Skip to comments.BOYCOTT SWIFT & COMPANY PRODUCTS! (Vanity)
Posted on 12/13/2006 9:42:09 AM PST by Concerned
One way to get businesses to STOP HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS is to BOYCOTT their products to QUIT SUPPORTING THEM!!!
Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Sears, Macy, Penney, Marsh, Big Lots, and on and on and on......
From another article:
Immigration officials last month informed Swift that it would remove unauthorized workers on Dec. 4, but Swift asked a federal judge to prevent agents from conducting the raid, arguing it would cause "substantial and irreparable injury" to its business.
The company ESTIMATED a raid WOULD REMOVE UP TO 40 PERCENT of its 13,000 workers. Greeley-based Swift describes itself as the world's second-largest meat processor with sales of about $9 billion.
After a closed hearing, a judge on Thursday rejected Swift's request, clearing the way for Tuesday's raids at the plants in Greeley; Grand Island; Cactus, Texas; Hyrum, Utah; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Worthington, Minn."
But, at the same time????
"In a written statement, President and CEO Sam Rovit said the company has never knowingly hired illegal workers and does not condone the practice."
So if he had never knowing hired illegal workers, how is it possible that he can estimate loosing 40% of his workforce?
"No charges had been filed against Swift. In a written statement, President and CEO Sam Rovit said the company has never knowingly hired illegal workers and does not condone the practice."
"Immigration officials last month informed Swift that it would remove unauthorized workers on Dec. 4, but Swift asked a federal judge to prevent agents from conducting the raid, arguing it would cause "substantial and irreparable injury" to its business."
"Swift estimated that a raid would remove up to 40 percent of its 13,000 workers. After a closed hearing, a judge on Thursday rejected Swift's request, clearing the way for the raids."
I'm sorry, but I've had ENOUGH of companies playing the "We didn't know" BS, trying to "hide behind the log" with a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy!!!
A FIRST clue is: Do they speak ENGLISH???
While LEGAL foreign immigrants/residents/visitors may not be fluent in English, most I know of at least TRY to speak English.
Maybe this will help.
There is NO EXCUSE!!! Swift KNEW!!!
BOYCOTT SWIFT NOW!!!
In addition, the UNION should be held CRIMINALLY accountable!!!
My x husband is a local 880 meatcutter. Back in May I inquired on how to boycott tyson, are they under different names, store labels etc? He told me that it is impossible to eat any poultry, beef, or pork that hasn't been 'handled' by illegal aliens. He laughed and told me I'd have to become a vegetarian. But then, figure the number of fruits and vegetables that are 'handled' by aliens.
Hate to put a crimp, but thats the reality and that's why our laws must be enforced, employers punished. Those jobs they are doing in the industry could be going to our unemployed and would be a great alternative to high school grads unable to get a higher education, rather than micky d's.
Check out Bar S meats, they've been using the verification system for years to avoid hiring illegals.
"I have an answer back within a minute," Martin Thompson, vice president for human resources at Bar-S Foods Co., a Phoenix-based meat-processing firm told the Arizona Republic. The company has been able to participate in the program since 1998 because some of its 1,500 employees are in California and Texas."
"Less than 8 percent of the time we will find someone where the computer kicks them back," says Thompson. That's a reduction from the 30 percent Bar-S was seeing in 1998 when it first started the program.
But if others decide to join Bar-S, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may not be ready. On its website, the agency warns: "If significantly more employers than anticipated choose to participate in the Basic Pilot Program, USCIS may have to limit the number of participants." (snip)
"the UNION should be held CRIMINALLY accountable!!!"
Both Swift and the Unions should be prosecuted on RICO charges, for violation of the '96 INS Laws, but then, so should the Catholic church and Federal Government, and no one has taken them on yet either. The only big case that I am aware of in this industry that is pending is Howard Foster's against Tyson (and Mohawk), which is why Bush is pushing for a quick passing of S2611 which will give amnesty to the employers.
I wonder why Bar S hasn't filed against the others in the industry for undercutting their business. It would seem to me that Bar S would be having difficulty competing with others who are using illegal labor?
I think BAR S is doing good business because AMERICANS are buying from them. It's all we've bought for years. And surprisingly, their prices are better than Swift! Kind of puts to rest that lie about getting cheaper food because of cheaper labor, eh?
Let me guess...Tyson's good buddy, Sam's Club, doesn't carry BAR S? (I hope they do...I'll check)
Maybe other companies are waiting to see the outcome of the Mohawk case. Just as communities are waiting to see the outcome of the Hazelton case before passing their own similar ordinances.
I'm hoping that's why. We need more action by companies and local authorities - the elites in DC won't do a thing to save the country.
"Current law limits an employer's ability to scrutinize the background and identity of new hires, and as Swift learned first-hand employers can, in fact, be punished for probing too deeply into applicants' backgrounds," the company said.
That was in reference to the 2000 complaint filed by the Justice Department's Special Counsel for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices that alleged Swift engaged in a "pattern and practice" of document-based discrimination against job applicants. The department sought civil damages of $2.5 million.
The Justice Department said Swift's Worthington, Minn., plant engaged in discrimination and unfair practices when hiring U.S. citizens and lawful immigrant workers who were believed to look or sound "foreign." Justice claimed those individuals were more heavily scrutinized than others during the employment process.
After two years, Swift settled the claim for about $200,000.