|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 72 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 16 of 72:
| 
Oct 24 17:31 UTC 2003 |
I thought I read it was a contractor to Wal-Mart, not Wal-Mart, who
got "busted".
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 17 of 72:
|
Oct 24 17:40 UTC 2003 |
The migrant workers were busted...I think the Wal-mart sotres were the
site of the raids...I'll have to re-read the article.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 72:
|
Oct 24 18:07 UTC 2003 |
The illegal aliens get busted for being illegal, but won't the company
that hired them, the contractor, also be indicted for giving them employment?
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 19 of 72:
|
Oct 24 18:36 UTC 2003 |
I believe so. Wal-mart may also face problems, if it cannot be proven
that they had nothing to do--deliberately--with hiring illegals.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 20 of 72:
|
Oct 24 18:57 UTC 2003 |
Shouldn't that be the other way? "Wal-mart may also face problems, if it can
be proven that they knew about the hiring of illegal aliens"? Innocent 'til
proven guilty, and all that?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 21 of 72:
|
Oct 24 19:21 UTC 2003 |
That's what one would think
|
other
|
|
response 22 of 72:
|
Oct 24 19:33 UTC 2003 |
Wal-Mart CONTRACTED someone to fill positions, which they did using
illegals. This was probably solely for plausible deniability.
|
goose
|
|
response 23 of 72:
|
Oct 24 19:59 UTC 2003 |
One NPR report talked about Wal-Mart executives being on tape talking about
these illegals. So they may have evidence of knowledge.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 72:
|
Oct 24 20:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 25 of 72:
|
Oct 24 22:02 UTC 2003 |
My recollection of the news stories is that the Feds have executed
searches at Wal-Mart corporate offices in this case.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 72:
|
Oct 24 22:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 27 of 72:
|
Oct 27 04:59 UTC 2003 |
I believe Walmart has replaced General Motors as the biggest employer in
America. This is not a particularly good sign for America. GM employees
mostly make things. Walmert employees mostly don't. GM employees are
largely unionized, and make fairly decent livings. Walmart employees are,
I believe, non-union and a substantial fraction of them earn crummy wages
with no medical benefits. This allows Walmart to sell for less, putting
stores that treat their employees decently out of business. It's not a
company that makes one feel good about the social value of capitalist
enterprise.
|
sj2
|
|
response 28 of 72:
|
Oct 27 05:31 UTC 2003 |
Welcome to China!!
|
gelinas
|
|
response 29 of 72:
|
Oct 27 11:52 UTC 2003 |
(In his latest book, _Managing in the Next Society_, Peter Drucker points out
that relatively few GM employees "make things." Manufacturing productivity,
like farming productivity, has outstripped demand.)
|
tod
|
|
response 30 of 72:
|
Oct 27 13:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 31 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:23 UTC 2003 |
Joe's probably right - GM does a lot more selling than making. But my
observation was probably dumb anyway, as "selling" isn't inherently worse
than "making". Heck, someone out convincing people to buy recycled paper
products is probably doing the world more good than someone making yet
another Humvee. The isn't any inherent moral superiority to making things.
Personally, I find such work more satisfying, at least when it has a
creative component (which is probably fairly rare on an assembly line) but
lots of people aren't wired that way. So you can strike that comment.
|
remmers
|
|
response 32 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:24 UTC 2003 |
...and hope the Wal-Mart doesn't drive said grocer out of business first.
|
remmers
|
|
response 33 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:24 UTC 2003 |
(Jan' #31 slipped in. I was responding to Todd's #30.)
|
tod
|
|
response 34 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:32 UTC 2003 |
I'm still not sure it says good things about our country that we're trading
manufacturing jobs for positions in telemarketing and burger-flipping.
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:33 UTC 2003 |
Hard to say. It could be that we're manufacturing just as much but
using fewer people to do it.
|
janc
|
|
response 37 of 72:
|
Oct 27 14:46 UTC 2003 |
Maybe we have enough stuff?
Nah.
|
jep
|
|
response 38 of 72:
|
Oct 27 15:08 UTC 2003 |
Manufacturing and farming involve turning natural resources into
products; the traditional definition of "creating wealth". That's how
the economy grows. Services -- sales, marketing, surgery, teaching,
management, etc. -- don't produce any wealth. They shift it around.
Few of us ever produce anything at all, but we all survive and prosper
off what is produced. We all eat, and we all buy cars and clothes and
gadgetry. It all gets produced by someone. In the service economy,
our function is to serve those producers in some way in order to earn
our share of their products.
|
slynne
|
|
response 39 of 72:
|
Oct 27 15:41 UTC 2003 |
Most manufacturing jobs in this country have been lost to technology.
Which isnt really a bad thing. We are still making just as much stuff,
it just takes less folks to make it. Which frees up people to earn
livings doing other things. Things like teaching and creating art and
entertaining, etc. Can you imagine how our lives would be if *most*
people had to either farm or work in factories?
This doesnt mean that Walmart isnt a problem though. They pay their
workers pretty low wages. I am always surprised that they are even able
to find employees.
|
aruba
|
|
response 40 of 72:
|
Oct 27 15:46 UTC 2003 |
I dunno - we sure import a lot of stuff from China. But I suppose this
question about how much stuff is made in the USA can be answered with
numbers.
|