There is a god.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Originally posted by: Amused
So I see Starbucks has now joined the ranks of MS, AOL, McDonalds and SUVs as targets by the self styled elitists who cannot understand why common folks like something they do not.

Grow up and mind your own fscking business. That these companies or trends bother you so much should show you just what is wrong with YOU, not them or them people who like them.

That you're bothered by these people who dislike companies or trends should show you just what is wrong with YOU. Grow up and mind your own business.

I mean, Jesus, how did you not see that coming from a few miles away? *sigh*

I was minding my own business when this guy decided to post a thread gloating at the misfortune of others basing that gloat on some elitist bullsh!t.

No, I didn't see that coming because, frankly, it's an illogical reaction.

Frankly, is any of this really that important? If people like Starbucks does that negatively affect your life? Conversely, if people hate them does that negatively affect your life?

The irrational hate of corporations by the American elitist left has led to a great deal of harm and a threat to everyone's freedoms.

And the public gloating over another's misfortune is disgusting and should be treated as such.
I realize that this is getting political, but our most recent Democratic Chief Executive, Bill Clinton, was pro-globalization and heartily supported organizations like the WTO, the WMF and the World Bank. Such organs financially prop up countries like Chile, Bolivia, etc. for companies like Starbucks so that such large corporations can exploit the glut of cheap, physical labor. Groups like the WTO often have no regard for human rights, and pump money into a country's infrastructure solely to promote the business side of things, while they completely ignore the humanitarian abuses occurring there.

Just a note about why people don't like companies like Starbucks, Fruit of the Loom, Nike, etc.
 

Platypus

Lifer
Apr 26, 2001
31,046
321
136
Originally posted by: OverVolt
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
i'd thank your god if you got cancer and died a long and horrible death.
ok, so its not ok for someone who hates starbucks to be happy when one burns down, but its perfectly ok for you to wish death upon someone? huh?



I really didn't think I had to spell things out for people, but I can see you're incapable of drawing even the most simple conclusions from my text.
 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Originally posted by: Amused
So I see Starbucks has now joined the ranks of MS, AOL, McDonalds and SUVs as targets by the self styled elitists who cannot understand why common folks like something they do not.

Grow up and mind your own fscking business. That these companies or trends bother you so much should show you just what is wrong with YOU, not them or them people who like them.

That you're bothered by these people who dislike companies or trends should show you just what is wrong with YOU. Grow up and mind your own business.

I mean, Jesus, how did you not see that coming from a few miles away? *sigh*

I was minding my own business when this guy decided to post a thread gloating at the misfortune of others basing that gloat on some elitist bullsh!t.

No, I didn't see that coming because, frankly, it's an illogical reaction.

Frankly, is any of this really that important? If people like Starbucks does that negatively affect your life? Conversely, if people hate them does that negatively affect your life?

The irrational hate of corporations by the American elitist left has led to a great deal of harm and a threat to everyone's freedoms.

And the public gloating over another's misfortune is disgusting and should be treated as such.

So he decided to voice an opinion and gloat. Does this directly concern you in some way that none of us are aware of? Was it your store? If not, then I don't see where you get off trying to tell him how to think.

I hope you can at least see the humor in you telling him to mind his own businesss. He mentioned something that he found funny. As far as I know that would qualify as minding your own business since he wasn't trying to tell anyone what to do or think. You, on the other hand, tried to tell him how he should think, which I really don't think you could call minding your own business. To each his own, though.

As far as the elitist hate of successful companies causing "a great deal of harm and a threat to everyone's freedoms"... Last time I checked Starbucks and Microsoft were still doing quite well. You're concern is touching, however misplaced. You may well be right I suppose, but until the Senate passes a bill outlawing Starbucks coffee and Windows I think I'll hold off judgement on that one.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,074
18,508
146
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Originally posted by: Amused
So I see Starbucks has now joined the ranks of MS, AOL, McDonalds and SUVs as targets by the self styled elitists who cannot understand why common folks like something they do not.

Grow up and mind your own fscking business. That these companies or trends bother you so much should show you just what is wrong with YOU, not them or them people who like them.

That you're bothered by these people who dislike companies or trends should show you just what is wrong with YOU. Grow up and mind your own business.

I mean, Jesus, how did you not see that coming from a few miles away? *sigh*

I was minding my own business when this guy decided to post a thread gloating at the misfortune of others basing that gloat on some elitist bullsh!t.

No, I didn't see that coming because, frankly, it's an illogical reaction.

Frankly, is any of this really that important? If people like Starbucks does that negatively affect your life? Conversely, if people hate them does that negatively affect your life?

The irrational hate of corporations by the American elitist left has led to a great deal of harm and a threat to everyone's freedoms.

And the public gloating over another's misfortune is disgusting and should be treated as such.
I realize that this is getting political, but our most recent Democratic Chief Executive, Bill Clinton, was pro-globalization and heartily supported organizations like the WTO, the WMF and the World Bank. Such organs financially prop up countries like Chile, Bolivia, etc. for companies like Starbucks so that such large corporations can exploit the glut of cheap, physical labor. Groups like the WTO often have no regard for human rights, and pump money into a country's infrastructure solely to promote the business side of things, while they completely ignore the humanitarian abuses occurring there.

Just a note about why people don't like companies like Starbucks, Fruit of the Loom, Nike, etc.

Deny poor people a job, and you're a bastard. Give them a job at wages FAR higher than they could get anywhere else in their area, and you're still a bastard.

If people didn't want to work there, these companies wouldn't find this "cheap" labor. No one is forcing people to work for these companies. In fact, these people fight like hell for these jobs because the companies pay more than anyone else around.

What you call "exploitation" I call mutual utilization.

As for Clinton, he did his fair share of things to piss off the elitist left. Using him is a rather poor example.
 

Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Originally posted by: Amused
So I see Starbucks has now joined the ranks of MS, AOL, McDonalds and SUVs as targets by the self styled elitists who cannot understand why common folks like something they do not.

Grow up and mind your own fscking business. That these companies or trends bother you so much should show you just what is wrong with YOU, not them or them people who like them.

That you're bothered by these people who dislike companies or trends should show you just what is wrong with YOU. Grow up and mind your own business.

I mean, Jesus, how did you not see that coming from a few miles away? *sigh*

I was minding my own business when this guy decided to post a thread gloating at the misfortune of others basing that gloat on some elitist bullsh!t.

No, I didn't see that coming because, frankly, it's an illogical reaction.

Frankly, is any of this really that important? If people like Starbucks does that negatively affect your life? Conversely, if people hate them does that negatively affect your life?

The irrational hate of corporations by the American elitist left has led to a great deal of harm and a threat to everyone's freedoms.

And the public gloating over another's misfortune is disgusting and should be treated as such.
I realize that this is getting political, but our most recent Democratic Chief Executive, Bill Clinton, was pro-globalization and heartily supported organizations like the WTO, the WMF and the World Bank. Such organs financially prop up countries like Chile, Bolivia, etc. for companies like Starbucks so that such large corporations can exploit the glut of cheap, physical labor. Groups like the WTO often have no regard for human rights, and pump money into a country's infrastructure solely to promote the business side of things, while they completely ignore the humanitarian abuses occurring there.

Just a note about why people don't like companies like Starbucks, Fruit of the Loom, Nike, etc.

Deny poor people a job, and you're a bastard. Give them a job at wages FAR higher than they could get anywhere else in their area, and you're still a bastard.

If people didn't want to work there, these companies wouldn't find this "cheap" labor. No one is forcing people to work for these companies. In fact, these people fight like hell for these jobs because the companies pay more than anyone else around.

What you call "exploitation" I call mutual utilization.

As for Clinton, he did his fair share of things to piss off the elitist left. Using him is a rather poor example.
If your boss beat you with a cane when you didn't pick coffee beans fast enough for $0.50/hour in the fields, what would you do? Remember, there's no regulatory body to report such violations to. Consider also that there are anti-union gestapo tactics used in such WTO/World Bank-sponsored countries. Without the right to organize and without the right to report gross human rights violations, there is little recourse. Sure, these companies are offering jobs, but they have a RESPONSIBILITY to treat workers fairly. Can you and I agree on that?
Deny poor people a job, and you're a bastard. Give them a job at wages FAR higher than they could get anywhere else in their area, and you're still a bastard.
Beat them for not working fast enough at $0.50/hour, and you're an even bigger bastard.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,074
18,508
146
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Originally posted by: Amused
So I see Starbucks has now joined the ranks of MS, AOL, McDonalds and SUVs as targets by the self styled elitists who cannot understand why common folks like something they do not.

Grow up and mind your own fscking business. That these companies or trends bother you so much should show you just what is wrong with YOU, not them or them people who like them.

That you're bothered by these people who dislike companies or trends should show you just what is wrong with YOU. Grow up and mind your own business.

I mean, Jesus, how did you not see that coming from a few miles away? *sigh*

I was minding my own business when this guy decided to post a thread gloating at the misfortune of others basing that gloat on some elitist bullsh!t.

No, I didn't see that coming because, frankly, it's an illogical reaction.

Frankly, is any of this really that important? If people like Starbucks does that negatively affect your life? Conversely, if people hate them does that negatively affect your life?

The irrational hate of corporations by the American elitist left has led to a great deal of harm and a threat to everyone's freedoms.

And the public gloating over another's misfortune is disgusting and should be treated as such.
I realize that this is getting political, but our most recent Democratic Chief Executive, Bill Clinton, was pro-globalization and heartily supported organizations like the WTO, the WMF and the World Bank. Such organs financially prop up countries like Chile, Bolivia, etc. for companies like Starbucks so that such large corporations can exploit the glut of cheap, physical labor. Groups like the WTO often have no regard for human rights, and pump money into a country's infrastructure solely to promote the business side of things, while they completely ignore the humanitarian abuses occurring there.

Just a note about why people don't like companies like Starbucks, Fruit of the Loom, Nike, etc.

Deny poor people a job, and you're a bastard. Give them a job at wages FAR higher than they could get anywhere else in their area, and you're still a bastard.

If people didn't want to work there, these companies wouldn't find this "cheap" labor. No one is forcing people to work for these companies. In fact, these people fight like hell for these jobs because the companies pay more than anyone else around.

What you call "exploitation" I call mutual utilization.

As for Clinton, he did his fair share of things to piss off the elitist left. Using him is a rather poor example.
If your boss beat you with a cane when you didn't pick coffee beans fast enough for $0.50/hour in the fields, what would you do? Remember, there's no regulatory body to report such violations to. Consider also that there are anti-union gestapo tactics used in such WTO/World Bank-sponsored countries.
Deny poor people a job, and you're a bastard. Give them a job at wages FAR higher than they could get anywhere else in their area, and you're still a bastard.
Beat them for not working fast enough at $0.50/hour, and you're an even bigger bastard.

If they can quit, they should. If they cannot, they are slaves. Meanwhile, using the rare case of human rights violations to describe all working conditions in all off shore labor markets is a bit silly, isn't it?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,074
18,508
146
As for "fair.":

What is "fair" is as much up to the employee as the employer.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,461
1,648
126
Well, whatever your thoughts about it, a few people just lost a job, and as the article says, more than $100000 in damages occured. That's not cool.

Besides, Starbucks smell really good. You have to admit that.
 

Originally posted by: Amused
If they can quit, they should. If they cannot, they are slaves. Meanwhile, using the rare case of human rights violations to describe all working conditions in all off shore labor markets is a bit silly, isn't it?
They are not slaves and they may quit, but it often means that they can't purchase food for their families, as companies that industrialize third world countries often simply destroy agricultural economic systems in the area. And many warehouses and factories around the world are defined as sweatshops.
MYTH: ?Working in a sweatshop makes a bad life better for poor people in most developing countries.?

False. Sweatshop and child workers are trapped in a cycle of exploitation that rarely improves their economic situation. Since multinationals are constantly pressuring suppliers for cost-cutting measures, workers most often find conditions getting worse instead of better.

Take a look at the workers at the Megatex factory in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, who make several lines of clothing for Disney. While their daily pay is $2.15 a day, their average daily expenses are $6.12. At this wage, the workers are trapped; they will never be able to save money to improve their lives because they aren?t able to cover their family?s basic needs.

As concerned consumers, we need to make sure no child or adult worker gets thrown out of a sweatshop and onto the street after violations are uncovered. That?s why it?s important to hold companies accountable to provide an education for children and a living wage for their parents.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Not a big fan of starbucks here... But, that's because I'm a plain regular black coffee person. I don't need all those fancy flavored sweeteners added.
It's sad that someone lost their business (and others lost their jobs) of course.

I do want to say that I find it amusing, to say the least, that people are up in arms over the cost of a gallon of gas for their car, but they'll happily pay twice that amount for a cup of coffee. AND, there is no OPEC for coffee - in fact, IIRC last year coffee prices were at a record LOW! I think a lot of people actually hate Starbucks because they hate greedy corporations raping their customers, albeit only a couple of bucks at a time.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,074
18,508
146
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Not a big fan of starbucks here... But, that's because I'm a plain regular black coffee person. I don't need all those fancy flavored sweeteners added.
It's sad that someone lost their business (and others lost their jobs) of course.

I do want to say that I find it amusing, to say the least, that people are up in arms over the cost of a gallon of gas for their car, but they'll happily pay twice that amount for a cup of coffee. AND, there is no OPEC for coffee - in fact, IIRC last year coffee prices were at a record LOW! I think a lot of people actually hate Starbucks because they hate greedy corporations raping their customers, albeit only a couple of bucks at a time.

Another person whining about "greedy corporations." Coffee is a luxury. Starbucks charges as much as they can and still maintain a customer base.

Folks do that all the time in FS/FT. The whole idea of buying and selling is to buy for as cheap as you can, and sell for as much as you can. That Starbucks can charge $4-5 for a coffee and be so successful is not an indictment on their morality, but an indictment on their customer's judgement.

What is it with the left in our society that they cannot, for the life of them, ever blame individuals and consumers for their actions? If people are perfectly willing to pay 4-5 bucks for a cup of coffee, is Starbuck's greedy, or are their customers idiots?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,074
18,508
146
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: Amused
If they can quit, they should. If they cannot, they are slaves. Meanwhile, using the rare case of human rights violations to describe all working conditions in all off shore labor markets is a bit silly, isn't it?
They are not slaves and they may quit, but it often means that they can't purchase food for their families, as companies that industrialize third world countries often simply destroy agricultural economic systems in the area. And many warehouses and factories around the world are defined as sweatshops.
MYTH: ?Working in a sweatshop makes a bad life better for poor people in most developing countries.?

False. Sweatshop and child workers are trapped in a cycle of exploitation that rarely improves their economic situation. Since multinationals are constantly pressuring suppliers for cost-cutting measures, workers most often find conditions getting worse instead of better.

Take a look at the workers at the Megatex factory in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, who make several lines of clothing for Disney. While their daily pay is $2.15 a day, their average daily expenses are $6.12. At this wage, the workers are trapped; they will never be able to save money to improve their lives because they aren?t able to cover their family?s basic needs.

As concerned consumers, we need to make sure no child or adult worker gets thrown out of a sweatshop and onto the street after violations are uncovered. That?s why it?s important to hold companies accountable to provide an education for children and a living wage for their parents.


Nice. Blindly parrot co-op America's website. A hard core leftist organization wrapped up in environmentalist and anti-capitalist leftism. Their save the wood site is especially funny as trees are renewable crop. Next they'll have a save the potatos site. :roll:

Sorry, but you'll have to pick a more objective source than that.
 

Originally posted by: Amused
What is it with the left in our society that they cannot, for the life of them, ever blame individuals and consumers for their actions? If people are perfectly willing to pay 4-5 bucks for a cup of coffee, is Starbuck's greedy, or are their customers idiots?
I can't believe it, but I agree with you. :Q
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,074
18,508
146
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: Amused
What is it with the left in our society that they cannot, for the life of them, ever blame individuals and consumers for their actions? If people are perfectly willing to pay 4-5 bucks for a cup of coffee, is Starbuck's greedy, or are their customers idiots?
I can't believe it, but I agree with you. :Q

OMG!!! :shocked:
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: Amused
What is it with the left in our society that they cannot, for the life of them, ever blame individuals and consumers for their actions? If people are perfectly willing to pay 4-5 bucks for a cup of coffee, is Starbuck's greedy, or are their customers idiots?
I can't believe it, but I agree with you. :Q

OMG!!! :shocked:

That's it, I'm off to buy a lottery ticket.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Not a big fan of starbucks here... But, that's because I'm a plain regular black coffee person. I don't need all those fancy flavored sweeteners added.
It's sad that someone lost their business (and others lost their jobs) of course.

I do want to say that I find it amusing, to say the least, that people are up in arms over the cost of a gallon of gas for their car, but they'll happily pay twice that amount for a cup of coffee. AND, there is no OPEC for coffee - in fact, IIRC last year coffee prices were at a record LOW! I think a lot of people actually hate Starbucks because they hate greedy corporations raping their customers, albeit only a couple of bucks at a time.

Another person whining about "greedy corporations." Coffee is a luxury. Starbucks charges as much as they can and still maintain a customer base.

Folks do that all the time in FS/FT. The whole idea of buying and selling is to buy for as cheap as you can, and sell for as much as you can. That Starbucks can charge $4-5 for a coffee and be so successful is not an indictment on their morality, but an indictment on their customer's judgement.

What is it with the left in our society that they cannot, for the life of them, ever blame individuals and consumers for their actions? If people are perfectly willing to pay 4-5 bucks for a cup of coffee, is Starbuck's greedy, or are their customers idiots?
They aren't "Elitist Left", they are just immature fools.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
They aren't "Elitist Left", they are just immature fools.

Is there a difference?
Well calling them "Elitists" gives them to much cre. There's nothing Elite about themdit
 

Originally posted by: Amused
Nice. Blindly parrot co-op America's website. A hard core leftist organization wrapped up in environmentalist and anti-capitalist leftism. Their save the wood site is especially funny as trees are renewable crop. Next they'll have a save the potatos site. :roll:

Sorry, but you'll have to pick a more objective source than that.
If it's this bad in the U.S. where we have an NLRB, what's it like in other countries? From TIME:
Suffer The Little Children
A nationwide sweep uncovers exploitation of young workers
By NANCY GIBBS




Mar. 26, 1990
Like breadlines and Hoovervilles, sweatshops and child labor were supposed to be relics of an uglier era. Yet behind barricaded storefronts in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, N.Y., immigrant women huddle over sewing machines, stitching $2 blouses that stores sell for $15.99. Beside them work children, some as young as eight, snipping thread and bagging dresses for as little as $2.50 an hour. The narrow aisles of the garment factories are cluttered beyond hope of reaching a fire exit, which in many instances are blocked by debris. In one plant, the wall around the plastic crucifix is peeling, the tin ceiling sagging, the floor ankle deep in tissue, scraps, foam and fluff. But for the steam rising from the ironing boards, the air does not move. In the front hang row upon row of crisp white cotton miniskirts bearing the tag CREATED WITH PRIDE IN USA.
In city after city, town after town, children are slipping into the work force to make up for a growing labor shortage, while the laws designed to protect them are widely flouted. In New York, it is the garment industry; in California, the fast-food restaurants; in Iowa, the farms; in Maryland, the door-to-door candy sellers. Violations of child-labor laws shot up from 8,877 in 1984 to a record 22,508 last year, as ever younger children worked ever longer hours at jobs no one else would take for the pay. Though the majority of underage workers are middle-class teens supplementing their allowances, many are undocumented immigrants or impoverished members of the urban underclass.

Under fire from child-welfare groups, the Labor Department last week conducted Operation Child Watch, a nationwide three-day sweep of 3,400 garment shops, restaurants, supermarkets and other businesses suspected of abusing young workers. In all, the operation uncovered 7,000 minors who were illegally employed, which could result in more than $1.8 million in civil fines. "The cop is on the beat," declared Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole. "Violations, whether motivated by greed or by ignorance, will not be tolerated."

In Congress, meanwhile, the House Employment and Housing Subcommittee, chaired by California Democrat Tom Lantos, heard testimony from victims critical of the Labor Department's enforcement record. Suzanne Boutros of Plainfield, Ind., described how her 17-year-old son was killed while driving a pizza truck. Matthew Garvey told about losing his leg in a drying machine while working as a 13-year-old at a car wash. The fine: $400. "It is shocking to learn," said Lantos, "that thousands of youngsters are jeopardizing their education, health and safety by working too many hours, too late at night, and in dangerous, prohibited occupations."

Most abuses occur in service industries, such as pizza parlors, supermarkets, movie theaters and other businesses that have long relied on teenagers to do menial work. Federal law allows 14-year-olds to 16-year-olds to work no more than three hours on school days, not past 7 p.m., up to 18 hours a week. Investigators raided one restaurant that employed 156 workers under 16 in violation of the hour restrictions. They also found 900 cases of children operating dangerous machinery -- meat slicers and paper balers, trash compactors and corn pickers.

Though no one defends placing children in harm's way, many employers argue that there is another side to the story. Teenagers who work after school learn discipline and responsibility. Migrant farm families, in particular, often work together in order to earn a semblance of a living wage. Stanley Quanyoung runs a small garment factory in Brooklyn. When he was cited last year for illegally employing his 15-year-old nephew Kin Wai Ng, Quanyoung was outraged. If his nephew were not working, he would be "walking the streets doing nothing," says Quanyoung. "He would fall into a bad gang."

Child-welfare advocates reply that they are not against teenagers working: they are against teenagers being exploited. Teachers report that students who work late into the night often fall behind in their homework and doze off during class. "What that does," says New York Labor Commissioner Thomas Hartnett, "is rob these young people of their future." Many states are instituting tougher restrictions: legislation is pending in New York that would increase fines and reduce hours worked during the school term, even for 17-year-olds. New Hampshire requires satisfactory academic performance in order to obtain a work certificate; Missouri and Washington restrict the use of children for door-to-door sales to protect them from exploitation and violent attacks.

Secretary Dole has set up a task force to review and update the list of potentially dangerous jobs. She has also stiffened penalties for violators, who until now might have found it more profitable to pay the fines than lose their cheap workers. "The bottom line is that penalties should not, must not be an acceptable cost of doing business," says William Brooks, Assistant Labor Secretary for Employment Standards. That is a welcome change -- and badly overdue.

? Reported by Gisela Bolte/Washington and Naushad S. Mehta/New York
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,074
18,508
146
Originally posted by: jumpr
Originally posted by: Amused
Nice. Blindly parrot co-op America's website. A hard core leftist organization wrapped up in environmentalist and anti-capitalist leftism. Their save the wood site is especially funny as trees are renewable crop. Next they'll have a save the potatos site. :roll:

Sorry, but you'll have to pick a more objective source than that.
If it's this bad in the U.S. where we have an NLRB, what's it like in other countries? From TIME:
Suffer The Little Children
A nationwide sweep uncovers exploitation of young workers
By NANCY GIBBS




Mar. 26, 1990
Like breadlines and Hoovervilles, sweatshops and child labor were supposed to be relics of an uglier era. Yet behind barricaded storefronts in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, N.Y., immigrant women huddle over sewing machines, stitching $2 blouses that stores sell for $15.99. Beside them work children, some as young as eight, snipping thread and bagging dresses for as little as $2.50 an hour. The narrow aisles of the garment factories are cluttered beyond hope of reaching a fire exit, which in many instances are blocked by debris. In one plant, the wall around the plastic crucifix is peeling, the tin ceiling sagging, the floor ankle deep in tissue, scraps, foam and fluff. But for the steam rising from the ironing boards, the air does not move. In the front hang row upon row of crisp white cotton miniskirts bearing the tag CREATED WITH PRIDE IN USA.
In city after city, town after town, children are slipping into the work force to make up for a growing labor shortage, while the laws designed to protect them are widely flouted. In New York, it is the garment industry; in California, the fast-food restaurants; in Iowa, the farms; in Maryland, the door-to-door candy sellers. Violations of child-labor laws shot up from 8,877 in 1984 to a record 22,508 last year, as ever younger children worked ever longer hours at jobs no one else would take for the pay. Though the majority of underage workers are middle-class teens supplementing their allowances, many are undocumented immigrants or impoverished members of the urban underclass.

Under fire from child-welfare groups, the Labor Department last week conducted Operation Child Watch, a nationwide three-day sweep of 3,400 garment shops, restaurants, supermarkets and other businesses suspected of abusing young workers. In all, the operation uncovered 7,000 minors who were illegally employed, which could result in more than $1.8 million in civil fines. "The cop is on the beat," declared Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole. "Violations, whether motivated by greed or by ignorance, will not be tolerated."

In Congress, meanwhile, the House Employment and Housing Subcommittee, chaired by California Democrat Tom Lantos, heard testimony from victims critical of the Labor Department's enforcement record. Suzanne Boutros of Plainfield, Ind., described how her 17-year-old son was killed while driving a pizza truck. Matthew Garvey told about losing his leg in a drying machine while working as a 13-year-old at a car wash. The fine: $400. "It is shocking to learn," said Lantos, "that thousands of youngsters are jeopardizing their education, health and safety by working too many hours, too late at night, and in dangerous, prohibited occupations."

Most abuses occur in service industries, such as pizza parlors, supermarkets, movie theaters and other businesses that have long relied on teenagers to do menial work. Federal law allows 14-year-olds to 16-year-olds to work no more than three hours on school days, not past 7 p.m., up to 18 hours a week. Investigators raided one restaurant that employed 156 workers under 16 in violation of the hour restrictions. They also found 900 cases of children operating dangerous machinery -- meat slicers and paper balers, trash compactors and corn pickers.

Though no one defends placing children in harm's way, many employers argue that there is another side to the story. Teenagers who work after school learn discipline and responsibility. Migrant farm families, in particular, often work together in order to earn a semblance of a living wage. Stanley Quanyoung runs a small garment factory in Brooklyn. When he was cited last year for illegally employing his 15-year-old nephew Kin Wai Ng, Quanyoung was outraged. If his nephew were not working, he would be "walking the streets doing nothing," says Quanyoung. "He would fall into a bad gang."

Child-welfare advocates reply that they are not against teenagers working: they are against teenagers being exploited. Teachers report that students who work late into the night often fall behind in their homework and doze off during class. "What that does," says New York Labor Commissioner Thomas Hartnett, "is rob these young people of their future." Many states are instituting tougher restrictions: legislation is pending in New York that would increase fines and reduce hours worked during the school term, even for 17-year-olds. New Hampshire requires satisfactory academic performance in order to obtain a work certificate; Missouri and Washington restrict the use of children for door-to-door sales to protect them from exploitation and violent attacks.

Secretary Dole has set up a task force to review and update the list of potentially dangerous jobs. She has also stiffened penalties for violators, who until now might have found it more profitable to pay the fines than lose their cheap workers. "The bottom line is that penalties should not, must not be an acceptable cost of doing business," says William Brooks, Assistant Labor Secretary for Employment Standards. That is a welcome change -- and badly overdue.

? Reported by Gisela Bolte/Washington and Naushad S. Mehta/New York

Sounds like a case of bad parenting to me.

Sorry, but you continue to blame employers for the bad judgement of employees and parents. No one was or is forcing these people to work in these conditions or to put their kids to work.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,074
18,508
146
Originally posted by: jumpr
Also - was the Haitian coup-de-etat performed by the U.S. in February REALLY about improving the lives of Haitian people? Or was it simply a ploy to make the country safe for sweatshops?

http://rwor.org/a/1239/haiti.htm

Riiiight, and the war in Iraq is all about oil. :roll:
 

Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jumpr
Also - was the Haitian coup-de-etat performed by the U.S. in February REALLY about improving the lives of Haitian people? Or was it simply a ploy to make the country safe for sweatshops?

http://rwor.org/a/1239/haiti.htm

Riiiight, and the war in Iraq is all about oil. :roll:
Is it about WMDs? 'Cause I sure haven't seen the Bush administration trumpeting the WMD cause that they entered Iraq under in March 2003! Where are those WMDs that we could see from the satellite images, according to SOS Powell? We've been there for over a year, built roads, schools and bridges, but why haven't we unearthed any WMDs?

I have resigned myself to the realization that the U.S. often does one thing and says another. However, what it says often results in improved conditions for those in foreign lands, which is a good thing.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |