4
0

Companies lay off thousands, then demand immigration reform for new labor


 invite response                
2013 Sep 11, 5:41am   36,736 views  158 comments

by zzyzzx   ➕follow (5)   💰tip   ignore  

http://washingtonexaminer.com/companies-lay-off-thousands-then-demand-immigration-reform-for-new-labor/article/2535595

On Tuesday, the chief human resources officers of more than 100 large corporations sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi urging quick passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

The officials represent companies with a vast array of business interests: General Electric, The Walt Disney Company, Marriott International, Hilton Worldwide, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, McDonald's Corporation, The Wendy's Company, Coca-Cola, The Cheesecake Factory, Johnson & Johnson, Verizon Communications, Hewlett-Packard, General Mills, and many more. All want to see increases in immigration levels for low-skill as well as high-skill workers, in addition to a path to citizenship for the millions of immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally.

A new immigration law, the corporate officers say, "would be a long overdue step toward aligning our nation's immigration policies with its workforce needs at all skill levels to ensure U.S. global competitiveness." The officials cite a publication of their trade group, the HR Policy Association, which calls for immigration reform to "address the reality that there is a global war for talent." The way for the United States to win that war for talent, they say, is more immigration.

Of course, the U.S. unemployment rate is at 7.3 percent, with millions of American workers at all skill levels out of work, and millions more so discouraged that they have left the work force altogether. In addition, at the same time the corporate officers seek higher numbers of immigrants, both low-skill and high-skill, many of their companies are laying off thousands of workers.

For example, Hewlett-Packard, whose Executive Vice President for Human Resources Tracy Keogh signed the letter, laid off 29,000 employees in 2012. In August of this year, Cisco Systems, whose Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer Kathleen Weslock signed the letter, announced plans to lay off 4,000 — in addition to 8,000 cut in the last two years. United Technologies, whose Senior Vice President of Human Resources and Organization Elizabeth B. Amato signed the letter, announced layoffs of 3,000 this year. American Express, whose Chief Human Resources Officer L. Kevin Cox signed the letter, cut 5,400 jobs this year. Procter & Gamble, whose Chief Human Resources Officer Mark F. Biegger signed the letter, announced plans to cut 5,700 jobs in 2012.

Those are just a few of the layoffs at companies whose officials signed the letter. A few more: T-Mobile announced 2,250 layoffs in 2012. Archer-Daniels-Midland laid off 1,200. Texas Instruments, nearly 2,000. Cigna, 1,300. Verizon sought to cut 1,700 jobs by buyouts and layoffs. Marriott announced "hundreds" of layoffs this year. International Paper has closed plants and laid off dozens. And General Mills, in what the Minneapolis Star-Tribune called a "rare mass layoff," laid off 850 people last year.

There are more still. In all, it's fair to say a large number of the corporate signers of the letter demanding more labor from abroad have actually laid off workers at home in recent years. Together, their actions have a significant effect on the economy. According to a recent Reuters report, U.S. employers announced 50,462 layoffs in August, up 34 percent from the previous month and up 57 percent from August 2012.

"It is difficult to understand how these companies can feel justified in demanding the importation of cheap labor with a straight face at a time when tens of millions of Americans are unemployed," writes the Center for Immigration Studies, which strongly opposes the Senate Gang of Eight bill and similar measures. "The companies claim the bill is an 'opportunity to level the playing field for U.S. employers' but it is more of an effort to level the wages of American citizens."

Comments 1 - 40 of 158       Last »     Search these comments

1   JH   2013 Sep 11, 6:22am  

Corporations are people, too, my friend.

They would love to lay off everyone and hire labor that is part-time, without benefits, and at a lower wage. This would do wonders for their bottom line.

2   HydroCabron   2013 Sep 11, 6:26am  

JH says

Corporations are people, too, my friend.

They would love to lay off everyone and hire labor that is part-time, without benefits, and at a lower wage. This would do wonders for their bottom line.

And it would help the rest of us!

Only by laying off all domestic workers (CEOs excepted) can companies create jobs!

It is the fiduciary duty of the CEO to rape the land, pollute the water supply, destroy the food chain, put out the sun, and club baby seals if it benefits the stockholders.

Besides, everyone here already own HP stock, right? If you don't hold at least $10 million worth of Hyatt, Disney, McDonalds, Marriot, Microsoft, Apply, and Hewlett-Packard you're a LIEU-SEUR! Look in the mirror and say it: "LOOOOO-ZER! YOU'RE LOWER THAN DIRT!"

3   Shaman   2013 Sep 11, 7:10am  

I'm confused. zzxzzy posted this? Isn't he pro-corporate anti-labor and pro-wealthy people raping us even harder? Where have all the Fox News watchers gone?

4   FortWayne   2013 Sep 11, 7:39am  

As long as you are paid more than $1 a day they want your salary reduced to that of a poverty stricken third world country peasant. Race to the bottom.

What happened to good old days when corporations were responsible for those around them.

5   thomaswong.1986   2013 Sep 11, 7:50am  

Quigley says

Isn't he pro-corporate anti-labor and pro-wealthy people raping

you should meet some of the people inside of SV corporations today. they are about
as left wing as Fidel Castro. LOL! wow have things changed !

6   Vicente   2013 Sep 11, 8:00am  

Corporations are sovereigns. You have no right to question them.

Kneel like a dog and beg forgiveness!

7   Heraclitusstudent   2013 Sep 11, 8:14am  

Americans don't want to do the really hard work.
They expect the worse they would ever have to do would be to flip burgers part time until they find better.

Someone has to maintain that nice world around them.

8   freak80   2013 Sep 11, 8:45am  

Gotta get those stock prices up to benefit the top 0.1%!

9   Y   2013 Sep 11, 8:49am  

Quigley says

I'm confused. zzxzzy posted this? Isn't he pro-corporate anti-labor and pro-wealthy people raping us even harder? Where have all the Fox News watchers gone?

10   Tenpoundbass   2013 Sep 11, 8:58am  

If corporations were a person they would be retards that would require 24 hour supervision by a responsible adult.

11   HEY YOU   2013 Sep 11, 9:37am  

Quigley says

I'm confused. zzxzzy posted this? Isn't he pro-corporate anti-labor and pro-wealthy people raping us even harder? Where have all the Fox News watchers gone?

I think most ,whether Left,Right or Center, realize that this country is FUBAR.

12   HEY YOU   2013 Sep 11, 9:39am  

FortWayne,
At a dollar a day I'm overpaid.

13   humanity   2013 Sep 11, 9:55am  

FortWayne says

As long as you are paid more than $1 a day they want your salary reduced to that of a poverty stricken third world country peasant. Race to the bottom.

Yes. The first step is killing all unions. They stand in the way of lower wages for all.

There was a time when govt pay, even with pension was considered pretty
mediocre at best. But times are tough now and govt pay, esp considering benefits that no longer exist in much of the private sector, look pretty good.

So the Koch brothers and corporations have convinced people like FW to argue against their own interest. He can't comprehend the various ways that decent pay for government jobs is good for everyone. He can only see the tax side of it, because that's what the hate propaganda that he loves so much tells him to think.

"Government workers are lazy idiots mooching off of the government. They have no desire other than getting paid for doing a bad job." Supposedly, all functions done by the government, should be privatized, for two reasons. IT will get the investor class in on the action of making money off of taxes(like they already do with military equipment, prisons,etc). Secondly, it will allow pay to be lowered as much as possible for govt jobs, which in turn allows everyone's taxes to be lower which is one more reason they can afford to pay private sector employees less(the employees need less for their taxes). It all fits together.

Of course the most important thing to the corporations: they can pay private sector workers less then, because similar jobs in the public sector will now pay way less. They call it a job market for a reason.

Everyone loses when typical Americans can no longer afford to consume as much or pay as much for all the different types of rents. But hey, why worry about that ?

14   FortWayne   2013 Sep 11, 10:06am  

oh no humanity, you simply misunderstand.

Plenty, not everyone, but plenty of people who work for government live out of touch with reality, they don't really care, and most just sit on their rears waiting for their retirement. Government doesn't fire incompetent people, unions for some reason protect even the worst kinds of employees. If public sector fired incompetent people, or at least held them to the same level as private sector they would have the same incentive as everyone for a better economy.

And another thing you are forgetting here, who is going to pay for those government benefits when taxpayers can't afford it themselves, while getting less and less services every year to pay for an unsustainable entitlement system.

15   humanity   2013 Sep 11, 10:07am  

Someone doesn't understand this.

humanity says

Of course the most important thing to the corporations: they can pay private sector workers less then, because similar jobs in the public sector will now pay way less. They call it a job market for a reason.

You will never even bother comprehending that, although I do think you are on the border of being intellectually capable of getting it, if you wanted to.

It's a chicken and egg question that confuses you.

Btw, those pension liabilities were caused by govt not honoring their annual liabilities. "OH we don't have to pay them that part of their salary now." They didn't pay in to the funds what they said they would. Now that liability looks too expensive, and you think it's the workers fault.

16   humanity   2013 Sep 11, 10:15am  

FortWayne says

Government doesn't fire incompetent people, unions for some reason protect even the worst kinds of employees.

This is a lie. Yes, there are specific examples of this but it is not generally how it works. Especially not these days. Union power is way way down when the govt is broke.

In this case, what confuses you is that workers have contracts. Sometimes in fighting to have contracts honored, the union defends a bad employee. It's sort of like how public defenders sometimes defend (represent) guilty people (as well as innocent people). You confuse stories about unions representing a bad employee, with unions always winning these battles. They usually don't. Especially these days.

Again, I don't know which is stronger, your unwillingness to understand, or your innability to not understand.

17   FortWayne   2013 Sep 11, 10:22am  

humanity says

Of course the most important thing to the corporations: they can pay private sector workers less then, because similar jobs in the public sector will now pay way less. They call it a job market for a reason.

There is no correlation between the two. Just look at Mexico, public sector jobs turned into entitlement, where they can be passed on to children or even sold. It's how corruption starts where only a few are shielded from economic consequences, while everyone else is left to pick up the tab.

18   humanity   2013 Sep 11, 10:47am  

FortWayne says

only a few are shielded from economic consequences

Only a few ? The public sector is huge in this country. And don't kid yourself. It's a big part of the job market. You think the pay of a mailman is totally independent of the pay for a similar job at Fedex or UPS ? You think the pay for a custodian or a secretary, or construction worker in the private sector is unaffected by pay in the public sector ? Sure with some jobs, there is no equivalent job in the public sector, such a fireman. But for many, including a lot of clerical, accounting, counseling, administrative, legal, food prep, ...(the list is long), they compete directly with the private sector.

Not all of these have union representation, but most have pension and benefits. The union does less than you think, and they simply do collective bargaining on behalf of large groups of workers.

As for Mexico. I assumed that the reason so many cops in Mexico are extremely corrupt is that they don't make a decent enough living on their salary.

19   lostand confused   2013 Sep 11, 11:25am  

Vicente says

Kneel like a dog and beg forgiveness!

Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/NKU6jl1l0Cc

20   Vicente   2013 Sep 11, 11:42am  

kilostand confused says

Vicente says

Kneel like a dog and beg forgiveness!

Like this?

I would be Salma's footstool any day of the week, and twice on Sunday!

21   thomaswong.1986   2013 Sep 11, 12:45pm  

humanity says

As for Mexico. I assumed that the reason so many cops in Mexico are extremely corrupt is that they don't make a decent enough living on their salary.

has little to do with weekly salary when drug-narco smugglers are willing to pay 5x annual salary for even US cops per shipment.

22   epitaph   2013 Sep 11, 5:35pm  

If you ever shipped anything FedEx or UPS you would know what a shitty service it is in comparison to the USPS.

23   freak80   2013 Sep 11, 10:39pm  

We need more private, for-profit prisons. No conflict of interest there.

24   zzyzzx   2013 Sep 11, 11:45pm  

Quigley says

I'm confused. zzxzzy posted this? Isn't he pro-corporate anti-labor and pro-wealthy people raping us even harder? Where have all the Fox News watchers gone?

If I were dictator, I would stop all immigration and throw out all the illegals, seal the border, and punish employers who hire illegals with some pretty hefty minimum jail times, or just execute them. There is no logical reason to allow any immigration with unemployment is this fucking high! It's just common sense!

25   lostand confused   2013 Sep 12, 12:27am  

zzyzzx says

If I were dictator, I would stop all immigration and throw out all the
illegals, seal the border, and punish employers who hire illegals with some
pretty hefty minimum jail times, or just execute them. There is no logical
reason to allow any immigration with unemployment is this fucking high! It's
just common sense!

But then you will lose out in millions of dollars in cash in lobbying and other assorted funds from the affected parties. I doubt there is a single politician left who actually runs for office because he wants to make a difference and make the lives of Americans better.

All these red vs blue wars keeps the populace distracted. AS long as you support your side against the others-it is business as usual.

26   freak80   2013 Sep 12, 12:36am  

lostand confused says

I doubt there is a single politician left who actually runs for office because he wants to make a difference and make the lives of Americans better.

True. But then again, were there ever politicians who actually wanted to make a difference for anyone but themselves?

27   edvard2   2013 Sep 12, 1:41am  

zzyzzx says

If I were dictator, I would stop all immigration and throw out all the illegals, seal the border, and punish employers who hire illegals with some pretty hefty minimum jail times, or just execute them. There is no logical reason to allow any immigration with unemployment is this fucking high! It's just common sense!

Good thing you're not. If you did that the country would never have existed since everyone except for native Americans are actually immigrants.

28   Shaman   2013 Sep 12, 1:47am  

edvard2 says

zzyzzx says

If I were dictator, I would stop all immigration and throw out all the illegals, seal the border, and punish employers who hire illegals with some pretty hefty minimum jail times, or just execute them. There is no logical reason to allow any immigration with unemployment is this fucking high! It's just common sense!

Good thing you're not. If you did that the country would never have existed since everyone except for native Americans are actually immigrants.

Irrelevant. Cultures are always displacing other cultures. Not too many cultures actively encouraged their displacement and downfall, however. Americans are unique that way.

29   JH   2013 Sep 12, 3:04am  

zzyzzx says

If I were dictator, I would stop all immigration and throw out all the illegals, seal the border, and punish employers who hire illegals with some pretty hefty minimum jail times, or just execute them. There is no logical reason to allow any immigration with unemployment is this fucking high! It's just common sense!

On paper, I would support this protectionist/isolationist/elitist/dickish move. ;-)

But in reality the problem is that entitled Americans would not take the service jobs. McDonalds and Walmart would be out of business and no lawns in California would ever be mowed.

30   zzyzzx   2013 Sep 12, 3:10am  

JH says

But in reality the problem is that entitled Americans would not take the service jobs. McDonalds and Walmart would be out of business and no lawns in California would ever be mowed.

I'd take away their welfare, social security "disability", Obamaphones, section 8 housing, etc. so they would have to work or starve. That should motivate the deadbeats enough to get a job.

31   edvard2   2013 Sep 12, 3:13am  

Quigley says

Irrelevant. Cultures are always displacing other cultures. Not too many cultures actively encouraged their displacement and downfall, however. Americans are unique that way.

Totally relevant. I'm going to almost bet that most everyone on this forum came from an immigrant family to the US. Thus a claim to ban immigrants or the like is sort of like saying none of us should have come here. Sort of dumb.zzyzzx says

I'd take away their welfare, social security "disability", Obamaphones, section 8 housing, etc. so they would have to work or starve. That should motivate the deadbeats enough to get a job.

That statement is so predictably right-wing-media-machine spoon fed its a bit sad for lack of originality. Yes- that's right, please tow the party line and be against anything that is for your own common interests.

32   freak80   2013 Sep 12, 3:14am  

JH says

But in reality the problem is that entitled Americans would not take the service jobs. McDonalds and Walmart would be out of business and no lawns in California would ever be mowed.

That's not true where I live.

33   JH   2013 Sep 12, 3:16am  

zzyzzx says

JH says

But in reality the problem is that entitled Americans would not take the service jobs. McDonalds and Walmart would be out of business and no lawns in California would ever be mowed.

I'd take away their welfare, social security "disability", Obamaphones, section 8 housing, etc. so they would have to work or starve. That should motivate the deadbeats enough to get a job.

Yes, Baltimore (and everywhere else) is full of the entitled "have nots", but the US is also full of the entitled "haves". These millennials living with mom and dad refuse to do anything with their history degrees that doesn't pay six figures.

34   zzyzzx   2013 Sep 12, 3:17am  

edvard2 says

That statement is so predictably right-wing-media-machine spoon fed its a bit sad for lack of originality. Yes- that's right, please tow the party line and be against anything that is for your own common interests.

I don't see how paying a boatload of taxes so that people too fucking lazy to work don't have to is in my best interests.

35   freak80   2013 Sep 12, 3:18am  

JH says

These millennials living with mom and dad refuse to do anything with their history degrees that doesn't pay six figures.

lol. True!

36   zzyzzx   2013 Sep 12, 3:19am  

JH says

These millennials living with mom and dad refuse to do anything with their history degrees that doesn't pay six figures.

But that's not the taxpayer's problem. That's their parent's problem. They could have used birth control instead of taking a change and ending up with a deadbeat kid.

37   finehoe   2013 Sep 12, 3:27am  

Zuckerberg to meet with House Republicans

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg will meet with the top four House Republicans next week in Washington.

The high tech CEO’s visit comes as Facebook is facing ongoing scrutiny over privacy concerns and Internet safety.

Zuckerberg will meet Thursday with Speaker John Boehner and the rest of his leadership team, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Whip Kevin McCarthy and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

The meeting is expected to be a broad discussion of issues related to Facebook, according to a GOP aide. While immigration may come up, the meeting is not specifically to discuss comprehensive reform, which Zuckerberg has advocated for, the aide said.

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the wake of the Edward Snowden scandal, Facebook and other tech companies have been dealing with an onslaught of public and lawmaker scrutiny over what information they turn over to the federal government. Facebook filed a lawsuit earlier this week at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, joining Google and Microsoft, to try and push for the ability to release more information about the surveillance orders they receive.

The meeting comes as Zuckerberg, himself, has become more political joining with other tech execs to form an issue advocacy group Fwd.US that has focused primarily on passing comprehensive immigration reform. Earlier this year, he also hosted a fundraiser for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at his home.

In addition to contributing $15,000 to Facebook’s political action committee Zuckerberg has also contributed heavily to Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s senate bid, writing a check in mid-June to his campaign for $10,400.

Facebook spent $3.5 million on lobbying during the first half of 2013 with several lobbying firms on retainer, including Elmendorf Ryan, Patton Boggs, Peck Madigan Jones, Steptoe & Johnson and Stewart Strategies and Solutions.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/mark-zuckerberg-house-republicans-96633.html

38   edvard2   2013 Sep 12, 3:51am  

zzyzzx says

I don't see how paying a boatload of taxes so that people too fucking lazy to work don't have to is in my best interests.

You are making more gross generalizations. Until you can show us exacting detailed data that proves that all people on government assistance programs are too lazy to work you've lost the argument.

39   edvard2   2013 Sep 12, 3:53am  

Call it Crazy says

OK, so then I guess you are OK with giving away tons of FREE entitlements to deadbeats??

Funny how both you guys think the wrong things.

40   Y   2013 Sep 12, 4:05am  

So at what "deadbeat ratio" is the 'needy vs deadbeat' argument lost?
90/10?? 50/50??

edvard2 says

zzyzzx says

I don't see how paying a boatload of taxes so that people too fucking lazy to work don't have to is in my best interests.

You are making more gross generalizations. Until you can show us exacting detailed data that proves that all people on government assistance programs are too lazy to work you've lost the argument

Comments 1 - 40 of 158       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions