Fly Tie-ers
 

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:43:36 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Yes, slur. Comparing undocumented workers to crack dealers is
a bigoted slur and it's offensive.

Ken, I have never compared illegal aliens to crack dealers....

Just like the other anonymous bigot, you don't even have the
courage of your own repugnant convictions.

Courage? COURAGE??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Everybody kneel, His Highness Fortenberry has spoken!
Ken, YOU are the one lacking Courage - you are the one that dosen't
have the courage to stand up and defend your own statements!



Sort of wondering why you don't defend your logic(?) where you stated:
There is a *huge* difference between undocumented workers
who are encouraged by unscrupulous Americans to come here
and harvest our crops, build our homes, work in our canning
factories and a crack dealer.

My statement contains no logic in need of a defense.

I'll have to give you that one Ken - your statement contains no logic,
and therefore cannot be defended. I apologize for challenging you to
be reasonable. I should have known better.

--
Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"

Fly Tie-ers
 

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:21:50 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2008-03-21, Mike wrote:

Anyway Bob, ( or not, as the case may be), if you want to talk about
fishing, just do it it and ignore these idiots.

Good advice, Mike, and I plan on following it. BTW, and I
) are not the same person. I maybe anon, but there's
only one of me. ;)

nb

I will attest to notbob's statement....We are NOT the same person.
--
Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"

Fly Tie-ers
 

Fly Tie-ers
 

On Mar 23, 5:05 am, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:21:50 GMT, notbob wrote:
On 2008-03-21, Mike wrote:

Anyway Bob, ( or not, as the case may be), if you want to talk about
fishing, just do it it and ignore these idiots.

Good advice, Mike, and I plan on following it. BTW, and I
) are not the same person. I maybe anon, but there's
only one of me. ;)

nb

I will attest to notbob's statement....We are NOT the same person.
--
Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"

Yeah well, I am sorry, I don´t much care who asks questions about fly-
fishing, ( which is basically all I am interested in, apart from sex,
nice food, good coffee, reading good books, having a good life,
( within the limitations of fate and circumstance), catching lots of
big fish, or difficult small ones, ****ing off arseholes who annoy me
etc etc) but you would do well to remain anonymous anyway, otherwise
the totally unprincipled bag of **** commonly referred to as
"FORTENBERRY", will do his utmost to damage or insult you in some way,
and although watching the silly **** trying to insult an anonymous
poster has its amusing aspects, it is not quite so funny when the
******* actually annoys real people.

This is not to say you are not a real person, you indubitably are, as
I would not otherwise be endeavouring to formulate a reply, (I suppose
replying to a "google bot " or similar would represent just about the
ultimate in futility?, unless of course you talk to your fly-rods
instead of your wife???!!!)

Ah well, whatever..........

Time for a nice single malt, packing my gear for tomorrow´s fishing
trip, and a short but profound reflection on how so9me arseholes can
also be fly-fishermen.............before I go to bed.

( I once thought that being an angler precluded such perversions).
Naivete, and no internet..........

So, not..........or even...........

TL
MC

Fly Tie-ers
 

Fly Tie-ers
 

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:43:19 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
... What kind of dimbulb
businessman would run the risk of large fines and possible
jail time unless he was planning to profit from a cheap labor
pool ?

You didn't ask whether I thought it prudent business to do so, only if I
wouldn't mind having a few "off-the-books" employees. Them being
illegal aliens is not material. Rather than pay an employee X USD, plus
all of the assorted costs, few of which practically benefit employee or
employer, it be cheaper to pay that employee - Mexican, US citizens, or
Norwegians - a flat, simple cash wage of X + 20% and be done with it.

Why do you hate America so much ?

If you're *not* planning to exploit your illegals
you'd have to be an idiot to hire them in the first place.

Well, in my observations, most illegals want to work, do work, and work
hard. Therefore, I'd rather have illegals - not because they are
illegals, but because they are hard workers who _want_ to work, treat
and pay them fairly, have them stick around and continue to do good work
- you know, sorta like normal human beings...

Uh huh. I get the impression that your notions, and those
of the other chiselers who would knowingly hire illegals,
about "treat and pay them fairly" aren't exactly consistent
with either our labor laws or common human decency.

I can't and won't speak for anyone and everyone who might hire, or has
hired, illegal workers. I'd agree that in any system where exploitation
of others is possible, be it the US or anywhere else, some will exploit
others. Heck, I'd exploit weakness in an equal - IOW, if you and I were
both business owners in competition and I could exploit a weakness of
yours, I'd do it (assuming it was legal and I felt it ethical). But for
me, exploiting (using solely the negative meaning/connotation of
"exploit") employees of any status simply isn't good business - again,
aside from the pure "wrongness" of it. IAC, I didn't offer opinions on
what others might do, I only stated my thoughts on what I'd want/do and
my reasons, directly addressing your asking me what _I'd_ wish to do.

TC,
R

Fly Tie-ers
 

Fly Tie-ers
 

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:25:11 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
... What kind of dimbulb
businessman would run the risk of large fines and possible
jail time unless he was planning to profit from a cheap labor
pool ?
You didn't ask whether I thought it prudent business to do so, only if I
wouldn't mind having a few "off-the-books" employees. Them being
illegal aliens is not material. Rather than pay an employee X USD, plus
all of the assorted costs, few of which practically benefit employee or
employer, it be cheaper to pay that employee - Mexican, US citizens, or
Norwegians - a flat, simple cash wage of X + 20% and be done with it.
Why do you hate America so much ?

If you're *not* planning to exploit your illegals
you'd have to be an idiot to hire them in the first place.
Well, in my observations, most illegals want to work, do work, and work
hard. Therefore, I'd rather have illegals - not because they are
illegals, but because they are hard workers who _want_ to work, treat
and pay them fairly, have them stick around and continue to do good work
- you know, sorta like normal human beings...
Uh huh. I get the impression that your notions, and those
of the other chiselers who would knowingly hire illegals,
about "treat and pay them fairly" aren't exactly consistent
with either our labor laws or common human decency.

I can't and won't speak for anyone and everyone who might hire, or has
hired, illegal workers. I'd agree that in any system where exploitation
of others is possible, be it the US or anywhere else, some will exploit
others. Heck, I'd exploit weakness in an equal - IOW, if you and I were
both business owners in competition and I could exploit a weakness of
yours, I'd do it (assuming it was legal and I felt it ethical). But for
me, exploiting (using solely the negative meaning/connotation of
"exploit") employees of any status simply isn't good business - again,
aside from the pure "wrongness" of it. IAC, I didn't offer opinions on
what others might do, I only stated my thoughts on what I'd want/do and
my reasons, directly addressing your asking me what _I'd_ wish to do.

OK, try this on for size. You hire an off-the-books illegal and
while on the job he falls off a ladder and breaks his leg. Do you:

A) Drive him to hospital, tell them send me the bills and pay him
80% salary until he comes back to work. In other words treat him
you know, sorta like a normal human being. Or:

B) Say, Damn that's tough luck pal, when you get to the emergency
room be sure to tell them you're unemployed and when you heal
up come back and I'll try to find some lawns for you to mow.

If it ain't A) you're not treating him fairly by my definition.

It depends on a couple of factors, including standard practice in the
industry in question, and in the area in question. For example, if the
worker were normally considered a "contractor," ala a day laborer for
whom the de facto "employer" isn't the legally-defined _employer_, I'd
do

C) Act appropriate to the injury as far as making sure they got to
treatment - if it required an ambulance, I'd call one to the scene, if
it simply required transport, I'd take care of that. As to paying for
anything, I'd not feel the responsibility to do so, regardless of legal
or illegal status.

If it were an actual _employee_, I'd not be in a situation of having to
personally choose what to do because a) any direct employee would be in
full compliance with all applicable laws (see NOTE below) and b) there
is regimented system - insurance, worker's comp, etc. - in place that
would dictate what is done regardless of the wants of either party or
what might be best in an individual case. But here's something to
consider - _every_ employee shares in the cost, or really, the lack of
income resulting from, the subsidy of the whole. IOW, a irresponsible
employee, or a merely clumsy one, costs the careful, responsible
employee because the employer _must_ account for the cost of the
"system" for entire employee group, and oft-times, especially in a large
group, there will be employees who milk that system for all it's worth.
And just like all costs, that must be charged to something - in this
case, it's going to be the line item - the labor cost - i.e., the
employee group. And that means that there is less budget for actual
wages.

NOTE - Legal status is often not material in "employee care" issues.
US-born citizen workers often cause compliance problems for employers
via knowing OSHA violations, etc. One ready example that comes to mind
involves safety gear on drilling rigs. Trying to get workers to comply
with (admittedly sometimes silly) OSHA regs can be, and often is, a
full-time job. Ever tried to keep a crew in full safety harnesses, etc.
that they not only all but openly refuse to wear, but in certain
circumstance, can actually be a danger? If they are provided the gear,
instructed in its use, _repeatedly_ _ordered_ to wear it, and still
_refuse_ to so, and then get hurt, whose fault is it, and why should an
employer bear much, if any, legal, and certainly "moral" responsibility
in such a circumstance?

TC,
R

Fly Tie-ers
 

Fly Tie-ers
 

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:24:45 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
OK, try this on for size. You hire an off-the-books illegal and
while on the job he falls off a ladder and breaks his leg. Do you:

A) Drive him to hospital, tell them send me the bills and pay him
80% salary until he comes back to work. In other words treat him
you know, sorta like a normal human being. Or:

B) Say, Damn that's tough luck pal, when you get to the emergency
room be sure to tell them you're unemployed and when you heal
up come back and I'll try to find some lawns for you to mow.

If it ain't A) you're not treating him fairly by my definition.

It depends on a couple of factors, including standard practice in the
industry in question, and in the area in question. For example, if the
worker were normally considered a "contractor," ala a day laborer for
whom the de facto "employer" isn't the legally-defined _employer_, I'd
do

C) snip the hemming and hawing

Uh huh, well that ain't A) so like I said, I'm not buying your
non-exploitive, benevolent employer of illegals bull****.

Again, you didn't ask me what I actually did in practice, what I thought
about what others might do, or anything else. You asked if I wished I
could hire "off-the-books" workers, and I said yes, regardless of their
legal status. If it were legal to hire illegal aliens, I'd have no
"moral" problem doing so. Not because there might be ways I could take
unfair advantage of them, but because the whole ****in' reason they are
in the US, for the most part, is to _work_. And from what I've seen and
heard, that's exactly what they do. This is going to cause fainting,
swooning, and general dyspepsia to many supposedly-liberal ROFFians, and
I offer no comment on my opinion(s) of the words used, but here is an
example of the problem:

A local employer, a construction company owned and founded by a local
family who started from the bottom and built it up, got into a bit of
trouble with the NAACP when it got to them they were all but open about
not liking to hire black laborers (they had a fair number of black
upper-level employees, and prior to Katrina, mostly white crews). It
really it the fan when one of the owners, it was reported to the NAACP,
had said (after Katrina) that he'd rather have "5 good Mexicans...than
20 of these lazy-ass local colored boys..." on a crew. Oh, the wailing,
the condemnation, the recriminations. When the
stir-first-investigate-later assholes at the NAACP were informed that
the owners, including the aforementioned commenter, were well-thought-of
by many of all races, basically just good folks done good without any
hidden agendas, and most importantly, black, they promptly shut the
flock up.

Oddly, Jesse and Al didn't get on FoxNN, Gloria Vanderbilt, Jr. 360, or
Nanci Van Cistern to scream about how "their" people were being
treated...

The problem isn't that the folks - the would-be (non)laborers - are
black, the problem, as the employer knew full well, is that the US has
created a situation in which race has become either a club or crutch
used by loud-mouthed idiots of all races, and part of several
generations of folks have been negatively affected beyond any effects of
underlying racism. Now, we have a growing influx of folks from
south-of-the-US border who are coming (mostly) to work. And again,
"race" is being used by those with a vested interest in ****-stirring
rather than production. Ah, well, what goes around comes around, I
summose...used to be, the lives of yer chinks and micks were worth a
whole lot less than that of yer negroes...

HTH,
R