4 ms·

I live in the area where Tyson has most of its poultry operations, and I know a few people who work for them fairly well - including a couple who are working th

I live in the area where Tyson has most of its poultry operations, and I know a few people who work for them fairly well - including a couple who are working there under false identities due to immigration status. Tyson knows. They couldn't _not_ know. They seem to maintain an acceptable level of "plausible deniability" at least, and I've not seen any evidence that they're explicitly allowing it to happen, or even that it's their preference. It seems more like they _have_ to tolerate it. If they tried to aggressively stamp out their workers using false documentation, they'd lose a big part of their experienced workforce and would incur significant additional labor costs as the market adjusted to the change. More to the point, those people aren't just going to shrug their shoulders and head back to their home countries. Many of them would just go through more complicated steps to get false documents that passed the increased scrutiny. Tyson would have to pay more to get workers. Much of that money would be spent by the very same employees obtaining and maintaining false identities, and the people they're getting them from aren't exactly upstanding citizens. If anything, I'd expect a crackdown on illegal labor practices here to result in funneling more money to criminal organizations (i.e., "the cartels") and tying the immigrant community more deeply with them. It really looks like a lose/lose proposition from where I sit. NOTE: None of the above is a comment on US immigration policy, or indicative of my personal position on how that should be handled.

pphysch 4y ago
Of course Tyson knows. Cheaper labor directly translates to increased profits. If Tyson and other megacorporations don't encourage this practice, they are leaving money on the table and violating their fiduciary duty.
- onedognight 4y ago
  Their fiduciary duty is to violate the law to make money?
  - pphysch 4y ago
    If that is what it takes, sure. As long as the punishment is less than the reward, it's good business.
    - Ancapistani 4y ago
      If you have enough money to pay the fine without worrying about it, the fine is just "the price".
      - foogazi 4y ago
        Reminds me of this: https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/ https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/what-makes-people-do-what-t...
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - pphysch 4y ago
    Explaining transnational capitalism != justifying atrocities. The ease at which you jump to personal attacks is extremely concerning. I obviously do not condone the actions of Tyson here.
  - Ancapistani 4y ago
    > The ease with which you justify child labor is extremely concerning. I don't see anyone justifying anything here. I'm probably coming the closest to that, and I'm very carefully only trying to share my understanding that's based on living nearby and having at least some interactions with this community. I'm absolutely not defending or justifying anything; I'm pointing out that there are multiple perspectives here and that it's not quite so clear cut. > Not to mention that where one finds illegal workers one tends to find child sexual exploitation because illegals don’t tend to report the crimes they’re victims of. Please consider not using the term "illegals" to refer to people. "Illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" is at least marginally better, as it at least acknowledges that these are people we're talking about. I'm not on the same side of this as most of HN seems to be - I hate to even bring it up, but it's relevant here to provide some background on my own views. I'm opposed to illegal immigration, "amnesty", and want to significantly increase border security. I'd summarize my overall position as wanting "A big, beautiful wall with big, beautiful open doors." Anyone who wants to come here should be able to do so, but we absolutely must know who is coming in, why, and be able to prevent known dangerous people from entering the country and disappearing. None of the above is a reason to marginalize individual people and families. I don't go so far as to insist that people use milquetoast terms like "undocumented people", but I recognize that language impacts how we view things. These are people. Policies are driven by public opinion, and public opinion is driven by the language we use. As for the point you're making, I agree. Much of these communities are living under the threat of deportation, and the rest inherits that distrust of authority. Crimes go unreported. We should definitely consider that when addressing issues that impact them.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  That sounds like a sentence one could utter at every crime committed. Mob boss before court. This. Following orders at nuremberg. This. Fiduciary duty beets all other duties i guess.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    Well, yeah. If a CEO or lower level employee does not follow orders in the name of profit-reducing "ethics" they will be replaced with someone who does. Welcome to capitalism.
yunohn 4y ago
> even that it's their preference > they'd lose a big part of their experienced workforce and would incur significant additional labor costs as the market adjusted to the change The second statement clearly disproves the first one. Tyson could get Americans (TM) if they paid significantly more and moved them in to rural areas; but it’s much easier to employ cheap immigrants and act dumb. Disclaimer: No judgement passed on immigrants, only on capitalism and stupid politicians.
ticviking 4y ago
> If anything, I'd expect a crackdown on illegal labor practices here to result in funneling more money to criminal organizations (i.e., "the cartels") and tying the immigrant community more deeply with them. It really looks like a lose/lose proposition from where I sit. Another potential outcome is that with the price of illegal labor practices increased legal labor would become competitive against illegal labor again. Which would probably increase the price of chicken, but would also mean that those working for Tyson legally would have a living wage again.
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  Tyson is already one of the best-paying employers in the area. If that's not making legal labor competitive, what would?
  - rftyuikdjhgvcf 4y ago
    naive. they are the best paying in the area because they win over competition by using cheap illegal labour. nobody honest can compete with that, so they break/move.

pphysch 4y ago

Of course Tyson knows. Cheaper labor directly translates to increased profits. If Tyson and other megacorporations don't encourage this practice, they are leaving money on the table and violating their fiduciary duty.

onedognight 4y ago
Their fiduciary duty is to violate the law to make money?
- pphysch 4y ago
  If that is what it takes, sure. As long as the punishment is less than the reward, it's good business.
  - Ancapistani 4y ago
    If you have enough money to pay the fine without worrying about it, the fine is just "the price".
    - foogazi 4y ago
      Reminds me of this: https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/ https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/what-makes-people-do-what-t...
Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
[flagged]
- pphysch 4y ago
  Explaining transnational capitalism != justifying atrocities. The ease at which you jump to personal attacks is extremely concerning. I obviously do not condone the actions of Tyson here.
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  > The ease with which you justify child labor is extremely concerning. I don't see anyone justifying anything here. I'm probably coming the closest to that, and I'm very carefully only trying to share my understanding that's based on living nearby and having at least some interactions with this community. I'm absolutely not defending or justifying anything; I'm pointing out that there are multiple perspectives here and that it's not quite so clear cut. > Not to mention that where one finds illegal workers one tends to find child sexual exploitation because illegals don’t tend to report the crimes they’re victims of. Please consider not using the term "illegals" to refer to people. "Illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" is at least marginally better, as it at least acknowledges that these are people we're talking about. I'm not on the same side of this as most of HN seems to be - I hate to even bring it up, but it's relevant here to provide some background on my own views. I'm opposed to illegal immigration, "amnesty", and want to significantly increase border security. I'd summarize my overall position as wanting "A big, beautiful wall with big, beautiful open doors." Anyone who wants to come here should be able to do so, but we absolutely must know who is coming in, why, and be able to prevent known dangerous people from entering the country and disappearing. None of the above is a reason to marginalize individual people and families. I don't go so far as to insist that people use milquetoast terms like "undocumented people", but I recognize that language impacts how we view things. These are people. Policies are driven by public opinion, and public opinion is driven by the language we use. As for the point you're making, I agree. Much of these communities are living under the threat of deportation, and the rest inherits that distrust of authority. Crimes go unreported. We should definitely consider that when addressing issues that impact them.
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
That sounds like a sentence one could utter at every crime committed. Mob boss before court. This. Following orders at nuremberg. This. Fiduciary duty beets all other duties i guess.
- pphysch 4y ago
  Well, yeah. If a CEO or lower level employee does not follow orders in the name of profit-reducing "ethics" they will be replaced with someone who does. Welcome to capitalism.

yunohn 4y ago

> even that it's their preference > they'd lose a big part of their experienced workforce and would incur significant additional labor costs as the market adjusted to the change The second statement clearly disproves the first one. Tyson could get Americans (TM) if they paid significantly more and moved them in to rural areas; but it’s much easier to employ cheap immigrants and act dumb. Disclaimer: No judgement passed on immigrants, only on capitalism and stupid politicians.

ticviking 4y ago

> If anything, I'd expect a crackdown on illegal labor practices here to result in funneling more money to criminal organizations (i.e., "the cartels") and tying the immigrant community more deeply with them. It really looks like a lose/lose proposition from where I sit. Another potential outcome is that with the price of illegal labor practices increased legal labor would become competitive against illegal labor again. Which would probably increase the price of chicken, but would also mean that those working for Tyson legally would have a living wage again.

Ancapistani 4y ago
Tyson is already one of the best-paying employers in the area. If that's not making legal labor competitive, what would?
- rftyuikdjhgvcf 4y ago
  naive. they are the best paying in the area because they win over competition by using cheap illegal labour. nobody honest can compete with that, so they break/move.