your husband would be with you....unless he did something illegal which i suspec.

Wrong again Hilary!  You really are on a roll.  All he did was enter the USA illegally like everyone else, the difference is he stayed longer than one year, left, and came back.  Now we are expected to wait 10 years.  Do you understand how long 10 years is.  Our Daughter will be 11.  She isn't going to know her Father in 10 years.

enter the USA illegally.

I knew he did something illegal.  Now if Mexico was a decent country you could go and live there. but since it isn't it is hard with their schools and bad water and corupt police. that is why i think more americans should protest to mexico to clean themselves up so that more americans could go there and live and not feel like a third world courty.  why does the US have to do all the changing. mexico has to make accomidations for all the american women their men are marrying.  we marry their men and they should make it some place livable.  your husband should protest down there. clean this place up so i can bring home my wife and child.

 Our Daughter will be 11.  She isn't going to know her Father in 10 years.

That does suck. I'm sorry to hear that.

Hilary said: why does the US have to do all the changing. mexico has to make accomidations for all the american women their men are marrying.  we marry their men and they should make it some place livable.  your husband should protest down there.

Hilary, The US has a population and that population wants alot of change within our system and that is a reality; the pew poll shows that 63% the vast majority of the population does not want Jessica, and child separated from her husband.

Americans do not want to go to Mexico and protest over there. They are too busy protesting about the problems we have over here. We really can not go to other countrys and demand them to clean up their act until we come up with a good formula first. Americans are working hard at finding solutions in our own country. We do have elected officials that are working with President Calderon to solve problems. Mexico has elected a good President in hope to clean up their system. We have elected change in our country for the same reasons.

Jessica is a US citizen that met her husband in her country. Jessica should never have to make a choice between the separation of her country or the separation of her husband.

*Ask yourself this question Hillary. 

Have you ever had to make a choice like this one? Hilary you must choose between your mother or your father....Which parent will you choose? You can only pick one?  



 

Americans do not want to go to Mexico and protest over there.

Why not?

Hillary said: Why not?

Jessica is a US citizen that married a man that she fell in love with in her country (our country). Hilary is protested here in her own country because they split her family apart. Hilary can go to Mexico and live with him. The Mexican government will not throw Jessica out. Why would Hilary go protest about the Mexican enviroment. Even if it was a good enviroment Jessica wants to raise her family in the US where she was born.

I asked you a question Hilary and you did not answer me.

If you choose a parent knowing you would never see one of them again....Which one would you choose? Your mother or your father?

Please answer honestly.

A) Your Mother
B) Your Father

This is a multiply choice test question...An essay does not answer the question.

Why would Hilary go protest

I meant to say: Why would Jessica go to Mexico and protest when she wants to raise her family in her country.

Afterall, Is it Jessica's that our government didn't have a normal immigration system. Is it her husband's fault that he was enticed by US employers to enter our country to be exploited for cheap labor.

Jessica and her family have been exploited by the crony's of America. This is a cruel trick to have been played for cheap labor and detention jail profits. This is a mockery of family values in the US...This is a mockery of our US constitution and our Civil Rights movement.

Hilary please do respond to the multiply choice question.

if she dosen't take her daughter to see her dad for 10 years that is her choice. She can move there. many do. her family values are not as strong as she'd have you believe.  She could go she decided not to. her choice. a difficult choice to be sure. but is is her decision.

to asnwer your question, i'd pick my mom. 

Hilary, Did it make you feel sad for a moment to choose between your family.

(She can move there. many do. her family values are not as strong as she'd have you believe.)

Here is another question?

Where would you rather live?

A) In the US where you were born with your children.

B) In Mexico away from your Mom and Dad, family and friends with your husband and children in a place where you feel frightened.

A. I'd stay in the US.

So here is one for you since I have answerd your quesitons.

You have 2 countries. one has a system set up after 100 years that has benefits like unemployment if the people loose thier job, food stamps in case a family has some problems and can't feed their family for a few months while they look for work. Wic for their poor mothers and babies and medical insurance incase children are sick and need attention.They have clean water running into most homes and even section 8 incase a family needs a roof over their head.

Now you have another country. They don't have medical for their poor, they don't give them food stamps, they don't have unemplyment, the water will make you sick and you have a very large base of people who don't get much in aid from their government. Public education doesn't prepare their young to compete in the world.  The only help they get is a map through the desert on how to get to country A.

Now if people are going to protest and demand change you tell me where should the protesters should be.

She can move there. many do. her family values are not as strong as she'd have you believe.

You know nothing about her or her situation.  Yet that doesn't stop you from insulting her and her family.

If you knew anything about Mexico, you would know that its citizens routinely protest the government, on a scale far beyond any protests that happen in the U.S. 

Come on, Dave.  You can see Mary egging on Hillary with her multiple choice question.  The when Hillary finally answers it, you come down on her case.

Hilary said: (her family values are not as strong as she'd have you believe.  She could go she decided not to. her choice. a difficult choice to be sure. but is is her decision.

to asnwer your question, i'd pick my mom. A. I'd stay in the US.)

If you think that Jessica's family values are not all that much strong then you would be admitting that your family values are not all that much strong either since you made the exact choice that Jessica made Hilary.

I really do not believe that Jessica or Hilary have weak family values. I just think that Hilary is not putting her feet in Jessica's shoes. She needs to feel what Jessica is feeling.

Wire says:  (Come on, Dave. You can see Mary egging on Hillary with her multiple choice question.  Then when Hillary finally answers it, you come down on her case.)

This really isn't about egging anyone on. It's all about the reality here and our broken immigration system that has separated a family. When commenting you need to realize that someone like Jessica (A US citizen) is suffering because her family is torn apart and she should never be faced to make a decision like the one she did.

Your argument would be that Jessica had a choice but the choice she had was unreasonable as you can see when Hilary was faced with the same question she came up with the same solution as Jessica. This is the reality of the situation and it is very unfair to say that Jessica has no family values.

It would be fair to say:

*The current Immigration laws we have in place do not support family values.

Now if people are going to protest and demand change you tell me where should the protesters should be.

you didn't answer my question.

The when Hillary finally answers it, you come down on her case.

You won't see our global warming editor acting as a neutral arbiter between denialists and environmentalists.  Nor will you see our human trafficking blogger letting pro-slavery comments slide, or our gay rights blogger taking an "all viewpoints are of equal worth" position with regards to Fred Phelps or Michael Savage.

I'm the same.  Go to the newspaper comment threads or ALIPAC if you want to post restrictionist comments unhindered.  I feel like I make this point in one form or another almost every day.

Now if people are going to protest and demand change you tell me where should the protesters should be.

you didn't answer my question.

I ran out of time before. I had to step out for a few but here is the answer to your question.

People need to protest here in the US (and alot are but not enough) to get our politicians to move on Immigration Reform. 63% of Americans support a reformed legal Immigration system and they also support that all people become documented and have some sort of a path to citizenship.

*Our politicians need to move on because this is what the vast majority of Americans want or else another Civil Rights movement will evolve...and rightfully justified.

Hillary - you say that if Jessica decides not to bring her daughter to Mexico to see her father it is her own choice and she doesn't value family as much as she makes us believe.

Let me paint a picture for you: the emotional anguish of a parent seeing their child knowing that it is only for a few days or weeks and then being separated again.  It's called separation anxiety for all family members involved - parents and child.  Depression - waking up every morning with a black veil covering your eyes knowing that you cannot be with the person you love because immigration law forbids it.  Knowing that your spouse will not see their child's first steps, hear their first words, get on a school bus for kindergarten, hear them laugh, feel their hugs, see their smiles, dry their tears, tuck them in at night.  And the financial burden of constantly flying back and forth to Mexico.  I'm not aware of too many families with private jets that can come and go as they please. 

You are crossing a fine line by making a personal assumption about a person's family values without knowing even half of the story. 

Thank you very much Michelina.  You hit the nail right on the head.  It hits so close to home that by just reading that.. what we are actually going through, it made me cry.

Sorry, usually I do that.  Missed it this time for some reason.  Should be fixed now.

tell your world war II dad that we are living in post 911 era. not everyone is our friend and that who enters our country needs to be identified and we need to know what there purpoes of visit is. why were there sneaking in? isn't that hard of a concept.

Mary said:

Are they detaining anyone who trys to leave and go home from the US?

No, but they are doing it to some people.  This is worse at the Canadian border, from what I hear--also, Canada won't let just anyone in, that's why I'm limiting my complaint about the northern border to asylum-seekers not covered by the Safe Third Country Agreement.   

If this is the procedure now it would defeat the idea that some people might self deport because they have no work and want to go home. That would be a ridiculous drag on taxpayers dollars and it would be trapping the immigrant to stay in our country.

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense, does it.

Hilary said:

not everyone is our friend and that who enters our country needs to be identified and we need to know what there purpoes of visit is. why were there sneaking in? isn't that hard of a concept.

We're not talking about people coming to the U.S.  We're talking about people leaving the U.S. to apply for asylum in Canada or people leaving the U.S. for Mexico to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility at a consular interview based on hardship to a petitioning citizen or LPR family member (usually a citizen).  That means the government already knows who the applicant is and where they live, and they are leaving the country voluntarily with the risk that they will not be able to return.  If the waiver isn't granted, the person won't be allowed back in.  If the waiver is granted, the person will be fingerprinted and checked before they can come in. 

I thought the point of enforcement by attrition was to get undocumented immigrants to leave of their own accord.  This policy frustrates that objective--it is literally incomprehensible. 

Jessica I am sure you must feel like someone ripped your heart out. I know that words can't describe the pain that you must feel and I am so sorry about what you are going through. You must go through feelings of denial, exceptance, anger, fear and hope but I am sure that someday you will find a resolution. I feel hope for you that you will re-unite with your husband when the laws change.

I am beside myself when I read the comments from people that seem to have no human values or respect for you and your family. This blog is a place for you to talk about the pain you are going through. This is not a place for retrictionists to try to sabotage; this is your little place where people have there arms open to understand you and make you feel better...so if you must just talk around these people because they do not belong her and (embrace this FACT) know that 63% of American's are on you side and the more you talk freely that number grows. 

Yes, you are right American citizens do think that they can marry someone and it doesn't matter what their significant others status is that they would become legal. The other day someone said to me...."If you marry an immigrant it doesn't matter if they are documented or not...In 8 years he is an automatic citizen." Boy I straightened her out! sYou see, most Americans are clueless to what is going on. It is our job to educate them. When you sit them down and tell them your story they feel lots of compassion. They more we educate them...they faster your husband comes home.

Another point you made is very true. There are plenty of Men that are married to undocumented woman. Our retrictionists talk about the undocumented and stereotype it around undocumented men all the time.  They also stereotype the issue to Mexicans. There are undocumented people from all over the world. I know people that are from Poland, Italy, Asians and people from all regions of Central America. I really do not know why the subject constantly shoots back to Mexico...this and Mexico that. The rhetoric gets old as you shall see. They will probably say the majority of the undocumented is Mexican?? but still it gets old because there are 12 million or more from all over the world; so many US citizens have ties with them and our politicians need to move on the issue fast.

( I understand people need to live with their consequences, and I agree.. however the punishment should fit the crime don't you think?)

I was late to work today Jessica. If it was up to retrictionist's they would say I deserve to get fired for being late and never be able to have access to a job again.<...and this punishment isn't nearly as bad as the one they want your husband and you to have just because he committed a Civil offense.

(I don't believe everyone should be allowed into the USA, but I do think that we need to have changes in immigration laws, so that people wanting to come in legally will be able to easily.) 

Bingo! They need to fix the legal immigration system and make it reasonable. This is the magnet that created the flood at the border to begin with. With serious retrictions on the legal immigration system employers have access to an underground workforce of cheap labor. With a reasonable open immigration system immigrants enter our country legally at a reasonable wage. The Free Market alway did and always will govern the amount of immigrants that enter our country. Retrictions on the legal immigration system disturb the system. Slave labor; that is people who have been trafficked and enticed to come in through the border who are exploited for cheap labor, meanwhile our good corporations are paying a different workforce a higher wage. This disturbs the free market and fair competition because there is no balance within the system. The underground workforce has to live in the shadows of fear while the legal force can complain when labor laws are exploited without fear.

*Wage needs to have consistency throughout the Free Market without human slavery and never be lower than the minumum wage set by labor laws.

(why should my Husband be punished for 10 years out of the country, while that guy was allowed to stay!)

*The ten year bar should be abolished. It is ridiculous to separate a family for ten years."<How about 195 hours of community service in the US on the weekend so the family isn't split up?


(I also believe that the worst of the undocumented, the ones selling drugs, raping, etc. should be locked up for a long time. With jails free of innocent undocumented people, there will be much less jail crowding and much less of your tax dollars required to house only the worst case criminals.) 

Here's where it gets complicated Jessica. You see, drugs dealers and rapists are much harder to detain. It costs lots of money and its much scarier for ICE to control them. Undocumented workers are much easier to exploit. They are frightened, they don't know how to escape, and they are un-familiar with criminal behavior so they are quiet little campers inside a detention prison. They are the perfect guests needed for a jail system that exists to exploit American's for our taxdollars.

*Meanwhile the other criminals are hanging out on the streets. That includes the murderers and the rapists.<You see ICE...They are really not all that into them they would rather you and I deal with that.





 

We got married, in Mexico, after he voluntarily departed.  He was not deported.  We thought we had nothing to worry about.  We could get married in Mexico and file for his visa to return to the states, but we were wrong.  Instead, I learned about the 9C ban (thank God sooner, before later) and we didn't file for anything.

The question I have is, does your husband have an order for deportation against him? From what I have read and understand is that if he departed voluntarily, he may only have a 1 year ban and not a 10 year ban. I suggest you file for a K-Visa and start the process.

By your own statment above, you haven't spoke to an Immigration Lawyer, you have attempted to do things on your own. You should contact Dave with your complete situation and the facts of your husband and his stints in the USA, maybe Dave can help.

Before you start calling people ignorant, you need to give all the details of your situation. Ignorance may come back to bite, especially with your statement above - "I learned about the 9C ban (thank God sooner, before later) and we didn't file for anything." You may be the one creating the ban yourself by not understanding the laws.

I believe what she is talking about is the unwaivable 10-year bar under INA 212(a)(9)(C) for someone who entered without inspection, accrued a year of unlawful presence, then left and reentered without inspection.  If he got voluntary departure after that, the 10-year bar would still apply, meaning one cannot apply for a waiver to reenter until 10 years outside the country have elapsed.  This is the case even with no criminal convictions and when there are US citizen immediate family members in the picture.  That's the way Congress wrote the laws and that's the way the courts are interpreting them. 

But still, I agree with Liquid that if you haven't consulted a reliable lawyer about the case (I don't know whether you have or not), it's a good idea, regardless of what any immigration judge or government employee has said about how the law applies.  They are not on your side.
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/probono/states.htm

Before you start calling people ignorant, you need to give all the details of your situation. Ignorance may come back to bite, especially with your statement above - "I learned about the 9C ban (thank God sooner, before later) and we didn't file for anything." You may be the one creating the ban yourself by not understanding the laws.

Liquids, you are very wrong.  My Husband is banned for 10 years before we are eligible to file a waiver.  Fortunately, I was smart enough to do my research before giving USCIS a few VERY hefty checks.  All you have to do is read Section 212 (a)(9)(C)(i)(I) and (II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  That states the ban.

By your own statment above, you haven't spoke to an Immigration Lawyer, you have attempted to do things on your own.

You are very wrong again.  I have contacted more than one immigration attorney, specializing in I-601 waivers (since this is the type of waiver required after the 9C ban).  They all confirmed what I already knew.  It is very simple.  If you actually read the Immigration and Nationality Act, you will know immigration in and out.  However, I do warn you.. you may have to read it many times until you fully comprehend it.  Don't form ideas about me, without knowing anything about me.  I am not ignort.  However, you have shown me your ignorance by talking without reading anything about the 9C ban.  If you had taken the time to look it up and read it, you would not be making comments as you left in the prior post.  Also, I gave all the details of my situation.  Read.

And again, I have already spoken to Dave about my issue.  If you were smart, YOU would speak to Dave, maybe he could educate you a little more on the issue at hand.

Maybe you should read Dave's post above.

Again, you have not given all the information in your comments of your situation.

From USCIS:
Voluntary Departure The departure of an alien from the United States without an order of removal. The departure may or may not have been preceded by a hearing before an immigration judge. An alien allowed to voluntarily depart concedes removability but does not have a bar to seeking admission at a port-of-entry at any time. Failure to depart within the time granted results in a fine and a ten-year bar to several forms of relief from deportation.

You've stated he voluntarily departed, did you not? You failed to mention he was previously apprehended and removed under 240 (a) or 235 (b) if 212 is what is holding you up.

If you have talked to Dave as you state, why then has Dave stated: But still, I agree with Liquid that if you haven't consulted a reliable lawyer about the case (I don't know whether you have or not), it's a good idea, regardless of what any immigration judge or government employee has said about how the law applies.  They are not on your side.
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/probono/states.htm

I was simply trying to find out a little more about your situation, trying to help you in case you may have missed something. You know what they say about biting the hand that helps.

I do know the INA fairly well, my wife was an immigrant, she is now a US Citizen. I did not form any idea at all about you, I merely pointed to a few things and asked a couple of questions to clarify what you have stated previously. At no point did I call you ignorant in my prior comment, I suggest you re-read it without the hostility.

The INA is large and I do not doubt you know the INA section that pertained to your situation.

I did state all the details.  I said we need a I-601 waiver.  This is a waiver for inadmissibility.  Inadmissibility is what my Husband faces per section 212 (a)(9)(C)(i)(I) and (II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  My Husband entered without inspection, stayed more than 365 days, left voluntarily (no jail, no court, no orders, nothing), he then re-entered without inspection and that is grounds for the 10 year ban (aka 9C).  He voluntarily departed (immigration judge approved his request) thereafter after all of that.

By the manner of your comment, that implies you feel as if I am ignorant.  Thus why you are challenging what I know.  You think I do not know what I am talking about.  That, without coming out aand saying I am ignorant, tells me you think I am ignorant.

Also, Dave is a busy man.  I spoke to him a bit on a few of his other posts, but I did not go into full detail with him about my immgration situation.  I just spoke with him about the section 212 (a)(9)(C)(i)(I) and (II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is why he already knew what I was talking about.

By the manner of your comment, that implies you feel as if I am ignorant.  Thus why you are challenging what I know.  You think I do not know what I am talking about.  That, without coming out aand saying I am ignorant, tells me you think I am ignorant.
To many assumptions, so little time. If I thought you to be ignorant, I would have came right out and called you ignorant. Ask Mary, Dee, and Analisa.

The I-601 waiver, is needed for many things, including the K visas and INA212a9c. Again this points to your husband having been caught and as you state: (immigration judge approved his request). More info is coming out that you previously failed to mention.

Now, instead of filing an I-601, have you tried the I-212?
Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal as this seems to be more in line with what your husband would need.

This sentence should read: The I-601 waiver, is needed for many things, including the K visas and INA212a9c VAWA (Violence against Women Act).

In this case, the 601 only works by attempting to get the K-Visa in your situation. The 212 allows you to try to get him in the states and then file for change of status.

In this case, the 601 only works by attempting to get the K-Visa in your situation. The 212 allows you to try to get him in the states and then file for change of status.

I wouldn't take advice from a nonlawyer who wants to see more people deported.

Lynn said: (Mary-using an absurd comparison does not in any way change reality. We restrictionists have valid reasons for our objections to illegal immigration.  The biggest would be that our
country is supposed to follow the rule of law. Because that doesn't always happen doesn't make it right for everyone else to ignore the laws regarding immigration.)

Is it all that absurd to compare being later to work one time and getting fired to getting detained for (some people up to 5 years) missing a letter in the mail and accidentally missing an immigration appointment? Actuallly I am more guilty for being late because I knew I had to be to work at a certain time but in some cases a person feel out of status and the letter went to their old address because of an address change mix-up. So the person that feel out of status was ignoring the law.

*Should this person go to jail for 5 years or more and be mixed in a prison system that exposes them to criminals that have been convicted for felony's. It is true that there are people now in our jail system that remain detained with convicts that have committed rape, murder, and drug crime's mixed with immigrants that fell out of status because they missed an immigration appointment.

That I agree with but to not grant amnesty would be to let them continue to have access to a slave underground workforce and pay low wage.

If they are on payroll and recieving a paycheck, they are receiving "fair" wages, since the wages are minimum wage or higher. They may be shortchanged on overtime, like in the Insolia case, but still they are receiving "faie" wages. And I have shown you before, that if they are being shortchanged they do have the right to sue and receive back owed wages and compensation.

The rest of your post would take too long to point out all your incorrect rhetoric and propoganda.

(If they are on payroll and recieving a paycheck, they are receiving "fair" wages, since the wages are minimum wage or higher.)

Many times this is not true. I know someone who had a job that required him to contract employees to employers. Part of his job was to go to companys and sell them on a contract to supply the employees at a reasonable wage above minumum.

One day he pulled up to a small Company that was surrounded by fence and gated but for some reason the lady let him in through the gate. He thinks they thought he was from the INS. When he went inside and spoke to the owner....the owner saw he was a salesperson and threw him out. The owner told him to get out and that he didn't pay employers to work....he claimed his labor was for free. It's horrible liquid...but it is true that we do have people that have been human trafficked into the US. They are trafficked for free labor in the US and it is human slavery.

Situations vary from company to company. Some companys will pay below minumum. It is easy for them to create false paperwork...especially if the staff is undocumented and they are afraid to report anything skanky.

Many employers are working overtime...up to 80 hours a week at minimum or lower than minumum. This really kills the American worker because it takes away 2 jobs instead of 1.

When reform is passed and everyone is on the books...workers will no longer be afraid to report these skanky practices. Employers will have to raise there wage to minumum or more and rather than paying overtime they will hire more workers. This creates more jobs.

Situations vary from company to company. Some companys will pay below minumum. It is easy for them to create false paperwork...especially if the staff is undocumented and they are afraid to report anything skanky.

Many employers are working overtime...up to 80 hours a week at minimum or lower than minumum. This really kills the American worker because it takes away 2 jobs instead of 1.

When reform is passed and everyone is on the books...workers will no longer be afraid to report these skanky practices. Employers will have to raise there wage to minumum or more and rather than paying overtime they will hire more workers. This creates more jobs.

Now your confusing trafficked slave labor vs "Illegal Aliens". You need to define your arguments much better, broad brush generalizing does nothing for your argument. Human Trafficking in slaves is much different than coming here and working, getting, as you stated, low wages as an underground slave workforce.

Are you aware that it is cheaper to pay someone overtime then it is to hire more people.

Example: My yearly expenses are figured as a per hour expense based on 40 working hours a week. Therefor, all my expenses such as insurances, liabilities, etc are taken care of during this time. The only expenses I have for someone working overtime are the payroll liabilities as all my other expenses have been paid during the 40 hours. If I had another employee to cut down on the overtime or cut it out completely, my 40 hour expenses and liabilities actually increase, costing me more as an owner, and cutting the overall wages for my workers, they then make less money weekly due to having lost the overtime. Where is that fair to them?

I challenge you to show me a company that has been caught by ICE for knowingly hiring Illegal Workers having a second set of books and cheating them on their wages. Also, show where those that have been cheated on their wages in any situation regarding work and pay, have not had the opportunity to sue for back wages and have lost.

Prove your statement: Many employers are working overtime...up to 80 hours a week at minimum or lower than minumum.

It is all combined under the same blanket. There are people who were trafficked in. There were people that were solicited in their own countrys by companys in the US and trafficked through the border for cheap labor. There are people who came in on there own....people who were here and expired....children that were brought in by their parents but bottom line we face a crisis and 63% of Americans agree that a path to citizenship to all is the reasonable solution to that problem so your opinion on amnesty isn't the arguement anymore.

There is not confusion here. You stated that employers were paying above minumum wage...the truth is that many aren't and that is because people are living in fear and undocumented because of various reasons. Americans know that many broke the law. They want the civil violation forgiven and a reasonable path for these people irregardless to how they came here.

You have yet to prove your statements. If they aren't recieving minimum wage on a payroll check then they aren't receiving a payroll check, which nullifies your claim they are paying payroll taxes, i.e. medicare and SS.

Show some proof of a company or corporation trafficking in its labor force. So far all you have done is spout propoganda and rhetoric. I'm calling you on it.

(If I had another employee to cut down on the overtime or cut it out completely, my 40 hour expenses and liabilities actually increase, costing me more as an owner, and cutting the overall wages for my workers, they then make less money weekly due to having lost the overtime. Where is that fair to them?)

In my company they would not agree with you. They do not pay overtime. They hire more people even though they pay into the benefits with a group plan. The FACT is it saves them money to not pay overtime. This is common practice with fortune 500 companys. Your statement about saving money is rhetoric to oppose immigration with a false argument and if you look at how companys conduct business nationwide you will see that they do not like overtime. If you pay overtime at a rate of time and a half it will cost you money.

(Show some proof of a company or corporation trafficking in its labor force. So far all you have done is spout propoganda and rhetoric. I'm calling you on it.)

I could get some friends that were labor headhunters to give a live testimony but that is kind of hard to do here on a blog.

*I have a better idea....Why don't you try to prove to me that all corporations across the US have everyone on the payroll...paying payroll taxes and noone is trafficked in our entire country as a slave for labor. I'm calling you on it!

Look at restaurant operations, Laundrymats, Many Small manufacturers, Landscapeing businesses etc. etc....When you write your book.

Title each chapter appropriately.

Chapter 1) Human trafficking a cheap labor force
Chapter 2) Who they report on the books and who they hide for tax purposes
Chapter 3) How they traffick them in and there contacts on the other side
Chapter 4) The life of a Choyote and friends

(which nullifies your claim they are paying payroll taxes, i.e. medicare and SS.)

Ooops forgot to answer that one! You see Micro, you can not take an entire population of undocumented workers and lump them up into one category. Some are paying into the system and some aren't. Americans are savvy on this one! They know that if they all are documented...there employers will have to put them on the health care plan and deductions will come out of their pay.

Your statement about saving money is rhetoric to oppose immigration with a false argument and if you look at how companys conduct business nationwide you will see that they do not like overtime. If you pay overtime at a rate of time and a half it will cost you money.

As usual Mary, you have no idea how your company runs. Your hours are cut to less then what is considered part time, they hire more people like that to save on benefits and expenses. That is what saves them money, all the while they change health benefit plans and your costs increase while theres decrease, again saving them money. Now, as for my business, I charge by the hour, my expenses are figured on an per hour basis, that is 40 hours per week or 2080 man hours per year of which I can reduce by giving time off for holidays and vacations which averages out to approximately 1900 per man per year. So, any hours over the 40 hours per week or the 1900 per year is pure profit I only have to pay payroll expenses. I suggest you take some economic or business 101 classes, I'm going to have to start charging you for classes.

*I have a better idea....Why don't you try to prove to me that all corporations across the US have everyone on the payroll...paying payroll taxes and noone is trafficked in our entire country as a slave for labor. I'm calling you on it!

There you go again, playing games, sorry, it doesn't work like that with me, I back up my info with links, I suggest you attempt to do that. You made outrages assumptions, back them up. Put your money where your mouth is. Its quite simple.

They know that if they all are documented...there employers will have to put them on the health care plan and deductions will come out of their pay.

Health insurance by an employer is a benefit, it is not a required or mandated expense. Therefor, your claim is but ignorance as usual.

(As usual Mary, you have no idea how your company runs. Your hours are cut to less then what is considered part time, they hire more people like that to save on benefits and expenses. That is what saves them money, all the while they change health benefit plans and your costs increase while theres decrease, again saving them money.)

Actually I do know how to run a business and I learned it from the founding fathers of my company. They have been in business since they started there tiny little dry good store off the whaleing business way back in MA. There success is based on having a product that the serves the consumer in conjunction with the best customer service and they follow all the labor laws.

They downsized by getting rid of there part-timers and actually recently rewarded me with a raise despite the hard economic times they are surviving.

They have learned that hiring alot of part-timers does not pay off. Part-timers do not take there job seriously. In most cases they come there to hang out and socialize rather than take sales quotas seriously. They have found that it is more cost efficient to pay the benefits, train and motivate a full-timer and cut un-necessary management positions and excessive un-productive part-timers. I am living proof that there theory works. Even in these tough times I still exceed in sales numbers. Last month I was 15% up over last year.

So if you are running a business my advice is to look at that and re-think your strategy.

Of course I do realize that your business is not sales but I would think that this business practice would benefit all aspects and different types of businesses across the board.

*It is proven that a happy motivated sales force is a productive sales force and this is the most important ingredient in a successful organization.

*Benefits, Vacation and Comp-time are part of the package that my corporation gives to us paid and that includes sick days. These are not areas that they choose to cut. Happy workers are productive workers!

These companys that hire and underground workforce do not follow labor laws and get away with paying benefits. These practices disturb a healthy free market.

*I meant to spell there...their.

Also, When you treat your employees with gratitude and respect they will work hard for you because they like you.

*Would I go that extra mile for my boss if she didn't care enough to supply me with the information needed for success and work along with me.

The answer is: NO

*Fear does not motivate a workforce but it does give some employers the cheap labor they need to undermined other companys and again this disturbs a Free Market. My guess is if these people were out of the shadows and given a path to citizenship they would be so appreciative that many would have the desire to learn English and excell in many fields....and that is the ingredient a successful Free Market needs.

*The answer is not detain, and deport the people. The answer is to enforce the labor laws and severely fine the employer.

They downsized by getting rid of there part-timers and actually recently rewarded me with a raise despite the hard economic times they are surviving.

They got rid of unproductive workers. My sister does the exact same thing as you, she worked for Nordstrom's here in Sacramento, which is equivalent to Bloomingdale's where you work, an overpriced department store. She was a Counter Manager for a couple of different make-up lines, Clarins which she saved the line at her store and received awards for taking the worst and becoming #1 in N. CA, and #2 in the Nation, counter manager for Luara Mercier and Estee Lauder, too and now an artist for Laura Mercier. She now is traveling Northern California. She is the top producer for her line and several other lines are trying to get her. Your store, her store, all have high turnover rates for workers, if they don't produce they are released. Counter Managers and Counter Personal have all had hours reduced by the store itself. You as a counter manager can usually get your 40 hours weekly along with some overtime as long as you produce, not just for your line, but also for the main store.

What you have supposedly "learned" is from the employee stand point, you have no idea of the actual "running" of the company. As for the "happy employees/salesperson's" it's all about attitude, whether you enjoy your job or not and about pushing yourself to achieve the goals required by the company.

*The answer is not detain, and deport the people. The answer is to enforce the labor laws and severely fine the employer.

If the employees are on the books and receiving paychecks, what laws need to be enforced? Your sentence leads one to believe the employer "knowingly" hired and paid cash to its workers in conditions unacceptable to safely work. Again, back up your assumptions, just because you think that's what is going on, doesn't mean that it is. Every company in the USA can be shown to have some unsafe working conditions, sometimes its cheaper to pay the fine then to fix the problem.

(They got rid of unproductive workers. My sister does the exact same thing as you, she worked for Nordstrom's here in Sacramento, which is equivalent to Bloomingdale's where you work, an overpriced department store.)

*First of all if it is a designer brand it is not perceived to be overpriced by that specific consumer. If a cream is 500 dollars it is best not to perceive it as overpriced because that is the brand cream that the customer wants that is high quality.

*Nortroms is hanging on by the skin of their teeth which is sad.

*Your Sister was #1 in Clarins Nationwide and #1 in N. CA and #2 in the nation. If you are saying she did that within the Norstroms chain I could believe you but amongst all the chains...Well I have friends in the Industry and I could actually check into that one. What year was it?

*If Clarins had lets say 75,000 dollars in sales in 2007 and finished off with 95,000 in 2008 this gives you around a 27% increase in sales but you really only produced 20,000 more dollars in sales and you were up against soft numbers in 2007...so you look like a star. Meanwhile the girl across you is struggling to produce an increase over the star who resigned in Lancome the year before and her numbers are flat in 2007. Although on paper she doesn't look as good...she really is an outstanding sales person. If there wasn't a staff on the line the prior year its not that difficult to look like a star.

*My 15% increase last month was numbers produced up against a sales Barracuda from last year. This is real difficult to acheive. The are giving me great tiers of commision perks to try to maintain my 15% going forward.

Secondly,

They downsized part-timers because they do not believe it is cost efficient to have part-timers on the payroll. I have friends that exceeded numbers but were still let go and that is because they do not like the philosophy of part-timers. This is something they have debating for the last 5 years. You are trying to debate me on a subject that I am an expert in.

*I do know what it is like to run a business. I have been in this business all my life and know the structure of it. Sales, Support, and Management. All three are different operations separated and delegated by the CEO and staff.

Do not under-estimate the knowledge employees have in all of the category's.

(You as a counter manager can usually get your 40 hours weekly along with some overtime as long as you produce, not just for your line, but also for the main store.)

Overtime!!! You obviously do not know the business or have not listened to your sister when she speaks. The only time Overtime is given is during gift time and paid in full (by the Vendor.) The department stores will not pay overtime and will freak out if you go over 40 hours and it has nothing to do with how much you produce. They do not reward you with overtime.

*If a salesperson was making an average of lets say 21.00 per hour plus commision the rate would go up to 31.50 plus commision with overtime. This means they could make 35 bucks an hour or more...depending on sales. Overtime is taboo!!! Vendors pay freelancers at the rate of 30 bucks an hour and up in NYC depending on there fame as an artist. These part-timers do not come cheap.

*What do I know about being a Happy employee? I pick up the phone and take to my various bosses on my day off. Why? Because they energize me and I like them and they are good at what they do.

Letting people go because they don't produce!

*You got that wrong. These company's take years to let an unproductive employee go. If they do not make there sales quota they counsel them but generally speaking they are company's that go above and beyond to follow labor laws and quite frankly I do not think it is fair that they have to exist in a market with company's that have access to an underground workforce.

*Its disturbing in a Free Market

We do not have and are not in a Free Market. What we have and are in is a Mercantile Market. A mixture of ideologies of different disciplines.

If you are such an expert, why are you only a counter manager and not the department manager?

These company's take years to let an unproductive employee go. If they do not make there sales quota they counsel them but generally speaking they are company's that go above and beyond to follow labor laws and quite frankly I do not think it is fair that they have to exist in a market with company's that have access to an underground workforce.

Your business doesn't work or compete with an underground illegal workforce. So exactly what are you talking about here? As for unproductive employees, after 2 bad review they can be released, they usually get counselling after the first bad review.

As far as overtime, the vendor allows the overtime along with the store and the department manager simply because she is one of the top producers in her store and the top producer in her department and because she uses her time retaining high quality clients. Obviously you are attempting to say every company is ran according to your "expertise", which they are not. Again your view is from that of an employee, not as a business owner. Her #1 and #2 was for the Clarins line only.

*I do know what it is like to run a business. I have been in this business all my life and know the structure of it. Sales, Support, and Management. All three are different operations separated and delegated by the CEO and staff.

And counter manager is only one rung up form the bottom of the ladder. Don't forget that your vendor compensates your store for some or even most of your wages.

They downsized part-timers because they do not believe it is cost efficient to have part-timers on the payroll. I have friends that exceeded numbers but were still let go and that is because they do not like the philosophy of part-timers. This is something they have debating for the last 5 years. You are trying to debate me on a subject that I am an expert in.

What exactly is the philosophy of the part-timers? Are you sure it's not your vendors who pay part of their paycheck that can't afford so many on their payrolls? which in turn benefits Bloomingdales by cutting down on overall expenses?

(If you are such an expert, why are you only a counter manager and not the department manager?)

That is obvious. My guess is for the same reasons of your sister. I've never been interested in managing people on the large scale plus if you talked more to your sister you would learn that the department manager doesn't make more than we do in sales. I wouldn't want the long hours on a salary compared to a 40 hour week with less stress and responsibility and the ability to make alot of money with all the vendor perks. I still have a life outside my job and I have additional time to be a pro-immigration activist. hehe

 (after 2 bad review they can be released, they usually get counselling after the first bad review.)

Actually that would be 3 consecutive reviews and then the employee would than be entitled to unemployment compensation and than that would be costly because the corporation has to pay into that benefit. They get counsel all the time whether they are productive or not. Coaching actually is the correct term to use that I should have mentioned before but like I said it isn't there policy to let people go because they aren't strong sales people. When you are a strong sales person you are known in the industry and you can get a job anywhere at the best rate.

*If I had the desire to run the company I am sure I would have climbed up to the top but it just never turned me on but who knows?? Never say never...maybe someday some big desire will come upon me to tell people what to do...but I doubt it.

*Counter managers have small staffs and the managerial aspect of that job is a snoozefest!


(As far as overtime, the vendor allows the overtime along with the store and the department manager simply because she is one of the top producers in her store and the top producer in her department and because she uses her time retaining high quality clients)

No...No...No, Your not comprehending what I am saying. The department manager is on a salary. The Vendor pays the department store a rate (they share the salary.) The department store always pays the controlling share of the rate and has the final say in hireing and fireing but the Vendor has a strong influence since they share the rate.

*The Vendor is reasponsible to pay overtime if they want. But many times it isn't in there budjet to pay anyone in a territory if the management of lets say (Clarins has ruled Overtime out for that season.) Many times freelancers are also cut because of bad times (Like a recession.)<The reward of a freelancer can be a perk if you have outstanding sales as a gift for an event to boost sales even higher.

*Cosmetic Companys are all run under the same "Expertise" these weren't my ideas.

*I give the credit to Estee Lauder....(And Elizabeth Arden) God rest there souls in peace.

*They are the founding Mothers of Cosmetics.

You are right when you stated they share the costs of a salary but they actually pay a cheaper wage for a part-timer so it would make sense to keep them but remember a part-timer does not have there heart and soul into a job.

*So Again, I know you don't want to admit you are wrong on this one but I think a company like Macy INC. has figured this one out since they have been in business for over 100 years and survived the Great Depression.

Oh and by the way Micro...I think I have mentioned this to you before.

*Not all people are driven by money and power.

The only reason why those people crossed the border is for survival reasons...(putting food on the table for their familys.)

One they are out of the shadows and they pass the need for survival there motives grow to different levels but until then they simply remain underground cheap labor and that is not a good formula for innovation in the US.

*Slavery was not our Founding Fathers Intentions.

Slavery was part of the Founding Fathers ways of life. Slavery wasn't abolished until 1865, the Constitution was created in 1787.

You still have yet to refute the original arguments and show any proof of your statements.

No...No...No, Your not comprehending what I am saying. You obviously failed to understand/comprehend my statement you are referring to. I did not say anything about the Department Manager, only that she allows my sister to have overtime due to her sales and clientele. Everything else you have stated is simply re-worded as to what I said.

they actually pay a cheaper wage for a part-timer so it would make sense to keep them but remember a part-timer does not have there heart and soul into a job.

More of your assumptions and accusations. You have yet to show any proof of your statements. Part-timers are hired as fill in workers, their work ethics have nothing to do with their job security."The prevailing sense of panic and uncertainty have forced numerous companies to look at every opportunity to try to stabilize their business and eliminate repetitive tasks,"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/macy-f05.shtml

Only the full-timers get benefits and they don't want to pay that. We would all be full-time here if we could." Again, as I stated earlier, the store is cutting costs by eleminating full time workers, making them into part time workers, saving on benefits.

You still view this from a standpoint of an employee and not a business owner.

Actually that would be 3 consecutive reviews and then the employee would than be entitled to unemployment compensation and than that would be costly because the corporation has to pay into that benefit.

This is due in part to different companies and state laws. Nordstrom's fires after 2 bad reviews in a row. Unemployment is not granted by the State of CA if you have been fired from your job, unless it was due to unusual circumstances that can be proven in a hearing. If they are layed off, then yes they can get unemployement from the state which is then compensated by the Federal Government from the payroll FUTA tax that is paid into by the company.

They downsized by getting rid of there part-timers and actually recently rewarded me with a raise despite the hard economic times they are surviving.

You obviously havn't ben paying much attention to your company. During their restructering they laid off/got rid of numerous full time positions, many managerial positions, boards and such. Look to the link I provide above. Do your research about your company. Here is another recent article:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01312009/business/macys_reshuffle_could_cost_thousands_of__152844.htm

Of the illegals I know, I would definitely disagree that they are here for survival.  They are here because they like it here.

( I did not say anything about the Department Manager, only that she allows my sister to have overtime due to her sales and clientele.)

No..No...No! Micro, Never would the manager be allowed to give your sister time over 40 hours because of sales and clientele in a department store in this economy unless it was paid 100% from the Vendor...not even during Christmas. Your sister does not need to go over 40 hours to achieve outstanding sales. She has a client base and a staff and she gives her staff directive to beat sales quotas from LY. Her perks come from the vendors and not the department store. Her vendors offer her perks such as cosmetic gratis, tiers of commission when she hits numbers. These are incentives. The department stores do not offer time as a reward for achievement. Your overtime is cheaper theory has gotta go. It is only given to your sister during GWP and this is usually only for employees that work for lancome and lauder.

.( You have yet to show any proof of your statements. Part-timers are hired as fill in workers, their work ethics have nothing to do with their job security)

That link you pasted are people in Macys that had hours cut back that stated an opinion in an press interview. That opinion does not have anything to do with Macys philosophy of recruiting new hires. They cut their hours rather than eliminating them all together to avoid paying their unemployment figuring when times get better they will give their hours back. Macys INC. has a group plan of benefits and if your saw our deductions you would agree that are we are paying for most of our health-care plan anyway. Those employers should have been saying "Its obvious they don't want to pay into unemployment."

*Show me proof that Macys is looking to hire part-timers instead of full-timers in the future.

Like I said: The company philosophy is that they prefer to have more full-timers than part-timers because full-timers are trained extensively and are more productive to the company when they look at the sales per hour and production rate. The benefits are a group plan and employees pay into the deductions so they have found in their analysis that full-timers are best for the company. The hire part-timers only when it is necessary to fill in but for the most part they prefer to hire full-timers.

*Norstroms does not fire because an employee is not productive with sales.

*Norstroms Philosophy is based purely on customer service.

*You do not know what you are talking about when on the subject of department stores.

Sometimes their work ethics does keep their job and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the circumstance.

If there is someone that is extremely productive in sales and they are full time they are going to keep them but sometimes they will get cut if that is the position they decide to cut. ILike I said I knew a really productive full-timer but they decided to have 2 full-timers and cut the part-timer out. In some cases they have given a full-timer 2 lines to sell instead of one...rather than hiring someone to fill a position after someone resigns. I have 2 lines now and I replaced a part-timer.

Where do you keep coming up with being rewarded with overtime or anything about her perks? My sister does her job very well. They allow her overtime simply because she does her job very well. Here'e the scenario: She's coming up noo her 40 hours, she's with a client, her 40 hours go by as she is spending time selling with this client. She is trying to leave, but another of her clients comes in, so she sevices her. She ends with 43 hours for hte week. It ahppens all the time. So yes, it is about customer service, exactly why she exceeds her 40 hours and gets away with it. your not following my statements, instead you are attempting to make them out to be more than they are.

Your overtime is cheaper theory has gotta go. Sorry Mary, even major cities agree with me.
Spotlight: What's the cost of overtime?

Contrary to what some might think, fire and police officials say paying firefighters and police officers overtime instead of hiring additional employees saves the city big bucks. But some city officials worry the extra hours put a burden on the already overworked public safety staff that's costly in an altogether different way.
....
Outgoing City Manager Greg Jones said it's cheaper for the city to pay overtime to fire and police primarily because of the cost of benefits. While private companies pay 25 to 30 percent of the cost of an employee's pay towards benefits, the public sector pays much more.

Like I said Mary, take an economics and business class, you obviously no nothing of either. All you have been stating has been your job description.

The Original Purpose of Overtime Pay Keep in mind how overtime pay came about. In the 1930's UE and other unions fought to get a law passed mandating time and one-half pay for all hours worked over 40 hour per week. The original purpose was to stop employers from working people overtime to make employers hire more workers. In the 1930's it was more expensive to pay time and one-half than to hire another worker.

Now, because unions have won many fringe benefits like pensions, health insurance, sick pay, vacations, etc., it is cheaper for an employer to pay overtime than it is to hire more workers.

The Original Purpose of Overtime Pay

This is from the UE Union. you have got to get out of your Marxist Ideology Mary, your stuck in the early 1900's.

The company philosophy is that they prefer to have more full-timers than part-timers because full-timers are trained extensively and are more productive to the company when they look at the sales per hour and production rate.

Any and every companies philosophy is to MAKE MONEY and be PROFITABLE!! As I stated earlier, YOU have no idea of how to run a business and you no nothing of economics.

If you must pick apart the compassionate intelligent woman who blog in support of Immigration Reform (analisa, Dee, Marissa, Jessica and many others) you are going to have to face the truth that you do not intimidate them with your personal attacks "that I am occasionally guilty of in the past myself" but have learned that they are a part of your game to get people off track of the real problems and the real solutions that Americans want. You also try to scare them off so that you can dominate a blog with your negativity.

As for the vast majority of retail department stores and overtime business practices and their philosophy's you might want to sit down and have a one on one with Macy's INC. CEO Terry Lungren to discuss the issue, but my guess is he is too busy trying to survive the economic disasters we are all facing these days.

Fire departments are most likely not on his list of comparisons when it comes to company policy's and overtime. If you may, go ahead and criticize his credentials on how he runs the company and his philosophy but I highly doubt your opinion is much valid in the world of entrepreneurs in the fashion industry and I doubt you have nerve enough to treat guys as mean spirited as you treat woman because you know they might punch you in the nose.

*The vast majority of retailers schedule their sales staffs 35 to 37 1/2 hours a week; so if your sister is allowed to stay over 40 hours it would be a rare customer service exception. (Usually she would be sent home early or asked to come in later the next day to back the time out)...Now, If she was to abuse her allotted maximum time of 40 hrs. regularly she would be warned and then terminated with her DM (the DM is responsible for making sure there is no overtime)...It is not company policy to pay overtime therefore and it would be considered "time theft." The DM is a supervisor and does not have the authority to override company policy.

*Overtime is costly in a large retail corporation and is not a smart strategy to save $$$. (I will stick to my CEOs expertise's visions on how to run a huge private industry corporation over yours Micro)

*Profits and happy workers. Anyone knows that a happy staff is a productive staff. Who wants to have a shopping experience with a bunch of miserable sales people.

*Fire Departments are Social Programs and are not good examples of business comparisons to a huge retail private industry corporation. 

*In the case of social services such as Fire Departments or Police Departments the best way to cut costs would be shared services if possible.

*I'm stuck in the 1900s? As a society in the 1900s we decided that the treatment of employees and certain labor practices are just not acceptable.  Come on! I thought you were a "rule of law" person. Are you calling America a Marxist society because they like labor laws?

Economics course?

Didn't we all take that course already? Anyone knows it was required in college.

What is your education level?? It most certainly is not in Management and Fashion Merchandising.

Oh, Mary, you have a habit of attempting to make your assumptions as "facts", I only point out your "factual innacuracies". Your propoganda and lies to demonize those who do not agree with you. It doesn't work if you keep repeating them, hoping for them to someday be claimed as true.

I doubt you have nerve enough to treat guys as mean spirited as you treat woman because you know they might punch you in the nose.

I point out Dave's sensationalizations as well, only he has the power to delete my comments when he is exposed. Thats his perogative. As for guys punching me in the nose.... they can try.

My education level... Masters in Arboriculture, with a Bachelors in Business.

Come on! I thought you were a "rule of law" person. Are you calling America a Marxist society because they like labor laws?

What have I stated that has not been for the "rule of law"? I called you a Marxist for your beliefs and statments.

Economics 101:
Companies have figured out how to convert full-time employees who have benefits like health care into part-time ones who lack benefits and whose hours can be cut back at will. This is a great deal for companies and a lousy one for workers. And it is ultimately bad for investors.

The New York Times reports that 3.7 million Americans have seen their full-time jobs cut to part-time ones -- the highest number on record (the government started keeping track of this over 50 years ago).

The industries with the most part-time jobs were construction (28%), retail (14%) and professional and business services (13%).

The Times brings the part-time statistics to life with interviews. Here are two:

Marvin L. Zinn, a Walgreen (NYSE: WAG) clerk, got his pay cut $100, or 15%, every two weeks from $650 to $550 as his weekly hours have dropped from 44 to 37.5. So what? He's carrying $2,000 in credit card debt to buy food; he's deferred dental work; and he stopped going to church because he says he can't afford to drive there.

Ron Temple, a baggage loader for UAL Corp. (NASDAQ: UAUA), earned more than $20 an hour, plus health and flight benefits until he decided to go part-time as the lesser of three evils after being offered the choice of a layoff or transfer to another city. His bi-weekly pay dropped $780, or 58%, from $1,350 to $570 and he gave up some benefits. Temple and his wife -- who makes $1,000 every two weeks at a cancer clinic -- struggle to make their $1,753 monthly mortgage payment -- they're running up credit card balances -- $2,700 so far. They don't go out to restaurants and they buy cheap generic groceries through a program at their church.

The beauty of this arrangement for companies is that they don't pay health care benefits to many of their part-time workers. The Times reports that in retail, for example, 16% receive health insurance through their employers, while over 50% of full-time retail workers are covered.

Declining fortunes for these companies means more layoffs and shifts from full-time to part-time employment.

Why do you think they cut your hours to less than 40 per week? As for my sister, it is the Store Manager that knows how well she does, she is one of only a couple sales persons that she allows to hit or go over her 40 per week simply because they more than make up for it in sales. And yes her hours are actually 32 - 36 per week, which is considered part time, just like yours.

*Overtime is costly in a large retail corporation and is not a smart strategy to save $$$. (I will stick to my CEOs expertise's visions on how to run a huge private industry corporation over yours Micro)

Thats hilarious, because he has done and is doing exactly as I have stated he has done. By cutting you to part time from full time, he cuts down on benefit costs. By changing benefit plans he has also lowered his costs while your co-pay has increased. All of the benefits are figure into a 32 - 36 hour average per worker. Any hours beyond the 32 - 36 hours there are no benefit deductions from the sales, it's pure profit at this point.

But, alas, your economics are still in Marxist Ideology. As for the Police or Fire Departments, the point is what I said it was, It's cheaper to pay overtime to its workers vs hiring additional people giving them repetative tasks. Look what you say they did to you, gave you a second line to manage. Which, unless it is a sub-line from your vendor, most vendors don't like that as they feel it cuts from their sales.

Strategic Human Resource Management

Page 6:
Nordstrom carefully evaluates salespeople on their sales-per-hour (SPH) ratio.

Page 8

“There is pressure on managers to get people with the biggest SPH in the most hours. You’re not told that if you don’t go off the clock, you’ll get your hours cut. It becomes an inferred thing. The more you sell per hour, the more hours you get.”

Also look to page 4, the Sales per gross square foot of store area for Federated and Nordstrom and then the Expenses as a percentage of sales. Note Nordstrom's Gross profit per gross square foot of store area.

Please, send the check to Cash for $90 for your lesson.

(I point out Dave's sensationalizations as well, only he has the power to delete my comments when he is exposed)

He is being kind to you. He saves you from additional embarressment.

(My education level... Masters in Arboriculture, with a Bachelors in Business.)

You feel into my trap. You exposed your insecuritys like always. Supieriority complex??

(Companies have figured out how to convert full-time employees who have benefits like health care into part-time ones who lack benefits and whose hours can be cut back at will.)

This varies on the company and their management strategy. I have worked for Sak 5th Avenue and Neiman Marcus and they pay you on straight commission. (No part-timers!) This is the problem with you...you think everything is in black and white. This is why you are a restrictionist...and you are stubborn.

Walgreen (NYSE: WAG) clerk, got his pay cut $100

*Walgreens?? Much different environment from Saks, Nortroms...Neiman Marcus, don't you think?

(Why do you think they cut your hours to less than 40 per week?)

How on earth did you come up with that? I told you we work full time at my job and I recently received a raise despite the lousy economy. Our rewards are through commission perks and raises like I said.

(And yes her hours are actually 32 - 36 per week, which is considered part time, just like yours.)

Again, you must be the one amongst all of us with the reading comprehension problem. 35 hours in a speciality store is full-time and that includes benefits.

(Any hours beyond the 32 - 36 hours there are no benefit deductions from the sales, it's pure profit at this point)

*Actually corporate did approve benefits for a 30 hour day part-timer in another location I worked at 7 years ago. Like I said my company believes that happy workers are productive workers. 

(It's cheaper to pay overtime to its workers vs hiring additional people giving them repetitive tasks. Look what you say they did to you, gave you a second line to manage. Which, unless it is a sub-line from your vendor, most vendors don't like that as they feel it cuts from their sales.)

*Vendors send freelancers as special Artists to boost sales. The freelancers are paid at a high wage as a special guest attraction. I have booked events for famous celebrity Artists that do red carpet runway models. The Vendors do not want them to work long hours because it takes away from their celebrity appeal and their hourly can be way expensive.

(As for the Police or Fire Departments)

You are comparing Apples to Oranges.

(Nordstrom carefully evaluates salespeople on their sales-per-hour (SPH) ratio.)

*What company doesn't do that???

Conclusion: When the underground workforce becomes legal and documented cheap labor employers will either have to follow the labor laws and pay them minimum wage and overtime or higher more workers.

*My guess is when healthcare is reformed hopefully we will have a government plan that will take care of that problem.

Hehe...I'm a Marxist. LOL

Oh and by the way...you do not need overtime to produce numbers. If your sister needs more than 40 hours to exceed in sales she isn't all that good. A fabulous sales person has a book of clients and it only take a few calls a day to increase your sales. Sales is a game...but I'm not about to let you know how to play it.

(“There is pressure on managers to get people with the biggest SPH in the most hours. You’re not told that if you don’t go off the clock, you’ll get your hours cut. It becomes an inferred thing. The more you sell per hour, the more hours you get.”)

There is pressure on all of us to hit a goal...a percentage over LY. Again...and I'm not going to continue to argue with you on it. "Your do not know what you are talking about with sales and retail"...which makes me think the sister Norstroms think is another little white lie.

*The more you sell the more money you get in commission and the more productivity they get. You are given 37 1/2 hours to do it in. If you go over...on Saturday you go home early. You do not get more hours. They have other girls on the floor to cover each other...and intersell.

*You have up to 40 hours and then you go home. If you were to sneak an hour in they might not notice but if they do they will probably say don't do that anymore and wouldn't want to make it a habit.

He saves you from additional embarressment.

LMAO

You feel into my trap. You exposed your insecuritys like always. Supieriority complex??

I simply answered your question.

This varies on the company and their management strategy. I have worked for Sak 5th Avenue and Neiman Marcus and they pay you on straight commission. (no part-timers)

Because "no hours are involved in straight commision" and their percentages are much higher. Now, don't forget I run my own company, I pay my sales person straight commission for his sales.

*Walgreens?? Much different environment from Saks, Nortroms...Neiman Marcus, don't you think?

You missed the whole point, just as you missed the point with the overtime. But I digress, you are a lemming for your department manager. Your probably hte type that when her hours are coming up and you are in the middle of a sale, you turn the person to someone else or you try to sell her whatever and get rid of her so you don't go over your hours. Great customer service.

35 hours in a speciality store is full-time and that includes benefits.

No its not. Look to your State labor laws. The employer can set what is considered full time hours and part time hours. 35 hours may only be for your store or Corporation.

*Actually corporate did approve benefits for a 30 hour day part-timer in another location I worked at 7 years ago. Like I said my company believes that happy workers are productive workers.

you obviously didn't read what i said about this, comprehension is the key. What I said: Any hours beyond the 32 - 36 hours there are no benefit deductions from the sales, it's pure profit at this point.

Conclusion: When the underground workforce becomes legal and documented cheap labor employers will either have to follow the labor laws and pay them minimum wage and overtime or higher more workers.

What does this have to do with what was being discussed? And as I have already shown, if they are receiving a paycheck, they are aready being paid minimum wage or better.

you do not need overtime to produce numbers. She gets overtime because she produces quality customer service which turns into larger sales.

If your sister needs more than 40 hours to exceed in sales she isn't all that good.

Superiority complex anyone??

The more you sell the more money you get in commission and the more productivity they get.

So you sell product only, here's a question, whats your return on sales? My sister gets less than $300 in returns monthly. Her bi-weekly sales exceeds $10,000. All due to excellent customer service.

They have other girls on the floor to cover each other...and intersell.

I'm sure the vendors really like that.

Let me make this as simple as I can for you, Mary.

32 - 36 (35 - 37.5, your numbers) hours per week is what the store wants. That's 4 days @ 8 hours each with some time left over for "customer service", an hour additional each day (36). (Your numbers allow for 5 days a week @ 7 hours per day with 30 minutes additional each day for "customer service" overflow).  Events sometime come on my sisters days off, for which she has to adjust her days for the week. Now, she can't leave during the event, she must remain there until its over, especially when the counter person calls in sick or doesn't show up, thus she ends with more than 40 hours for the week. So, between the store sales and the line events, she gets overtime quite a bit. But you should have known all of this since you are "SO intelligent with your job". You fail to recognize anything outside of your enclosed box.

(Now, don't forget I run my own company, I pay my sales person straight commission for his sales.)

My guess is that you have a staff of miserable workers because you are the boss.

(when her hours are coming up and you are in the middle of a sale, you turn the person to someone else or you try to sell her whatever and get rid of her so you don't go over your hours. Great customer service.)

There you go again with your reading comprehension problem****I said that if that happens they back the hours out the next day!*

(Any hours beyond the 32 - 36 hours there are no benefit deductions from the sales, it's pure profit at this point)

If we were to go over 40 hours it wouldn't be profit at all at the hefty wage of time and 1/2 which could run the company $33.75 an hour.....Ummm at that point frankly you would have to sell a hell of alot for them to profit and if they were to let people do their own thing company wide my guess is people would steal time and hang out rather than produce.

*If you were paying your employers time and 1/2 I'd bet my last dollar you would send them home real fast...unless you want to go out of business. As a matter of fact I had this discussion with many of the girls today and they all said if we could stay over 40 hrs. we would all hang out and rack up the overtime $$$. Why not?

(What does this have to do with what was being discussed? And as I have already shown, if they are receiving a paycheck, they are already being paid minimum wage or better.)

For some reason....and correct me if I'm wrong...(and I know you will) lol.....didn't the original discussion stem from the topic "Bringing Immigrants out of the shadows and enforcing labor laws" so that the sleazy slave labor sweatshops either hire more employee's rather than pay the underground workforce strait-time for overtime. (or they could go out of business and open their crappy plants in Mexico)<I'd much rather them get out of the US to tell you the truth then abuse people in my country. "Then we don't have to worry about in-humane detentions because people who are here just to work and do not have roots in our country will self-deport".

(If your sister needs more than 40 hours to exceed in sales she isn't all that good.)

Yes, and I will repeat that again. It only takes an hour a day to make that 10,000 bi-weekly on the phone if you know how to utilize your client base and your book. 5,000 in sales a week is what most girls product in the industry full-time. Customer service involves more than just the service of walk-up business. Your sister will tell you that follow-up and keeping on top of your clients is what makes your success in sales and you must be personable.

(She gets overtime because she produces quality customer service which turns into larger sales.)

Like I sat at least 5 times already. I don't believe this one. She should be able to produce 10,000 bi-weekly without working over 40 hours.

(So you sell product only, here's a question, whats your return on sales? My sister gets less than $300 in returns monthly)

I do not get many returns and if they want to bring something back I gladly exchange it for something they like even more. Returns are awesome....I always take it back and turn it into a huge sale.

(I'm sure the vendors really like that.)

Vendors come in and give training luncheons to all the girls and show them key products. Vendors love intersellers.

(Events sometime come on my sisters days off, for which she has to adjust her days for the week. Now, she can't leave during the event, she must remain there until its over, especially when the counter person calls in sick or doesn't show up, thus she ends with more than 40 hours for the week. So, between the store sales and the line events, she gets overtime quite a bit. But you should have known all of this since you are "SO intelligent with your job". You fail to recognize anything outside of your enclosed box.)

I did tell you that the vendor would pay 100% for an event if it is in their budget. If not than your sister would be scheduled less hours on another day. Your sisters productivity is not achieved through overtime...it is achieved throw utilizing her client book and planning her days and events using her time efficiently.

*You fail to recognize that this is not your field and you are not an expert in it.

(Please, send the check to Cash for $90 for your lesson)

If I send you the check for $90 dollars Micro, consider it a gift of sympathy so that you can enroll in college and Major in Retail Management and Merchandising because you are going to need the complete program to get it through your thick skull.

How your ignorance comes out in every comment you make. The following is from Lawrence M. Spizman, Ph.D., from the State University of New ork at Oswego.

What are quasi fixed labor costs?

Non Wage Costs
Hiring and Training costs

When a firm hires someone there are many costs other than the typical ones such as advertising for the position, screening workers etc. When you are being interviewed for a job someone is spending time talking to you and is getting paid to do so. Many companies also test job candidates, these test cost money. Sometime the company will hire a head hunter (employment agency) which can cost as much as one third of the salary of the person they are hiring.

Training can be a significant cost also. There are explicit monetary costs of the trainer and materials necessary but there is also the implicit or opportunity cost of the trainer. If someone is training a new employee they are not producing output. There are also opportunity cost (implicit cost) of using capital equipment and experienced workers who are slowed down by the new employee.

 Fringe Benefits are also a quasi fixed labor cost. No matter how many hours you work the firm still has to pay these costs. So in one sense they are "sort of like fixed" but they do change for each worker.

 The types of fringe benefits that are quisi-fixed include Unemployment Insurance, social security , (social security varies but it is capped at a fixed rate otherwise it is a percentage) holiday and vacation pay, sick time. Notice all these benefits are the same whether the worker works 40 hours per week or 50 hours per week. These are costs per worker rather than cost per hour. (social security being a little of both)

  The quasi-fixed nature of these non-wage costs has important effects on hiring and overtime decisions by the firm.
...
EMPLOYMENT/HOURS TRADEOFF

 Sometimes we notice that a firm will pay workers over-time (time and one half and even double time) rather than hire new workers. Often we wonder why would they pay all that extra money when they should just hire a new worker. The following analysis shows why a firm pays premium overtime pay rather than hiring new workers.

 Given a firms production function where Q = f(M,H)

That is, output (Q) is a function of the employment level (M) and the average work week per employee (H). Remember, M is the number of workers the firm hires and H is the number of hours that each employee works. The firm must determine the optimal employment/hours combination necessary to maximize profits. There is a tradeoff between M and H. The more of M the less of H.

The extra output from one extra worker is the MPL. Now we have two types of labor inputs, an hour of labor H and an extra worker M. Thus there is the extra output derived from one more hour of labor denoted as MPH and there is the extra output derived from hiring one additional worker called MPM. Both of these MP are positive but declining due to the law of diminishing returns.
...
We want to determine how a firm knows the optimal employment/hours combination. This will go a long way in answering the question whether it pays for a firm to continuously have workers work for premium overtime pay rather than hiring additional workers.

The firm knows that there is an additional expense (marginal expense, ME) of hiring either an additional worker or having the current workers work one more hour.

The marginal expense of hiring a new worker is MEL. This includes the implicit costs as well as all the quasi fixed costs. The marginal expense of having the existing workers work one more hour of overtime (only expense here is the premium pay you have to pay) is MEH.  This now becomes a cost minimization problem just like we had before when we talked about the long run use of capital and labor. A profit maximizing firm wants to minimize the cost of production using either more workers or having the existing workers work more hours.

Essentially the firm wants to adjust its mix of new workers and existing workers working overtime so that the cost of producing an extra unit of output with an additional worker is the same as the cost of producing an unit of output by having current workers work more overtime. This occurs when

 MEM/ MPM = MEH/ MPH

 This shows that the Marginal expense (same as marginal cost) per extra unit of output are equal.

Suppose health insurance costs for the firm rises. Notice this is a quasi fixed cost because no matter how many hours a worker works this cost is the same. If a new worker is hired then the firm has this additional expense. Consequently
 MEM/ MPM > MEH/ MPH
....
As you just tried to explain the only way equilibrium can be restored is if the firm hires fewer workers and have existing ones work more overtime. This explains why some firms would rather pay existing workers overtime rather than hire new workers. Since there are no quasi fixed costs for paying overtime if the premium pay is less than the quasi costs of hiring a new worker then it is cheaper to have existing workers work overtime.

Some people have suggested that the growth of quasi-fixed costs (benefits, vacations etc.) is one reason why some firms have decided to have current workers work more hours and pay them time and one half. Consequently they feel the overtime premium should be increased to make it more expensive to have workers work more resulting in firms hiring more new workers rather than paying a higher overtime premium.


Here it is so even you can understand, 3rd grade math.

Full time worker can work 40 hours per week times 52 weeks per year which equates to 2080 hours per year. The yearly income is their wages (we'll use $18.00 per hour to keep it simple for you) times the hours worked. 2080x$18.00=$37,440.00

A part time worker usually works 20 hours per week times 52 weeks per year which equates to 1040 hours per year. The yearly income is their wages (we'll use $9.00 per hour to keep it simple for you) times the hours worked. 1040x$9.00=$9,360.00

Now if the full time employee is averaging 3 hours of overtime per week: 3x52=156x$27.00=$4,212.00
Here at 6 hours of overtime per week: 6x52=312x$27.00=$8,424.00
Here at 8 hours of overtime per week: 8x52=416x$27.00=$11,232.00

As you can see, it is cheaper at these points to pay the overtime then to hire a new employee.

Now lets ad in hiring costs, training costs, fringe benefits, and other quasi costs as stated above in the first paragraph. This increases the costs to the employer, so the $9.00 per hour paid is actually costing the employer closer to $13.00 per hour.

Please keep showing your ineptness when it comes to economics and business management.

Here is yet another explenation.

Whatever Happened to Leisure Time?

Sometimes it's cheaper to pay overtime
There are logical explanations for the overlong hours rampant among America's employees, and, contrary to popular belief, it's not necessarily the fault of employers. If you're a full-time employee with benefits, the free market system profits best when you work the longest day, even if you're earning overtime rates. Why? Because fringe benefits in the form of pensions, health insurance, life insurance, and paid vacations are a huge expense which employers have to pay on a per-person basis in addition to basic earnings.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey estimated that benefits add 36 percent to the cost of an employee, and in some firms as much as 60 percent. So it's far more profitable to hire a smaller number of people for longer hours than to extend those hours over more workers who would expect paid benefits.

Charlie N., owner of a chemical plant in the Northeast, employs more than 100 workers. He says, "I'm hurt too by on-the-job training, which I have to pay for in addition to everything else. I can only hope that this newly trained worker will put in good hours so I can see some returns on my investment."

I'm way to tired to post tonight but I will try make it short because I need some sleep.

You still do not get it! Example: They goal the Bobbi Brown counter for lets say 600K for the year and they hire probably around 4 full timers the produce that goal. Each employee is responsible for producing 150K. Let's say the store is opened from 10am to 9:30pm. They always have no less than 2 girls scheduled on a day for coverage. The girl does not work overtime because she would be cutting into her co-workers sell time. The full-timer is responsible for her counter goal and she should also be interselling other products in conjunction with her line.

Point is: If the volume of the counter hits way above the goal at the end of the year corporate approves and adds another full-timer. Now the following year the new full-timer would produce another 150K plus intersell in the store.

What you are not getting is I could go into the store and produce nothing for the first 5 hours I am there and then pick up the phone and call a few clients and produce 1000 in an hour through a client book. The days of depending on store traffic walk-ups are over. There are some walk-ups but most of the business is done through the phone these days.

(Please keep showing your ineptness when it comes to economics and business management.)

It wasn't my ideal to run the company that way. This is the way it runs and that is it. Your argument is silly because you are trying to prove that Macy's INC does not know how to run there business. I'm not making it up...This is the way they run it!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can show me pages and pages of your mathematics and it doesn't change the FACT that this is the way it is and its one of the most...if not the most successful department store in the world that has survived long term and it doesn't seem inept to the vast majority of people. Maybe other companys should take a good look at how they became so successful.

*Again...HAPPY! HAPPY! HAPPY! workers are productive workers. "and I know you aren't into happy things because you are mean spirited towards a group of undocumented people"..and its all about the quality of training and sales strategys, promotions and displays "the visual aspect of merchandising".


*Why don't you fill out an application and sell some lipstick Micro? You seem sortof interested. Let's see how good you are at building a client book. You seem real personable? Let's see if you could produce 250K in sales in Cosmetics a year. Now remember Micro...lipstick is only $27.00 a tube.

*You would never survive in a sales postition with your personality. I really do not think you could even get along with co-workers.

You have made my statements out to be much more than they are by you making this personal. As I have stated:

IT IS CHEAPER TO PAY A WORKER OVERTIME THAN IT IS TO HIRE A PART-TIME WORKER.

I have shown that and I have proven that. I don't care how or what your job description is. I have used my sister as an example. You have taken it personal and ranted on and on about you and how you think your company runs.

Let's see how good you are at building a client book. You seem real personable? Let's see if you could produce 250K in sales in Cosmetics a year.

I will repeat, I run/own an Arboriculture Business. I have sales between $450,000 - $600,000 per year with only 6 employees. I have done this for the past 20 years.

Now, I suggest you go back and re-read this conversation, as I have already stated: 32 - 36 (35 - 37.5, your numbers) hours per week is what the store wants. That's 4 days @ 8 hours each with some time left over for "customer service", an hour additional each day (36). (Your numbers allow for 5 days a week @ 7 hours per day with 30 minutes additional each day for "customer service" overflow).

That means exactly what it means, th company trying to cut back on overtime. Its also why part-timers were released and you picked up a second line. What it does not negate is my statement above or the fact that my sister does in fact get overtime for the reasons I stated. So, quit making this personal, it doesn't reflect to well on you. Stay on the points made so you don't look so foolish.

You have yet to prove what I asked you to prove in the beginning: I challenge you to show me a company that has been caught by ICE for knowingly hiring Illegal Workers having a second set of books and cheating them on their wages. Also, show where those that have been cheated on their wages in any situation regarding work and pay, have not had the opportunity to sue for back wages and have lost.

Prove your statement: Many employers are working overtime...up to 80 hours a week at minimum or lower than minumum.

(IT IS CHEAPER TO PAY A WORKER OVERTIME THAN IT IS TO HIRE A PART-TIME WORKER.)

Macy INC. doesn't think so because that is not how they run their little popsickle stand. hehe

(I will repeat, I run/own an Arboriculture Business. I have sales between $450,000 - $600,000 per year with only 6 employees. I have done this for the past 20 years.)

You told me about your business and the government contracts (Marxist social program money) you enjoy to make a living off of.

(Now, I suggest you go back and re-read this conversation, as I have already stated: 32 - 36 (35 - 37.5,)

Obsessive compulsive Disorder? Paxill is a good pill for that. I think you should have a consultation with you doctor and discuss it?

(Stay on the points made so you don't look so foolish.)

If I look like a fool...just think how you must look.

(I challenge you to show me a company that has been caught by ICE for knowingly hiring Illegal Workers having a second set of books and cheating them on their wages.)

That is challenging considering they are off the books and there is 12 million + in the US undocumented. Now if we legalized them they could go to the labor board and complain...HUH???

*When something is underground the only proof that exists is live testimony's. Those testimony's I do have. Some are American's and unfortunately some of those people live underground. It's too bad they are to scared to go to the authority's and complain about their inhumane working condition's and slave slum landlords. Some even have slave employer's that happen to be their slave slum landlords. Go Figure! What a racket?

*Like I said before I do have live testimony's and I was talking to the guy who was the head hunter who accidentally tried to recruit in the cheese factory to find a bunch of people that were trafficked in there. "The owner told him that he didn't pay wage at all and threw him out of the factory".

*The arrogance!

( I have sales between $450,000 - $600,000 per year with only 6 employees.)

In cosmetics 3 of us full timers procuce $600,000 per year at 37.5 hours a week with no overtime. Sounds like you don't have HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY, salepeople with generous commissions to boost your business.

*Micro do you think you've taken way more than you deserve from your workers.

Paxill is a good pill for that. I think you should have a consultation with you doctor and discuss it?

Education not medication is the cure to all dis-ease and disease. Ignorance is what kills. Only fools refuse to learn.

That is challenging considering they are off the books and there is 12 million + in the US undocumented.

but according to you in previous discussions, they are receiving a paycheck (they pay into SS, they pay taxes, etc, etc., etc.), therefor they are on the books. IRS and SS have about 8M numbers in duplicate and thats not counting the ITIN numbers they are using for tax refunds.

"The owner told him that he didn't pay wage at all and threw him out of the factory".

Then your friend should have filed a complaint with the authorities to turn him, don't you think? Wouldn't that have been the "humane" thing to do? IF it were true. Then the workers could have gotten a U visa and been all legal. But I'm suspect to the fact that your friend works for a Temp Agency and the business owner you describe told him that just to get rid of him.

*Micro do you think you've taken way more than you deserve from your workers.

Mary, Mary, Mary, if you would only open your mind to the reality of business and realize my few HAPPY workers continue to work for me becuase they are HAPPY. It's also why I am not "out of business" or needing to re-structure my business.

As far as Macy's and Overtime... you are eligible for overtime, although you're encouraged not to use it. (Legally, Macy's can not deny it.) What Lundgren is doing is restructuring and re-evaluating Macy's. Why do you think they just closed 11 stores and released 7000 employees? Why do you think they cut so many part-time workers? Wait you already answered all that with "thats how they run their popsicle stand."

(Education not medication is the cure to all dis-ease and disease. Ignorance is what kills. Only fools refuse to learn.)

Education didn't work for you.

*Ignorance! That is someone who opposes Immigration Reform with the same old solution that he knows doesn't work.

*Arrogance! Is someone that exploits a group of underground people and then demands proof when he is knows everyone around him is aware that the proof is undocumented. Helloooo...?

(but according to you in previous discussions, they are receiving a paycheck (they pay into SS, they pay taxes, etc, etc., etc.), therefor they are on the books. IRS and SS have about 8M numbers in duplicate and that's not counting the ITIN numbers they are using for tax refunds.)

Like I said before Micro...Everything is not in black and white and when it is undocumented you can be sure the only thing that is in black and white is what the employer wants to report to the government....so some are paying into the system and some are not but that is only because they are kept underground.

 (Then your friend should have filed a complaint with the authorities to turn him, don't you think? Wouldn't that have been the "humane" thing to do? IF it were true. Then the workers could have gotten a U visa and been all legal.)

Nope! My friend made 100K as a head hunter but eventually that corporation downsized because they filled positions for factory type positions. Actually they couldn't find legal American citizens to fill those jobs. He also said that alot of those smaller company's get away with e-verify because they do hire workers through job placement agency's. The agency is responsible for making sure the temp. workers have been e-verified and that is a way that the factory/agency plays the game. (This is why I do not believe in the e-verify system) It only works for big corporations in my freinds opinions. The small plants know how to get around it and (temp agencys is the key word here). His recruitment company did things the correct way and eventually they could not compete with the other company's that dodged the law. (Other company's stay in business for a few years bank the profits and pay the fine and fold up) then later open up in someone else's name.

My friend walked into these type of situations leaving shocked. Yes, it would have been the humane thing to do...I agree with that but also you have to consider that people are afraid to turn people in. When you see something sleazy going on you are afraid to turn people in because you are dealing with sleazy people you have to fear that you will wear cement shoes.

( But I'm suspect to the fact that your friend works for a Temp Agency and the business owner you describe told him that just to get rid of him.)

Actually, I think I have you confused with the story. My friends job was to find both the workers and the employers and make a contract with the company. He would find factory's and then walk in without an appointment and try to talk them into a contract and supply workers (with his company he had to find legal documented workers that were e-verified) but he accidentally was let into a sleazy factory because he thinks they thought he was an inspection person from???? Anyway, when he walked in and tried to sell to the owner the owner started yelling at him "get the xxx out of here...don't you see I don't pay for labor"...."I have my labor for free".

He said that the place was really gross inside and that it was a small cheeze factory and it was obvious that the workers were trafficked. This happened maybe 4 or 5 years back.

I have another story but right now I am to disturbed by it to tell it. It is about a restaurant/slum immigrant landlord...that quite frankly I wish I could have him slammed with a fine...but the problem Micro again is that these people are sleazy people that exploit the immigrants and they know that they can not go to the police to turn them in.

This sleazy landlord/restaurant owner kicked an immigrant out on the street just because he refused to work 94 hours a week and he actually had the nerve to steal some of his personal belongings out of the apartment.

He was a millonaire who stole his silverware out of his kitchen draw. That is really sick!

(Why do you think they just closed 11 stores and released 7000 employees? Why do you think they cut so many part-time workers?)

They had to because of the bad economy and also that they have to re-structure.

*Expanding the internet business is something that they just did which in my opinion should have been done a long time ago.

*Yes, in some businesses part-timers may be a way to go but in an upscale department store they found that the part timers were a waste.j

*Bath and Body Works (A part of the chain of Victoria Secrets, Express, J. Biglowe) would recruit only part timers and management that had tiers. They would use the part time position to test the employee to see if they were productive and then they would throw them into management and work them to death. I really wasn't impressed when they took a friend of mine and insisted that she drive a uhaul to an off site storage to transfer merchasdise one day when she arrived to work. She was not trained to drive that kind of vehicle and I thought that was totally illegal for them to force her to do that. (Thats the job of a truckdriver). Macys INC would never do something like that.

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Wage and Hour Division
(Revised July 2008)
Fact Sheet #23: Overtime Pay Requirements of the FLSA


Page 2, last paragraph:

Overtime Pay May Not Be Waived: The overtime requirement may not be waived by agreement between the employer and employees. An agreement that only 8 hours a day or only 40 hours a week will be counted as working time also fails the test of FLSA compliance. An announcement by the employer that no overtime work will be permitted, or that overtime work will not be paid for unless authorized in advance, also will not impair the employee's right to compensation for compensable overtime hours that are worked.

(An announcement by the employer that no overtime work will be permitted, or that overtime work will not be paid for unless authorized in advance, also will not impair the employee's right to compensation for compensable overtime hours that are worked.)

They don't annouce it. It is not a written rule. This is why they schedule you 37.5 and not 40 hours. They figure if you go over...you will still be under 40 hours.

Lets put it this way. If you went over...you are right when saying they can not fire you and occassionally I have gone over and they have not noticed but if they notice you have they tell you to go home early on Saturday. They do not care if you go over 37.5...the red flag goes up when you go over 40. They also get annoyed if you shorten your lunch. They use the excuse that the labor law says you must take an hour. Sometimes Im too busy and I forget to take lunch and they get mad at that one because you have an 8.5 hour day in. Also if you clock out for 30 minutes only it can add up by the end of the week.

First you state: At your company "They do not pay overtime. They hire more people even though they pay into the benefits with a group plan. The FACT is it saves them money to not pay overtime."

Either you are arguing just to argue, or you enjoy chasing your own "tale".

Now you state: YOU ARE RIGHT when saying they can not fire you and occassionally I have gone over and they have not noticed but if they notice you have they tell you to go home early on Saturday. They do not care if you go over 37.5...the red flag goes up when you go over 40.

So now you have re-read the entire discussion, and came to your senses. Like I originally said, it is cheaper to pay you the overtime (I have gone over and they have not noticed )than it is to hire another person (part time/full time). It's only taken you 6 days to finally understand.

(Either you are arguing just to argue, or you enjoy chasing your own "tale".)

It's kindof like when a guy drive's in circle's and insist's he knows the direction's when you are driving from A to B in a car Micro.

Us woman just get tired of the argument and agree with you just so you shut up.

( and came to your senses.)

If it makes you feel better you can justify it that way.

(Like I originally said, it is cheaper to pay you the overtime)

If you want to believe that go ahead but they don't want me to go over 40 hours for a reason...Yes, legally they have to pay it but if it was cheaper they wouldn't flip out if I stayed.

If you want to believe you are right go ahead...I am giving you permission to feel you are right.

they don't want me to go over 40 hours for a reason

Because they are trying to re-structure and control costs. But if you do go over 40 hours, which you have admitted to doing, then as you have previously re-iterated and feverishly argued, wouldn't it be cheaper for them to hire another person, so that you don't go over your 40 hours? (sarcasm)

I am giving you permission to feel you are right.

It's not a matter of "believing" I am right, its a matter of "knowing" I am right.

they don't want me to go over 40 hours for a reason

(Because they are trying to re-structure and control costs)

They have been condoning going over 40 hours since the 80s. This isn't anything new. They just announce that they are opening 2 new Macy's stores in California. I bet you that they hire lots of full-timers? and I guarentee they aren't going to be working more than 40 hours. I think you should personally give Terry Lungren a call on the tele??

(not a matter of "believing" I am right, its a matter of "knowing" I am right)

I am giving you permission to know you are right...if that makes you sleep at night.

i said i wouldn't live there. that place isn't fit for a dog. I have heard you story before. I have friends who are mexican. they said the water they were drinking was putrid because a cow died in the well, they said there are people who extort of of people who are selling fruit on the street not even rich people but poor people. So how many of the mexican people want to come here. most of them?  how many people were in your village. don't you think they would all come here if they have a chance? would you want all of the people who were your neighbors to move next to you here in america? I don't. They can't all come here. i'm so sorry that your husband can't stay here I really am. but i'm also sorry that mexico is so uninhabitable and isn't fit for humans to live.  They need to change how they take care of their people.  we can not absorb all of mexico's poor in the United States. Do you agree with that?  Hopefully with more and more americans moving down there, they will one day unite and demand change so that moving there wont be as bad. If i was in that situation, i'd try and live next to the border, but now even the drug dealers have mess that up that little plan.

Thank you, Jessica.  This is an issue that's barely on the radar as far as immigration reform.  Families for Freedom talks about it, but I don't know many others who are pushing for repeal of these draconian laws.  Thank you for making yourself heard--you represent many others in your situation.

It is not fair. I think if Mexico were to compromise it may a deal Americans could  consider. If they were to rewrite the tready of hidalgo and move the border 1000 miles south so that our expanding population could have the   territory so we can live on top of each other like sardenes, forget it. no somos sardenes.  God willing maybe that land would have oil that could help our economy with the extra people.   I would vote for something like that. Give and take from BOTH county's. Not just American people making all the changes and sharing OUR finite living space and environment with no inconvinece to  Mexico. I don't think americans are gonna go for that another time.

Again, I think that is another great idea I have never come across.  We could try to negotiate taking more land from Mexico so we have more space, but the only problem is I am not sure how many Americans are going to want to live in the South West so close to the border.

Thank you. I though of that all by myself. :-)

(But yes it would be valid to fire you, if you are consistently late to your job.  It is the responsibility of the illegal immigrant to update his status with the INS and comply with the terms set for being in this country

*Yes it would be valid to fire me if I was consistently late to my job...but my company would never bother me for an occasional late because they grant forgiveness for 5 lates a month.

*Isn't it a harsh policy to arrest the husband of a US borned citizen and them for up to 5 years or more because they unknowingly missed an immigration appointment at 100 dollars and up a day at the taxpayers expense.

(This country belongs to the "citizens" of this country)

I agree with you and the pew poll say's that 63% of Americans want all the undocumented to gain legal status and go on a path to citizenship.

*Although you do not want to believe it as we have seen throughout election polls Pew is an excellent source of information. If this poll pointed in your favor you would be all on top of it but you oppose any FACT that does not support your arguement.

*The poll is accurate.

You can not "unknowingly" fall out of status.

DHS does not have to show proof of service of the Notice to Appear, the charging document that initiates removal proceedings.  NTAs go astray all. the. time.  In absentia orders are very common.  Sometimes it's the immigrant's fault.  Sometimes it's not.  I know of one case where the person had filed a change of address form but the address didn't get changed.  He was stopped for a traffic violation and his current address went into the system via local police.  Then he missed his NTA, which went to an old address, and was ordered removed.  Then ICE showed up at his current address and took him to jail. 

They couldn't send the NTA to his current address, but when it came time to arrest him, magically they tracked him down!  This is the way they operate.

They may have moved and the NTA may have been sent to the wrong address, but why did they not follow up if having not received anything within a standard period of time of lets say a couple of weeks? Personal responsibility!!!! At this point, the person(s) obviously don't care, granted they mau have simply let it slip thier mind, but once they thought about it, they should have called to get the info. Following up on something this important is simply basic thought process.

I follow up on even semi basic things, don't you atleast follow up on things? What makes these people any different?

the NTA may have been sent to the wrong address, but why did they not follow up if having not received anything within a standard period of time of lets say a couple of weeks?

I don't think you understand how the process works.  If you never get the NTA, you don't know you are in proceedings.  What is there to follow up on?  A person can be pursuing an issue with USCIS--which can take years, btw--and be issued an NTA and not find out about it until they had missed the hearing.  It happens all the time. 

Like I said, sometimes it's the immigrant's fault, sometimes it's not.  You seem to operate from the presumption that the immigration bureaucracy never makes mistakes.  Anyone who is acquainted with the system will understand that's not the case.  Responsibility involves accepting blame where it's due, which should also include the government, don't you think? 

Are not NTA's sent out after an "immigrant" applies for a change of status to his/her visa? or after the fact of having first been in front of IJ?

Now if from AOS, would it not be prudent of the immigrant after having sent in COS to follow up within a reasonable amount of time if nothing has been received? And if having been in front of IJ, should not the correct address be in file at that point?

As far as the immigration bureaucracy... mistakes are made all the time. As far as responsibility and blame, if the Government is shown to be at fault then yes, but every time I read an entry attempting to lay blame at the Government, such as your new topic Another citizen has been caught up in the deportation and removal machine.  The cases we hear about are the ones that get straightened out ... we never hear about all those that don't. it seems it was the families mistake for never having followed through and obtaining the necessary documents and making to many assumptions on their own behalf.

They couldn't send the NTA to his current address, but when it came time to arrest him, magically they tracked him down!  This is the way they operate.

Didn't you answer your own question.
I know of one case where the person had filed a change of address form but the address didn't get changed.  He was stopped for a traffic violation and his current address went into the system via local police.  Then he missed his NTA, which went to an old address, and was ordered removed.  Then ICE showed up at his current address and took him to jail.

What was the outcome? Was he able to use the fact that he had filed the correct COA and that it was not correctly in his file? Was he eventually released from jail? Was he deported due to the NTA?

The arrest happened before the NTA went out.  DHS didn't vigorously try to locate him until he had already been ordered removed, then once the removal order was in place, used the tools they had at their disposal all along to track him down.  He got out b/c he had an attorney to file the necessary papers quickly before he got shipped out of state or deported.  Many are not so fortunate.

Mary - i'm glad that there are people like you who are so passionate about doing what is right, never mind what is legal.  Sometimes people confuse the two - they are simple minded and do what is told, they are followers not leaders.
You're so right about undocumented immigrants having no voice to fight back.  I'm not even talking about fighting back against the law.  I'm talking about fighting back against greedy sloths like you describe above who take advantage of a person's weaknesses. How "rich" can this man be if he is stealing the few belongings of a poor immigrant?  He is poor in spirit.  And those that try to keep others hush hush... are going to get bitten in the tush tush... it's called karma baby.