I'd like a salad, and can I see your green card?

[Guest]

This guy is a favorite local columnist. It's my day, so I thought I'd post this. Perdita
____________
Jon Carroll - Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle

I note that some conservative commentators are up in arms because the eight illegal aliens who were employed by Wal-Mart have turned around and sued that company for various violations of the law.

Now, I am not fond of lawsuits as a way of solving all of life's little problems. That, however, is not the objection raised. Rather, it's that the employees are themselves lawbreakers and therefore how dare they ... you get the idea.

I trust that these commentators choose their restaurants carefully. They should ask to see the green cards of all foreign nationals employed there because some of them (gasp) might not have green cards. Worse yet, they might be carrying forged green cards. Imagine having your empty coffee cup bused by a lawbreaker. Imagine having your goat cheese crumbled by a criminal. It's enough to make you pack a bag lunch.

But, see, that doesn't work either. Agriculture in this country would grind to a halt if all the illegal aliens were sent home. No lovely fresh produce, no cartons of healthful milk, no glasses of soothing wine. Your refrigerator is in enemy hands.

Oh, and the folks who make your bed when you sleep in a hotel -- have you checked their credentials? Better do it. Wouldn't want to encourage lawbreaking. And of course: no more Wal-Mart.

Most employers do try to employ legal aliens. Some try harder than others, but no one likes an INS raid. But sometimes it's darned hard to tell. And sometimes, when your dishwasher doesn't show up and it's 4 p.m. and Pablo's cousin Marco is available right now -- well, things happen.

These illegal immigrants are not taking jobs away from citizens; the citizens are unwilling to do them for the available wages. There is supply; there is demand. Suppose you were a young man in Jalisco with a wife and two children, and you heard that you could make 50 times what you could make in Mexico by going up north? You love your wife, your baby needs food. You gonna let a border stop you?

We have all these vigilantes roaming the border, cowboying up, nabbing the bad guys, protecting America. If they really wanted to solve the problem, they'd just hit the fast-food restaurants and the landscape gardening companies. But no one wants to do that, because then actual English-speaking humans would get indicted.

By the way: Not every illegal immigrant slips into this country by fording rivers and crossing deserts. Some of them ride in cars, pretending to be real tan gringos or nannies for some rich folks. Some of them don't even need to pretend, because a few grand slipped to a border agent works wonders.

This is not a problem that law enforcement can solve, any more than drug use or prostitution is a problem law enforcement can solve. It's just human society, working as it always does.

Of course, Mexicans don't want to leave home to find work. The toll on families south of the border is heavy. But it's that darned free trade thing, the NAFTA shuffle -- or, as it's called down south, the China Full Employment Act. Cotton, corn, coffee -- you name it, the bottom fell out of it.

So the situation is the situation. There will never be large-scale prosecution of illegal aliens because American business has too much to lose. There'll be a few showcase events, a wave in the direction of the isolationists, and then back to business as usual.
And hey, don't worry -- whatever happens, those Wal-Mart employees are not going to be having a lot of fun any time soon.

Wetback, NOT

 

[MathGirl]

Dear Perdita,
I agree. The whole thing, though, really makes for big problems in the Golden State. I have uncles and cousins who are big farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. They probably couldn't exist without immigrant workers (legal or illegal).

At the same time, the southern Valley is the most poverty stricken in the nation. Worse than the deep South or Appalachia. The towns in the rich agricultural area between Fresno and Bakersfield have been mostly taken over by Mexicans (illigal and legal). There are more unskilled, non English speaking laborers than the farms can hire and the school systems can handle. The major industry is welfare.

Like the column says, I sure can't blame some poor guy down in Mexico for wanting to come here. Sad.
MG

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

I agree with the article...but also agree more wholeheartedly with MG's expounding upon the article.

I used to live in Mesa (just outside of Phoenix, AZ) and it has the 2nd highest Hispanic population in AZ and the 7th highest in the US and while I totally understand and feel for the situation of the migrant workers and our economy's dependence upon it... I also know the amount of welfare strain and crime that comes along with an abundance of Hispanic labor workers and not enough work to support them.

I just wish we could go back and reverse some of the terrible laws that we passed that made seasonal migration to the US illegal (most people don't realize that until relatively recently our government encouraged seasonal Mexican migration to the US and extended temporary work visas for that purpose).

I think that at least that way we can control (to at least some extent) the migration that would happen anyway...not to mention the ability to better tax those wages (making it less of a burden to support those that do utilize the welfare system).

It would be ideal to employ only valid US citizens, but so highly unlikely to ever happen I think our efforts would be better spent trying to control the situation and maximize its benefits.

~WOK

 

[raphy]

I had a long rant here worked out about how some illiterate uneducated mexican immigrant could slip across the border and find work, but when an college educated, hardworking englishman wanted to immigrate to the US by the book, they put up so many obstacles that he gave up and went home.

 

[Guest]

 

[OldnotDead]

It's all messed up

Seasonal Migration: There need to be provisions for the entire country. And we are not just talking agriculture here. Seasonal resorts are hurting as well.

Here's the most stupid aspect, to me anyway. If a corporation wants to hire someone and cannot find any citizen applicants, they can apply for an H-1 visa, IF the job is on an approved list as important enough to warrant such approval. In the case of NAFTA, employees from Canada and Mexico can get a TN Visa, but only if the job is on the approved list. the rules are a lot more restrictive than most believe and since these are issued at the border it is very easy for a none too bright civil servant to really goof things up.

But if I want a landscaper or mason or any other 'tradesman' and because of the activity in the local area, cannot get anyone to respond to my need, there is NO mechanism for me, or even the local employers, to legally get additional help into the country. These jobs are not important enough and therefore would not meet the requirements.

And if you think it applies only to unskilled, not so. Within any industry there are protected jobs. In IT, programmers are not allowed to cross borders, but 'analysts' are, so you better not be a 'programmer analyst' because you will be turned away. We also found out 'architects' were not allowed. An individual was hired as a 'data architect' and the very careful border guard pointed out that 'architects' were not allowed in.

The irony of this is that to the extent possible, the work will move to the source of supply and if the immigrant workers are not allowed in the country, the work will move to them.

Back in the 19th century, we had very strict rules on immigration that focused on the offering of work or sponsorship of a citizen. So if an immigrant had a job offer, they were usually admitted (barring bad health). Yes, there were lots of abuses, but doesn't the same exist today?

I personally believe there should be more freedom granted to both individuals and corporations to offer work to foreigners so that we really could clamp down on the illegal aliens that are not here for legitimate work. We already have State unemployment offices that could easily verify at a local level that there are no out of work individuals seeking the employment offered. It would actually reduce the amount of paperwork and use an existing resource.

but of course, then INS would lose jobs. And we wouldn't want that, would we?

The whole system stinks, but please, support those who want to make it better. It can be.

Good thread, Perdita,

 

[Pure]

The migrant or undocumented migrant issue is a political football. Lots of people, esp. employers, benefit from there being an illegal status; it keeps wages down.

I know of no evidence that migrants in general or illegal migrants are overall sapping the system, are disproportionately on welfare etc. Mostly myth as far as I know. If indeed there is some 'collecting' from the system, there are, on the other side of the balance, almost unrequited contributions to the system: from the many taxes paid even by 'undocumented' persons, they are not is a position to reap the benefits others do.

For every trend toward legitimizing status, there is a countertrend, usually from Republican sources. Today's paper mentions that Gov. Schwarzeneggar wishes to repeal the law giving illegals the right to a driver's license. (A hard-fought-for gain supported by most Hispanic groups.).

If I may draw a perhaps strained analogy: prostitution is illegal because there are many who gain; same for drugs. Illegal migrants are going to stay that way, I think, because of similar widespread benefits, and lately because of the surge in the right wing movement, esp. at the highest levels.

J.

 

[snooper]

Re: It's all messed up

The irony of this is that to the extent possible, the work will move to the source of supply and if the immigrant workers are not allowed in the country, the work will move to them.

This is well demonstrated in the UK by call centres. If I telephone my insurance company, the call is answered in Bangalore, India. This is because the extra cost of the telephone lines is negligible compared with being able to hire a semi-intelligent operator there for about a quarter the cost of a thick idiot in the UK. Moreover, the Indian doing the job thinks (correctly) that he has landed a very good position indeed, by local standards.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

How DARE they!

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Short of a Berlin style wall with mine fields and armed guards with shoot to kill orders I don't see any practical way to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States. As long as the worst jobs here pay better than many of the good jobs down there people will come. This country has always prided itself on offering hope for a better life.

I personally would like to see the laws relaxed to allow mirgant workers to work legally during the season when work is avialable to them. This would allow many to work here seasonally, legally and it would allow the INS to go after those who are here illegally. In the case of Walmart, you have to wonder why such a large and successful company would even run the risk of hiring illegals. They should be punished severely simply because they should know better. That said I don't think illegal immigrants should be able to sue their employer or any one else.

They are here illegally and know that they are breaking the law by being here. I do not see any good coming of rewarding them with large settlements for breaking our laws. That smacks of a burgler sueing his intended victim because he slipped and fell on a loose board on their deck. It is my opinion that when you set out to intentionally break the law you are forfeiting the protection of the law. If you hold it in such contempt that you don't feel obligated to obey it, you should not be able to call upon it like a safety blanket when your criminal enterprise doesn't work out the way you planned.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

... I don't think illegal immigrants should be able to sue their employer or any one else.
They are here illegally and know that they are breaking the law by being here. I do not see any good coming of rewarding them with large settlements for breaking our laws. That smacks of a burgler sueing his intended victim because he slipped and fell on a loose board on their deck. ...

Colly, I agree with your opinion, but it's my guess that lawyers were most likely the instigators in the suit mentioned in the article. Your analogy is interesting because our system allows just that absurd type of litigation; even encourages it, it seems to me. In SF not too long ago a man was sued or arrested, can't recall, for hurting a thief; he was only being a good samaritan, wasn't the one originally harmed. The details are out of memory but it fits your example. Everyone was in an uproar but the law was the law, as they say.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Laws were passed by people in the old days where common sense was the rule. The rule of thumb in a liability case was what would the prudent man do in the situation. It is rarely aplied today.

The case I last remember it being used in was the appeal when a woman won a multi million dollar suit against McDonalds for spilling hot coffee in her lap. The first jusry gave her the award, ruling that McDonalds was negligent in not marking the coffee cups "Hot".

The appeallate court cited the prudent man rule of thumb, stating the prudent man would know freshly bough coffee was hot. End of story.

The prudent man should know he is hiring illegals, thus he is subject to fines. Walmart should get walloped. At the same time the prudent man should also recognize that if you are working illegally, you don't have the right to sue your employer, it should result in the judge throwing the case out and you being deported.

Unfortunately the prudent man has pretty much dissappeared from our legal system.

-Colly

 

[Svenskaflicka]

The coffee was hot? Who could have guessed?

 

[Quasimodem]

Around here, Tim Horton's disposable coffee cups say "Hot Coffee" on them. I always thought that was advertising.

Maybe it was a prudent pre-emption of possible litigation.

Anybody else read coffee cups

 

[Colleen Thomas]

If you ever see strange warnings on things and wonder how they got there the answer is usually yes, someone tried it and yes, they sued.

So if you see do not eat on your tube of preparation H the answer is yes, despite how incredibly stupid it seems, someone thought it would go good on a soda cracker.

-Colly

 

[DarlingNikki]

I can't post a link because I can't seem to figure out how to cut and paste on my boyfriend's powerbook, but if you do a google search for McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, you'll find that it's a little more involved then just "suing because the coffee was hot"

The coffee was 20 degrees hotter than is safe, McDonald's had kept it at this unsafe temperature for years, even after 700 serious scalding incidences. The woman, who was 81, suffered third degree burns and had to have skin grafts on her genitals and thighs and stay in the hospital for a week. Even after all that, she only asked for $2000 worth of medical bills and was offered $800 by McDonalds.

I can't say that if I had 3rd degree burns from something that a company knew would cause 3rd degree burns that I wouldn't sue too.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The coffee was 20 degrees hotter than is safe,

Hi, Nikki. I don't know what you mean by "20 degrees hotter than was safe". Coffee to go is hot, and if you spill it on yourself, you will get burned. This is a well-known fact. The woman knew the coffee was hot and she carelessly opened it in a moving vehicle, holding it on her lap. It spilled, naturally, but that was her own fault. I wasn't aware that the case had been dismissed on appeal but I am glad to hear that it was.

Illegal aliens don't always take jobs from legal aliens and citizens. What they do is depress wages, so that legals and citizens won't take the jobs that are shitty AND low-paying. Even a shitty job will be in demand if it pays well enough.

Illegals don't really pay much in taxes since they usually get paid in cash, and never pay income taxes or social security or anything else. They do pay some in sales tax but they are more takers than givers.

Years ago, California and some other states had what was called the Bracero program, where seasonal laborers were brought in from Mexico. This was left over from World War 2, when most people had defense jobs and nobody wanted to do the backbreaking labor involved. The program continued into the sixties, and it was supposed to not have an adverse effect on wages. Anybody who believed it didn't probably also believes in the Easter Bunny, because after the program ended, farm wages increased enough to attract Americans. I know this because I was one of them.

 

[Seattle Zack]

The McDonald's case is one that very few people even bother to find out the facts behind it, because it's easier to make jokes. McDonald's was negligent, there's no doubt about it.

For years McDonalds served their coffee up to 40 degrees hotter than other fast-food restaurants. The operations manual called for McDonalds coffee to be kept at 190 degrees. Water boils at 212 degrees. In this way, they could get more coffee per pound of beans and increase their profits by a few cents per cup.

McDonald's coffee was so hot that, if spilled, it could cause third degree burns, which would burn through skin and down to the muscle in less than three seconds. At 170 degrees, this would take about eight to ten seconds and at 150 degrees (the temperature of most restaurant coffee) it takes about 15 to 20 seconds.

McDonald's had more than seven hundred previous claims related to serious burns from their coffee to their customers, many of whom had been injured in the genital area, inner thighs, and buttocks areas.

The burned plaintiff in this case, 79 year old Stella Lieback, was not driving her car. She was seated as the passenger in her grandson's parked car, holding the coffee cup between her legs while removing the plastic lid (which was not properly placed on the cup by the employee -- another factor that contributed to the 80% blame finding toward McDonalds). The cup tipped over and poured the scalding hot coffee into her lap causing third degree burns.

Mrs. Lieback required eight days of hospitalization and multiple surgeries, including skin grafts as a result of being scalded by McDonald's coffee. She took legal action against McDonald's after they refused to reimburse her $2000 for her medical expenses.

The jury awarded punitive damages, to punish McDonald's and to deter McDonald's from such conduct in the future, of $2.7 million. The day after the verdict, McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee.

The trial judge thought the verdict was too high and reduced the verdict to about $480,000 at McDonald's request. This is one fact that the insurance lawyers and McDonald's corporate lawyers never mention.

The argument that coffee is hot and one should take care when dealing with hot coffee is true. But a reasonable person wouldn't find themselves thinking that buying coffee at McDonald's would put them into a hospital for even a day.

McDonald's ignored industry safety standards and kept their coffee just a few degrees short of boiling. McDonald's attitude toward the safety of their customers was simply overridden by their profit motive.

That's the basis of tort law - the defendent knew or should have known that the activities in which they were engaging in posed a significant risk, but chose to ignore the risk. The jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct.

I suppose the same flippant comments should apply to the E-coli cases -- shouldn't the customers have implicitly understood that there was a danger to them from the restaurant disregarding safety standards in the temperature of their food preparation?

 

[DarlingNikki]

Re: The coffee was 20 degrees hotter than is safe,

Hi, Nikki. I don't know what you mean by "20 degrees hotter than was safe". Coffee to go is hot, and if you spill it on yourself, you will get burned. ...

If you don't know what I mean by "20 degrees hotter than was safe" then why are you arguing with me? Yes, coffee is supposed to be hot. It is not supposed to be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. Take a cup of coffee that you feel is the perfect temperature to drink and enjoy. Spill it on yourself. Yes, it will hurt you, but you will not have to go to the hospital. If you have to go to the hospital, it was TOO HOT.

I'd really like to hear you say that you could experience this and say "oh well, clumsy me, it's really my own fault that I am lying in a hospital bed having strips of skin removed from other parts of my body to be sewed onto my now bloody, skinless genitals. After all, coffee is supposed to be hot enough to do this."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

To be honest I did not know the specifics of the case. I knew it only as the last time I remember the Prudent man being applied in a case. It does not surprise me to find that Mickie D's was trying to get every last penny out of customers.

"The Prudent Man" basis in liability cases was explained to me by a friend in Law school and this case was the one he used to illustrate it to me. Or it may have been another case as Zack said the award was reduced and in the case cited to me the lower court decision was overturned.

-Colly

 

[Svenskaflicka]

McDonalds really is the favourite son of Mammon.

They hire teenagers, because these don't have any experience, so they don't know how to complain or make demands.
What does a teenager care if he/she is only getting 60% of a grown-up's salary for doing the same job? They're only working there for pocket-money, after all!
The great thing about McDonalds is that it doesn't matter if you lose one worker, there are always atleast 100 others waiting to take over, so you won't have to worry about treating your workers well!

For me, the line was definitely crossed when they told me to buy my own pencils to use for signing credit card receits - the pencils kept disappearing, and the company couldn't afford to buy pencils for their workers!


Not to mention the time when they forbid me to take a short break to buy tampons, because there was a line in front of the cash registers. When I told my boss that my period was strong enough to bleed through my pants and drip on the floor, she went through all the women's handbags until she found a box of tampons and told me to "borrow" one...

 

[wornoutkeyboard]

McDonalds really is the favourite son of Mammon.

They hire teenagers, because these don't have any experience, so they don't know how to complain or make demands.
What does a teenager care if he/she is only getting 60% of a grown-up's salary for doing the same job? They're only working there for pocket-money, after all!
The great thing about McDonalds is that it doesn't matter if you lose one worker, there are always atleast 100 others waiting to take over, so you won't have to worry about treating your workers well!

For me, the line was definitely crossed when they told me to buy my own pencils to use for signing credit card receits - the pencils kept disappearing, and the company couldn't afford to buy pencils for their workers!


Not to mention the time when they forbid me to take a short break to buy tampons, because there was a line in front of the cash registers. When I told my boss that my period was strong enough to bleed through my pants and drip on the floor, she went through all the women's handbags until she found a box of tampons and told me to "borrow" one...

Ewwwww.......

That is all I have to say on that topic.

~WOK

 

[Guest]

Svenska, it's not a comforting thought in the least but you've shown just how 'universal' and adaptive McD's and the like are, i.e., even in Europe. Yikes.

Perd