SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Adam Davidson at The New York Times has a story debunking the myth of the job-stealing immigrant:
When I was growing up in the 1980s, I watched my grandfather — my dad’s stepdad — struggle with his own prejudice. He was a blue-collar World War II veteran who loved his family above all things and was constantly afraid for them. He carried a gun and, like many men of his generation, saw threats in people he didn’t understand: African-Americans, independent women, gays. By the time he died, 10 years ago, he had softened. He stopped using racist and homophobic slurs; he even hugged my gay cousin. But there was one view he wasn’t going to change. He had no time for Hispanics, he told us, and he wasn’t backing down. After all, this wasn’t a matter of bigotry. It was plain economics. These immigrants were stealing jobs from “Americans.”
I’ve been thinking about my grandfather lately, because there are signs that 2015 could bring about the beginning of a truce — or at least a reconfiguration — in the politics of immigration. Several of the potential Republican presidential candidates, most notably Jeb Bush, have expressed pro-immigration views. Even self-identified Tea Party Republicans respond three to two in favor of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Every other group — Republicans in general, independents and especially Democrats — is largely pro-immigrant. According to Pew, roughly as many people (18 percent of Americans) believed in 2010 that President Obama was a Muslim as believe today that undocumented immigrants should be expelled from the United States. Of course, that 18 percent can make a lot of noise. But for everyone else, immigration seems to be going the way of same-sex marriage, marijuana and the mohawk — it’s something that a handful of people freak out about but that the rest of us have long since come to accept.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:43AM
I was having a conversation with a person working at my local grocery store. Turns out the construction company I once worked for as a crane operator was his past employer too. It is the sort of job where you can claim to be able to lift 30,000 and put it within a few inches of wherever it needs to be safely. Two ex-operating engineers talking shop. I asked the obvious question, "How did you go from a 80k a year job to working minimum wage putting soup cans on shelves?". Turns out that employer one day gave everyone the boot and brought in Latin-American immigrants. Some were illegal, some aren't. Apparently they pay about 20k for crane operators now. Occasionally they get word of immigration coming in, then they layoff all the operators and hire union guys until it blows over, then go back to the unqualified and, depending on the state illegally unlicensed operators.
So there is one example where a couple dozen skilled 80k jobs were replaced with 20k immigrants that don't know what they are doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:59AM
While I believe your story I find it very difficult to believe that the government hasn't caught on by now. It would take a huge act of negligence and obliviousness to not notice this. Then again government is well known for being lazy and not doing its job.
Wouldn't unions have noticed something was strange here and screamed by now and made this whole thing public.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @04:57PM
I find it very difficult to believe that the government hasn't caught on by now.
And a few phone calls/posh dinners later its not a problem. We all know the score. The guys with money talk to the guys in power. The guys in power do the bidding of the dudes with money. The guys in power give the appearance 'they are doing something' notice how they get word first that it is happening? A month or two later its business as usual.
This is why I am *FOR* immigration. This level of corruption is sickening. They are taking advantage of these people while putting on a nice smile saying they are doing their jobs. The fucking hell they are.
Wouldn't unions have noticed
An organization that has ties to criminal organizations known for taking bribes? They are looking the other way? The hell you say.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @04:05AM
You really can't name this place?
What do you have to lose?
Occasionally they get word of immigration coming in, then they layoff all the operators and hire union guys until it blows over, then go back to the unqualified and, depending on the state illegally unlicensed operators.
That sounds impractical. You are telling me they have enough lead-time in their warning that la migra is coming that they can hire union people and then lay-off union employees immediately afterwards?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @06:26AM
Operating engineers aren't line workers. They are part of the union and work on a per-job basis. Need an operator for a buildout taking two months? Call the union and one will be onsite as soon as one of 'em accepts. The union is there mostly to set working conditions, standard pay, training, and take care of "suit business".
And if you think people are so disconnected in any industry that they don't get an email or text about inspectors coming around, well then I can't help you.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @07:51AM
Agreed. Thanks for the insight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @01:37PM
Your response is all misdirection.
Now you are saying they hire union people for entire jobs, previously you were saying they hired and fired when immigration came around. Do you contend that immigration only comes around to check out people at the start of a job?
Furthermore, where is the union in this? If you know what's going on, they know what's going on. Why don't they boycott the employer in their time of need? Labor actions are the entire reason unions exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @01:58PM
Same thing. I'll say it again as a matter of politeness. Operating engineer's unions are separate from businesses. Businesses can still hire operators without the union. If a business is so inclined, they can layoff their own workforce and bring in union people. Union guys can work for any specific period of time and then they will 'go away'. This is standard practice. If you want a private guy one week and a union one the next that is doable. I was one of those private guys for a time. I was cheaper but in some circumstances union people do need to be brought in if workload is heavy or I was otherwise not available. Some shops are mandatory union, most aren't. Union workers are willing to work for either at their own discretion, but they are paid according to union rules either way. You, as an independent person can hire a union guy for a specific period of time and pay standard rates for that sort of work. You, as an independent person could also hire anyone else to do the same work for the same period and negotiate the pay, or you could even keep them on permanently if you have continuous work for them to do. The union does not know business cycles, they are independent. All they know is that sometimes their guys are needed and sometimes they are not. Immigration checks can happen at any time but generally it is regional and industry specific such that the first place to be audited will be surprised but no others will for that cycle. This is all very obvious.
Is that enough for you? This could go on forever with you criticizing tiny irrelevant things that I would have to spend paragraphs like the previous one explaining. I am not going to tell you the meaning of life or the origin and purpose of the philosophy of language. At some point it isn't the writer's fault if the reader does not understand. You didn't get it. That is okay. Not everyone is knowledgeable in the goings-on of the working world outside of cubicles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @02:11PM
> The union does not know business cycles, they are independent.
Yet you are somehow able to know business cycles.
I'll say it again as a matter of politeness. It is hard to believe that this is an open secret and yet the organizing power of the union is not used against the people employing illegal immigrants in the union's industry. Whether as a labor action or as a continuous stream of reports of immigration violations because everytime someone is laid off from a job they still know what work remains and figuring out that they've been replaced by illegals is not hard. Low-skill work I can see, the kind of high-skilled work that requires licenses, that's doubtful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @03:34PM
LOL. It's amazing to listen to limp wristed tech dweebs talk about things they have absolutely no knowledge in whatsoever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @06:05PM
Equal parts sad, funny, and understandable. It takes a higher level of intelligence to do well in tech. Those with higher intelligence are generally idealists, capable of seeing the world as how it could be. That combined with the obsession with potentially perfect digital constructs reinforces their view that they know how things should be to such a degree that they lose sight of what actually is.
That is the stuff of existential depression. When someone talks in ways that reveal they have that sort of mind, tender sympathy is the right course. They have a hard life ahead of them despite their surface-level advantages. Fight to keep your sense of self and accepting reality as how it actually is. There is little anyone can do in practical terms of efficacy outside of exceptionally controlled specificities.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday March 29 2015, @02:30AM
Yes, because everyone REALLY smart knows the following things are true:
1. Anytime anyone says anything cynical, it should be taken at face value, even when said person is an Anonymous Coward on a spinoff of Slashdot.
2. It's always a conspiracy, no matter how many people need to be in on it for the conspiracy to work.
3. Bribery in government is universal, never investigated, and never prosecuted. Expert surveys of corruption by organizations such as Transparency International indicating this is not so are to be immediately discarded using one of the Standard Arguments of Conspiracy:
- They're in on the conspiracy and are there to pacify the sheeple.
- They're naive idealists who aren't as smart and insightful as you are.
4. Any attempt to determine the truth value of a cynical assertion by analyzing the plausibility of its arguments should also be immediately discarded using the Standard Arguments of Conspiracy. See item 2.
Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @06:18AM
I do not know what snarky remarks about assumed conspiracy theorists and biases has to do with a post talking about well understood [davidsongifted.org] psychological [hoagiesgifted.org] effects. [sengifted.org]
The world simply is. Go out and measure it. Just because someone has an expectation that the world should be different or ought to be different does not change what is. No conspiracy theorists, insults, or numbered lists required. A loose argument does not make for a cogent one, even more so when a counterclaim is presented to be true based on someone's first-hand account. Even if it did, cogent arguments do not refute reality. That is why we use Science to figure stuff out when we used to use pure rationality.
I also never claimed conspiracy, corruption, bribery, or anyone is a "sheeple". It was not my intent or insinuation either.
The word idealist does not in any way indicate naivety.
Finally, what is your point exactly? I did not do nor think any of the things you have presented as being attributable to me.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday March 29 2015, @06:32AM
And a few phone calls/posh dinners later its not a problem. We all know the score. The guys with money talk to the guys in power. The guys in power do the bidding of the dudes with money. The guys in power give the appearance 'they are doing something' notice how they get word first that it is happening? A month or two later its business as usual.
Was that not you? It's hard to tell when two or more ACs are arguing with each other. Even if it wasn't you, you seem to be on the same "side" as that person. That's what I was criticizing. Even if existential depression is a thing (and I guess it probably is), attributing that or a tendency to that to anyone doubting the rather tall tale told by the OP of this thread is inappropriate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @06:41AM
Is it a tall tale? That needs to be proven. You talk of attributing generalities to a specific situation when reasonably appropriate. So do I. It is not the initial doubting that is the indicator, but the persistence in belief that reality is a specific way by using rationality to show that it should be that way even after an equally reasonable counterargument is presented. Well, that and the high rate of people amongst the demographics of this site facing that very issue.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday March 29 2015, @06:53AM
Okay, which one are you now? You guys should really create accounts.
Tall tales can be true, they just seem subjectively unlikely to be so. I think the guy or guys arguing against the plausibility of the initial story has the better argument. And wishful thinking or existential depression has nothing to do with this because quite frankly there are bigger problems in the world than first world construction workers' wages being depressed, and I don't personally know any construction workers, and I really quite frankly just don't care that much. I mean, the OP is probably a nice guy and I hope things go well for him, but, like I said, North Korean prisoners have it much worse.
Also, saying there are a large number of people on this site who struggle with existential depression is something you would have to make a much better argument for to convince me. Handwaving and saying gifted children struggle with existential depression doesn't cut it, for many reasons including but not limited to that the users of this site are unlikely to be "children" in the strict sense (13).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @07:10AM
Considering you don't care and are not at all knowledgeable about any of this, why do you matter? Why should anyone spend the time convincing you?
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday March 29 2015, @07:21AM
It's relevant that I have no personal involvement with construction workers because your approach appears to be to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of wishful thinking to avoid falling into existential depression. And perhaps I should have said that your argument about existential depression being at all relevant to SoylentNews "wasn't convincing"; however, it's somewhat customary not to make sweeping passive voice statements like that in order not to seem arrogant. I was saying I don't agree with you and giving one reason why. I didn't specify the other reasons because I don't have an unlimited time to spend on these comments, I don't think your argument is likely to convince others; I thought one was enough.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday March 29 2015, @12:51AM
...then go back to the unqualified and, depending on the state illegally unlicensed operators.
I'm suspicious of the truth of this story in any case, given that it's third-hand, but, if the crane operators were actually unqualified, wouldn't there be an enormous increase in construction accidents caused by incorrect operation of cranes? And wouldn't state and federal regulatory agencies take interest in accidents causing loss of life or destruction of property, when the cranes drop things on other people's buildings etc.?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @06:26AM
Yes [precast.org] of course. [cicb.com]
You might be on to something. [nydailynews.com]
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday March 29 2015, @06:39AM
We'd need accident data from before and after the alleged replacement of skilled with unskilled workers, and we'd need data on total numbers of cranes in operation (perhaps proxied by construction activity in general), in order to determine whether the true accident rate had increased or whether the increase was due to there just being more construction.
But my point really was that an investigation into a crane accident would be likely to reveal that the crane operator was an illegal immigrant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29 2015, @06:51AM
It appears you have found a specific unknown stance and will defend it without evidence even when evidence proving presented points are provided. Moving the goalposts on your part even after I agree with you and do the legwork to prove your point is disheartening.
What discussion can be had if nothing satisfies and you are unwilling to accept anything but the impossibly flawless in regard to a stance that you change?
Nomatter, there is fun in technicalities. Even if someone spent the millions on an authoritative, academic survey with a team of top tier SMEs with all flawlessly accurate and authoritative data and even if that does indeed lead to not showing any trends whatsoever that still does not refute the original story as a specific case of immigrants displacing native workers. Oh and there was nothing claimed about illegal immigrants, that is on you. The claim was immigrants replacing native workers and that some of those immigrants may or may not be illegally operating based on licensing.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday March 29 2015, @07:08AM
How are you even responding so fast as an AC? You must be sitting there refreshing the page to see if someone replied. If you'd create an account, you could get emails sent to you when someone responds. Also, your posts are pretty good, and ACs post with a moderation penalty. The site would be richer for it if you made an account.
It appears you have found a specific unknown stance and will defend it without evidence even when evidence proving presented points are provided. Moving the goalposts on your part even after I agree with you and do the legwork to prove your point is disheartening.
I'm sorry, I meant no offense. Your links were interesting, just not really enough by themselves to really show that there's a trend of increasing numbers of crane accidents caused by lack of skill of the operators. But they were interesting, and that's certainly troubling if it's true.
Given that (from your links) the construction company could be liable for injuries caused by a negligent operator, it seems like it would be pretty dumb to just hire any guy with no training and have him operate a crane. That would come out in discovery in a personal injury lawsuit pretty fast.
Oh and there was nothing claimed about illegal immigrants, that is on you.
That's not true:
Turns out that employer one day gave everyone the boot and brought in Latin-American immigrants. Some were illegal, some aren't.
...that still does not refute the original story as a specific case of immigrants displacing native workers.
Well, the guy in the story was working in a grocery store after he got fired. If it was an isolated case, presumably he would have been able to find another job as a crane operator elsewhere, instead of taking an unskilled job.