Sorry to hijack the thread...
Caymen says:
You don't feel illegal immigrants are a problem, but they are. Not all occupations have the same problems. The problem is that there are many and people like myself, are sick and tired of it. I have missed two friends funerals because of buddy deals. I have missed three concerts because of buddy deals. I missed my 10 year high school reunion because of buddy deals. I have had to work 24 hours straight because the "buddy of the boss" was "unable to come to work".
Now which one of us is letting their personal situation cloud their judgment and sway them into thinking there is a nationwide epidemic?
Sounds like what you call "Buddy deals" have given you the short end of the stick. But often, being a professional means sacrifice. I've had to cancel vacations, cut vacations short, miss advancement programs of my kids, all in the name of "work". Sure, I could blame my employer, but the reality is, I could have walked at any time. I have only myself to blame.
I never said that I didn't feel there was an illegal immigrant problem. What I have said is that in trying to solve the problem people shouldn’t naively think that if we were to close the borders and kick people out that we would see a reduction in healthcare and education costs (the most often described problem areas), because I don't think we would, and I certainly don't think such a savings would make up for the increased costs of goods and services. As we try to solve the problem, solve the real problems: crime, uninsured motorists, undocumented workers by targeting employers, etc.
Caymen also said about smokers rights and letting businesses decides the policies as being like letting companies decide their own employment and benefits policies:
Totally different situation. If an bar owner wants to allow smoking, so be it. If there is a demand for a non-smoking bar, someone will open it up. Businesses did a good job of not allowing smoking in office area's, grocery stores, and department stores. Nobody needs to smoke while shopping for a new pair of shoes or tomorrow nights dinner. Those that enjoy to unwind at the local tavern after a long day at work should be able to do it with a Jack and Coke in one hand and a Lucky Strike in the other. If you hate to smell smoke while in a bar, open a non-smoking bar. Nobody makes you eat at a diner or visit a bar.
You see businesses being able to choose their smoking policies without outside regulation as somehow different from companies being able to establish their own work and benefits polices without the same as somehow different. They are exactly the same thing and I will describe why next:
In the smokers rights case the entity is the businesses and the constituents the owners and patrons while the outside organization is some government regulatory body. In the case of unions, they are the outside organization and the entities and constituents are the companies, and the employers and employees. In BOTH cases, in the absence of outside regulation, the constituents are left to do what they want. That means employers can define the rules, and employers can choose to work or not work where they want. In the smoker’s rights case, the exact same thing is true in the absence of outside regulation; the owners can set the rules, and the patrons can decide where they want to go. Either way, outside regulation or not, the same dynamics are at play and each specific case is of the same foundational case.
In both cases we are discussing the need for and merits of an outside organization to aid in the definition and regulation of policies that affect the entity and its constituents.
In one case you think patrons and businesses should just work it out, let the market decide, and let people vote with their feet. But in the employee and corp side you feel just the opposite.
You<
