’t show up for their shift and failed to let their employers know about their absence. The employees told the station they expected to be reprimanded, but not dismissed.
                The firings led to an outcry in the community.
                “If you have 12 people who feel strongly and want to make a stand, I think management should have taken a look at that and at least stood by them or give them some time,” Catherine Bishop, of Broken Arrow, told Fox 23 News.
                The restaurant had already posted on Facebook seeking employees for its open positions.
                Meanwhile, Carmen Guerrero, an immigration activist told the Philadelphia Inquirer that six people were fired from their jobs at a Bahama Breeze in King of Prussia for taking part in the protest. Guerrero said when the workers heard of the protest, they decided to join in and when they showed up Friday for work they allegedly were told they couldn’t enter the building.
                Bahama Breeze spokesman Rich Jeffers told the paper that “no one was ever fired.” Guerrero said the workers told her that they were all rehired “to make it look like nothing happened.”
                According to News Channel 5, 18 workers from Bradley Coatings Inc. were let go. The workers told the station they told their employer they would be joining in the nationwide protest on Wednesday and when they returned to work Thursday they were informed they had been fired.
                "We are the team leaders directly under the supervisors and they informed us last night that we could not go back to work and the boss said we were fired," one employee told the station.
                An attorney for Bradley Coatings said in a statement that the employees were told they would “need to show up for work (on Thursday) or they would be terminated” because of the “time-sensitive” job they were assigned to. The statement contended that the firings had nothing to do with politics.
                Encore Boat Builders LLC, based out of Lexington, S.C., had 21 workers who didn’t show up for work Thursday. WLTX-TV reported they were told not to participate in the demonstrations or face termination and when they failed to show up, the company followed through on its threat.
                Six staff members at a Bonita Springs, Fla. daycare quit, Rev. Jeremy Walker, who runs the day care, told NBC 2. However, two workers said they were fired for wanting to join the protest, while four others claim they resigned after the others two were fired.
                Several students also participated in Thursday’s protest. There were no immediate estimates of how many students stayed home in many cities. Many student absences may not be excused, and some people who skipped work will lose a day's pay or perhaps even their jobs. But organizers and participants argued the cause was worth it.
                Marcela Ardaya-Vargas, who is from Bolivia and now lives in Falls Church, Virginia, pulled her son out of school to take him to a march in Washington.
                "When he asked why he wasn't going to school, I told him because today he was going to learn about immigration," she said, adding: "Our job as citizens is to unite with our brothers and sisters."
                Carmen Solis, a Mexico-born U.S. citizen, took the day off from work as a project manager and brought her two children to a rally in Chicago.
                "I feel like our community is going to be racially profiled and harassed," she said of Trump's immigration policies. "It's very upsetting. People like to take out their anger on the immigrants, but employers are making profits off of them. "
                The Associated Press contributed to this report.

                Comment


                • #27
                  A year would be better. A decade would be awesome. A lifetime would be perfect.

                  Comment


                  • #28
                    Originally posted by flyfishintrojan View Post

                    Garyb isnt wrong HERE.
                    Fly, please stop.

                    I bet you feed the gotdamn bears at Yellowstone too. Rules matter. People like you feed the bears and the next thing you know some tourist named Alfred gets eaten by a gotdamn bear. Then, in a cruel twist of fate, the bear has to be killed because he ate Alfred without knowing it's wrong to eat Alfred.

                    Fly, I implore you, don't get G euthanized because he doesn't know it's wrong to break our laws. He's actually not a bad bear. I, for one, will have to come in and clean up your mess. So please, Fly, stop feeding the gotdamn bears.
                    Last edited by Georgia Boy; 02-20-2017, 06:39 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #29
                      When you fail to show up for your scheduled shift and for a personal reason, termination is always a possibility. To begin with, we have no idea if any of these workers already had ongoing issues with absenteeism or tardies. This may have been the last straw.

                      However, the only policy to have is a very strict and clear one because if these folks can simply fail to show up due to their personal convictions, can't we all? How do businesses conduct business? Meet deadlines? Who gets to decide what the "okay" personal reasons are? How many days is it okay? I mean back in the day, I missed a few days worshiping at the shrine of the first snow in Big Bear. Had I ever been caught, I would have expected to be suspended, written up, or terminated. But I felt strong in my convictions, lol.

                      I saw that some school teachers in NorCal got suspended because their social media posts about the missing kids wasn't PC. They commented about how quiet and well behaved classrooms were, the lack of discipline issues, the clean cafeteria.

                      Comment


                      • Georgia Boy
                        Georgia Boy commented
                        Editing a comment
                        One day, I hope to be as well spoken and able as you are.


                      • fssca51
                        fssca51 commented
                        Editing a comment
                        Missing work for without prior approval is called ''job abandonment'' in industry and has been so for many years. It is cause for termination of employment , and rightly so.

                    • #30
                      Let's just go back to pre-columbian time. Maybe there are a few migratory tribes here and there but mostly natural pristine beauty, wildlife, and rocks. Definitely not a single European to be found : )

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X