• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hiring illegals has down side.

Sandhusker

Well-known member
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) - Operations slowed Friday at a Smithfield Foods Inc. slaughtering plant in North Carolina after hundreds of workers, mostly Hispanics, walked off their jobs to protest the recent firing of immigrants for allegedly providing false documents.

In all, about 1,000 nonunion workers have participated in the walkout since it began Thursday morning, company and labor officials said.

Smithfield bought most of ConAgra Foods' refrigerated meats businesses in October, including a 200-employee plant in Omaha and a 500-worker plant in Hastings, Neb., for $571 million in cash. Brands included in the deal were Butterball turkeys, Armour hot dogs, Eckrich meats, LunchMakers, Margherita and Longmont.

Smithfield spokesman Dennis Pittman disputed reports by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union that the plant had been shut down by the labor action.

"Fewer than 20 percent of our employees have been out at any given time," Pittman said. "We are operating at 70 percent of capacity."

About 300 workers were protesting Friday outside the plant in Tar Heel, a small town about 25 miles south of Fayetteville, N.C., said Libby Manly, a union representative.

Smithfield shares closed unchanged at $26.97 Friday on the New York Stock Exchange.

The UFCWU, which has been trying to form a union at the plant for years, helped organize the protest. The facility is considered the world's largest hog slaughtering plant.

Pittman said that by afternoon, some employees had already met with company officials and only about 150 people remained outside.

At issue is the company's decision to comply with a request from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to gather the names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth and gender of workers at the plant. About 500 to 600 workers were found to have unverifiable information, and the company has fired about 50 so far for providing false information, Pittman said.
 

mrj

Well-known member
The disgusting point in the story is that the union orchestrated punishment of the company for FIRING illegals!!!!!

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
MRJ said:
The disgusting point in the story is that the union orchestrated punishment of the company for FIRING illegals!!!!!

MRJ

MRJ, the union recognizes that the illegals are people too and are afforded all the protections under the law. Just because they are illegals doesn't mean the company can break our labor laws and abuse them in this country which has definitely been the case in this particular plant in prior years. In addition for being illegal, immoral, and unethical, these actions would give the packer a competitive advantage compared to companies who do not hire and abuse illegal aliens. It brings labor down to the lowest common denominator that companies try to get away with in this country so that they can maximize profits and pay off politicians, gobble up competitors and gain market power to cheat producers.

Just because they are illegal aliens, the company has no right to abuse them. They are people too. You may be too high on your throne to be personally threatened by such actions, but as the republicans found out, things could change quickly.

If I had my guess, the company could be guilty in bringing these people into the country for these jobs in the first place just as Tyson has been in their FBI probe.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I'd say the disgusting part is that illegals were hired in the first place. That is the root of the problem. No wet-backs hired, no walkout.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yes, these companies need to hire legal workers, pay them a higher wage than illegals are willing to work for, and pay you less for your cattle as a result since it would add to their processing costs.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Yes, these companies need to hire legal workers, pay them a higher wage than illegals are willing to work for, and pay you less for your cattle as a result since it would add to their processing costs.


~SH~

So you're advocating breaking the law in the name of money. I don't think I'll do any business with you.

You've made 100s of idiotic posts, but this one has to rank up there....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
If all the other competitors are paying the same for workers, they will have to pass the costs onto the consumer. The only way they don't do that is if some of them are cheating the labor market to get the competitive edge and make more money.

I am with Sandhusker on this one, SH. If you have to violate the law to make money, you are making illegal profits and our government should have systems to deal with that. They should not let companies off the hook because they have bribed the politicians looking over the system and regulatory enforcement as Tyson seemed to do on their illegal deal. They hurt the people playing by the rules.

You seem to be the kind of person who doesn't mind breaking the rules if it makes money, SH. It is a sign of low ethics. I hope that is not the case.

Do you think you could quit calling people as many names as you do and argue the points? It only makes you look stupid.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "So you're advocating breaking the law in the name of money."

Where did I advocate breaking the law you damn liar?

What I said was clear........

SH (previous): "Yes, these companies need to hire legal workers, pay them a higher wage than illegals are willing to work for, and pay you less for your cattle as a result since it would add to their processing costs."

NOW WHERE IN THE HELL DID I ADVOCATE BREAKING THE LAW OH "MASTER OF ILLUSION"????

In your dreams, that's where!

Again, I think these packers should hire legal workers, pay more for wages, and pay you less for your cattle to cover the additional costs. Nobody is above the law.


Sandbag: "I don't think I'll do any business with you."

Don't worry, you would be close to the very last person I would ever consider doing business with. You should have your citizenship revoked for being so deceptive.


Conman: "If all the other competitors are paying the same for workers, they will have to pass the costs onto the consumer."

Once again, you show the world what a complete idiot you are.

Packers do not pass the costs on to the consumers. Consumers don't have to absorb those costs WHEN THEY CAN BUY CHEAPER POULTRY AND PORK! Consumers do not absorb the added costs. Nobody has a gun to the consumer's head forcing them to buy higher priced beef. THOSE COSTS ARE PASSED ON TO THE PRODUCER IN THE FORM OF LOWER CATTLE PRICES.

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with your incredible ignorance?


Conman: "I am with Sandhusker on this one, SH."

Hahaha! Really? Whoda thought? Liars and deceivers of a feather.......


Conman: "You seem to be the kind of person who doesn't mind breaking the rules if it makes money, SH."

Hahaha! Listen to you, the "LYING KING" lecturing me on ethics. What a joke. You don't "seem to be the kind of person who doesn't mind lying, YOU ARE THAT PERSON.


~SH~
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
Yes, these companies need to hire legal workers, pay them a higher wage than illegals are willing to work for, and pay you less for your cattle as a result since it would add to their processing costs.


~SH~

So you're advocating breaking the law in the name of money. I don't think I'll do any business with you.

You've made 100s of idiotic posts, but this one has to rank up there....

Econ101 said:
I am with Sandhusker on this one, SH. If you have to violate the law to make money, you are making illegal profits and our government should have systems to deal with that. They should not let companies off the hook because they have bribed the politicians looking over the system and regulatory enforcement as Tyson seemed to do on their illegal deal. They hurt the people playing by the rules.

You seem to be the kind of person who doesn't mind breaking the rules if it makes money, SH. It is a sign of low ethics. I hope that is not the case.

Do you think you could quit calling people as many names as you do and argue the points? It only makes you look stupid.

Sign me up with you guys on this one, Sandhusker and Econ 101.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
SH:
Conman: "If all the other competitors are paying the same for workers, they will have to pass the costs onto the consumer."


Once again, you show the world what a complete idiot you are.

Packers do not pass the costs on to the consumers. Consumers don't have to absorb those costs WHEN THEY CAN BUY CHEAPER POULTRY AND PORK! Consumers do not absorb the added costs. Nobody has a gun to the consumer's head forcing them to buy higher priced beef. THOSE COSTS ARE PASSED ON TO THE PRODUCER IN THE FORM OF LOWER CATTLE PRICES.

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with your incredible ignorance?

The FBI probe of Tyson Foods was on their poultry operations in TN, Missouri, and other places, SH.

The Tarheel plant in the Carolinas is a hog facility:

The Smithfield plant in Tar Heel is the largest hog processing plant in the world. 32,000 hogs are slaughtered per day. Fast line speeds at the plant mean that 33 hogs are killed per minute. As a result, the 6000 low-wage workers at the Tar Heel plant are forced to labor under poor conditions and at unsafe speeds, leading to scores of injuries and even death. Smithfield has underreported injuries at the Tar Heel plant in the past, and the company has denied workers’ compensation when injury claims are filed.


If you knew half of what you try to talk about, you would be quiet.

Good thing you are not a betting man as I would hate to drain the economy of S.D. of your hard earned coyote bounties.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
...and the rest of the story:


Home » News » Citizen
JULY 20, 2005
Tar Heel Pinkertons
Smithfield Foods is anti-union in the worst way.

BY BOB GEARY

mail this article
print-friendly format
ALSO IN CITIZEN
Mountaintopping on Kidd's Hill in Raleigh
Dorothea Dix plan: The Urban Land Institute's plan is not exactly a park
Some Raleigh trash talk
More (140)...

ALSO IN NEWS
Orange County voters approve new districting plan; Democrats sweep commissioners' seats
Chatham County voters defeat redistricting plan; Tom Vanderbeck wins District 4 commissioners' seat
UNC-Chapel Hill's PAC is tops in the state; leaders say they aren't buying influence in doling out big dollars to legislators
More (979)...
Justice @ Smithfield campaigners held their first public forum Thursday night at Pullen Baptist Church in Raleigh, and their star witness was Manuel Plancarte, ex-manager on the overnight cleaning crew at the Smithfield Foods hog packing plant in Tar Heel, Bladen County. Plancarte speaks Spanish, and the translator's English version of what he said was pretty sketchy, but in outline it was clear enough: The cleaning crew, virtually all Hispanic men, walked out one night in November 2003 over issues of pay, working conditions and the fact that some of their leaders had just been fired; when they did, they were threatened, pushed around and beaten up (in some cases) by Smithfield Special Police Chief Danny Priest and other members of the company's armed private police department.

No, I don't mean the security guards. (The company has them, too.) Come to find out, Smithfield's hog plant, where as many as 34,000 hogs meet their piggly maker every day and are then "cut" and "converted" for your eating enjoyment, has its very own "special police force," which is separate from--though Chief Priest is also a deputy in--the Bladen County Sheriff's Office.

It's like something out of the days of the union-busting Pinkertons, except that this isn't some vestige of our hoary past. It's North Carolina's Company Police Act of 1991, which allows a private security force--if approved by the Attorney General's office--to carry guns, make arrests and pursue suspects off-premises if the case begins on company property.

So it was in the 2003 episode related by Plancarte, and it resulted 18 months later in findings by a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge that Smithfield's cops had assaulted and falsely arrested employees who were only exercising rights protected under federal labor laws.

What happened?

Well, picture the Tar Heel plant, which at 973,000 square feet is the biggest hog plant in the world and is in the middle of nowhere. It's so big, it takes 250 men to clean it every night, meaning "the removal of animal parts, bones, blood and the like from the machinery and premises," as the judge delicately described it. It's miserable, dangerous work, and it's done under the auspices of a subcontractor, QSI Inc., whose on-site crew chiefs are, like Plancarte, all Spanish-speaking, too, and loyal to each other, not to their bosses in Tennessee and certainly not to Smithfield Foods.

Long story short (and the decision makes good reading at www.smithfieldjustice.com), QSI's mid-level managers had agreed, in writing, after a walkout a week earlier, to give the cleanup crews $1 more per hour each and to rehire a couple of their compadres who'd been fired. But when the brass at QSI and Smithfield Foods heard about that, they hit the roof. Fire the leaders and scrap the raise, they ordered.

So on that fateful night a week later, the Smithfield cops and the management gang tried to quietly terminate and remove Plancarte and a half dozen other crew chiefs while simultaneously preventing the rest of the workers--once they heard about it--from leaving the plant. Violence ensued, and according to the judge it was "initiated by [QSI's] management and the Smithfield Special Police."

The cops, Judge Lawrence Cullen determined, tried to stuff one worker into a trash can. They shouted that "immigration" was outside if the workers left, and threatened to make sure anyone who tried would be deported. Then, when some of the workers forced their way out anyway, the cops beat a couple of them up. And of course, those "bad employees" who left were fired--illegally, since they were "engaging in protected concerted activities," the judge said.

"This incident," Human Rights Watch remarked dryly in a recent report on the ill treatment of workers in U.S. meat and poultry plants, "suggests the conflict of interest that can arise when company employees can exercise state police powers while responding to the employer's directives and interests."

The title of that report, not incidentally: "Blood, Sweat, and Fear."

The fear factor: It's the fear part that the Justice @ Smithfield campaign wants to underscore. Approximately half of the 5,500 to 6,000 employees of the Tar Heel plant are Spanish-speaking immigrants, an unknown--but large--number of whom get hired after presenting phony documents that the company accepts, but might at any time "check into."

These illegals--and legal immigrants, too, if they're unsure about American laws--are unlikely to complain about the low pay ($8.10 an hour to start) and brutish working conditions in the plant, which were brilliantly described by Charlie LeDuff of The New York Times in 2000 as part of a Pulitzer-Prize winning series on race in America. (LeDuff got hired at Smithfield, and after three weeks on the line, he understood the saying that the company doesn't just kill hogs, it kills people, too. He reported that turnover in Tar Heel was around 100 percent a year--that is, there are 5,000 new hires, and 5,000 who leave, every year.)

Immigrant workers are also unlikely to buck the company's fierce opposition to having a union in Tar Heel, notwithstanding that 19 other, smaller Smithfield plants around the country do have one.

Twice in the last dozen years, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) mounted union-organizing drives at Tar Heel. Twice, when the workers voted, the union lost. The second election, held in 1997, was a whopping 2-to-1 loss for the UFCW.

But seven years later, when it finally addressed the union's appeal, the NLRB found that Smithfield had systematically harassed pro-union employees while openly favoring anti-union workers; it also threatened in forced-attendance meetings to cut wages or even close the plant if the union won. All of which is illegal.

In addition, the NLRB said, in the run-up to the election the police presence both inside the plant and outside (thanks to the Bladen Sheriff's office) was deliberately suffocating to the organizers and designed to intimidate those workers--immigrants especially--who might be thinking about voting pro-union.

Then, just after the votes were tallied, the NLRB found, the Smithfield cops helped mug two union activists, dragged them out of the plant in handcuffs and arrested them on phony charges that were later dropped for lack of evidence. The two won damages of $755,000 from Priest and Smithfield in a civil jury trial; their award, however, was overturned on legal technicalities by a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel.

The NLRB ordered a new election, and though Smithfield's appealing its ruling in the courts, and in particular the part that says the election must be held somewhere other than the plant, the UFCW's already begun a third organizing drive.

This time, however, the union, having learned its lesson in Tar Heel, is taking its case not just to the workers in the plant but to the rest of us in North Carolina, as well. That's the point of the Justice @ Smithfield campaign, led now not just by the UFCW but also the state AFL-CIO and the N.C. Council of Churches. It's not to force a union on the workers. It is to let them hold a fair election and decide for themselves whether they want one.

As union organizer Kevin Blair put it: "We've got to have community support to bring pressure on the company and so the workers know that they're not in it alone. Because the biggest problem we have is that the workers are so scared."

A Triangle Committee for Justice at Smithfield is organizing in support of the workers' right to choose a union if they want one. Its next meeting is 7 p.m. Thursday, July 28, at the state AFL-CIO headquarters, 1408 Hillsborough St., Raleigh.

To contact Citizen: [email protected]


source:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A24777
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
SH, "Again, I think these packers should hire legal workers, pay more for wages, and pay you less for your cattle to cover the additional costs. Nobody is above the law. "

They couldn't pay me less because of all the competition for my cattle that you say exists. Unless, of course, all of them are hiring wet backs. So what's the deal, Junior? Is there competition or are all packers hiring cheap illegal workers?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Soapweed: "Sign me up with you guys on this one, Sandhusker and Econ 101."

Well obviously you can't read either.

Read it again Soapweed.......


SH (previous): "Yes, these companies need to hire legal workers, pay them a higher wage than illegals are willing to work for, and pay you less for your cattle as a result since it would add to their processing costs."

What part of "these companies need to hire LEGAL workers" did you fail to understand Soap?

What are you with Conman and Sandbag on? The inability to comprehend what has been written? No, I wasn't being sarcastic, just pointing out the fact that legal workers will result in lower prices paid to producers. Nowhere did I advocate illegal activity. Don't try to tell me what you THINK I meant. My words are clear.


Conman: "The FBI probe of Tyson Foods was on their poultry operations in TN, Missouri, and other places, SH.

The Tarheel plant in the Carolinas is a hog facility:"

Then poultry and pork producers will receive lower prices for their production but it won't come from the consumers back because consumers have other protein options.


Conman: "Good thing you are not a betting man as I would hate to drain the economy of S.D. of your hard earned coyote bounties."

Yet another lie from the "LYING KING".

SD does not have a coyote bounty you moron.


Sandbag: "They couldn't pay me less because of all the competition for my cattle that you say exists. Unless, of course, all of them are hiring wet backs. So what's the deal, Junior? Is there competition or are all packers hiring cheap illegal workers?"

Oh, so now you are going to take the opposite argument because it happens to fit THIS SITUATION. What a deceptive @%*@! you are.

You are the one who claims there is no competition in the packing industry so you should be making that argument in this situation instead of changing your position to fit the situation like the deceptive SOB you are.

You tell me when you choose the argument you are going to stick with.

Is there competition in the packing industry or not Sandbag?


That statement sure was revealing about how deceptive you are.



~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
"Yes, these companies need to hire legal workers, pay them a higher wage than illegals are willing to work for, and pay you less for your cattle as a result since it would add to their processing costs."
~SH~

How high does a wage have to go before an illegal will refuse to work for it!?

~SH~ said:
"Yes, these companies need to hire legal workers, pay them a higher wage than illegals are willing to work for, and pay you less for your cattle as a result since it would add to their processing costs."
~SH~

Packers cannot pay producers less because of processing costs without collusion. In a free market they would have to pay according to supply and demand, not according to costs. You need a course in economics 101.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm: "How high does a wage have to go before an illegal will refuse to work for it!?"

What a dumb statement/question. The point is that illegals are willing to work for less than what legal employees would demand for that same job.

Does that justify hiring illegals? Absolutely not! Simply pointing out a fact.


ocm: "Packers cannot pay producers less because of processing costs without collusion. In a free market they would have to pay according to supply and demand, not according to costs. You need a course in economics 101."

Packers can and will pay producers less because of added processing costs IF THE COSTS ARE ADDED TO ALL MAJOR PLANTS EQUALLY.

In a free market, if you add costs to all packing plants equally such as srm removal costs, there is less available to pay for cattle. Consumers have other choices so they don't have to absorb those costs. Packers will not loose money for extended periods of time and stay in business.

You are the one who needs a course in packer Economics 101.

NEXT!


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
ocm: "How high does a wage have to go before an illegal will refuse to work for it!?"

What a dumb statement/question. The point is that illegals are willing to work for less than what legal employees would demand for that same job.

Does that justify hiring illegals? Absolutely not! Simply pointing out a fact.
~SH~

You need to go back and READ YOUR OWN POST. That's where the "dumb" statement came from.

~SH~ said:
ocm: "Packers cannot pay producers less because of processing costs without collusion. In a free market they would have to pay according to supply and demand, not according to costs. You need a course in economics 101."

Packers can and will pay producers less because of added processing costs IF THE COSTS ARE ADDED TO ALL MAJOR PLANTS EQUALLY.

In a free market, if you add costs to all packing plants equally such as srm removal costs, there is less available to pay for cattle. Consumers have other choices so they don't have to absorb those costs. Packers will not loose money for extended periods of time and stay in business.

You are the one who needs a course in packer Economics 101.

NEXT!


~SH~
So supply (of fat cattle) and demand (for fat cattle) play no role in the price packers pay for fat cattle. You're arguing that the fat cattle market is not operating on free market principles!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
~SH~ said:
ocm: "How high does a wage have to go before an illegal will refuse to work for it!?"

What a dumb statement/question.


~SH~

I have to agree- but you are the one that originally said it :wink: :lol: Which leaves me to wonder if you even read or comprehend your own babblings you put on here :???: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Scotty, ""Yes, these companies need to hire legal workers, pay them a higher wage than illegals are willing to work for, and pay you less for your cattle as a result since it would add to their processing costs."

So what was your point?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
"Yes, these companies need to hire legal workers, pay them a higher wage than illegals are willing to work for, and pay you less for your cattle as a result since it would add to their processing costs."
~SH~

How high does a wage have to go before an illegal will refuse to work for it!?

~SH~ said:
"Yes, these companies need to hire legal workers, pay them a higher wage than illegals are willing to work for, and pay you less for your cattle as a result since it would add to their processing costs."
~SH~

Packers cannot pay producers less because of processing costs without collusion. In a free market they would have to pay according to supply and demand, not according to costs. You need a course in economics 101.

This is SH's critical mistake---thinking that packers pass on costs/benefits without going through the mechanism of the market. To the extent that they do, a competitive market does not exist and price determination is based on market power, not the free market. In other words the market is no longer a fair source price determination.

Contract production (depending on the barriers erected through contracting--main one being the capital investment) will allow them to operate the way SH believes they do, and so will lack competition and market power. Their ability to pass on these costs without the price determination of the free market is directly proportionate to the amount of market power they have over their suppliers. High investment for contract production can and is leveraged against producers if there are limited buyers to get better contract terms for the packer. This is the main complaint of contract poultry production against packers. Packers are using their market power in formulating their contracts and the inputs they control to gain concessions from poultry growers who have huge investments in the assets used for production. Profits are driven from contract growers with no market power to the integrators who have all the market power. The new price for existing growers ends up being their average variable costs, which does not include profits when these games are employed. New entrants are paid more than old entrants per unit and
GIPSA is either corrupt or incompetent to stop it.

It doesn't help that in previous reports to Congress JoAnn Waterfield lied about the agency's number of complaints and thus hid the problem from potential entrants. The OIG report clearly showed that GIPSA was hiding complaints at the DC level and committing this fraud of market transparency. The Farm Service Agency also helped with this fraud by continuing to finance this corrupt system without the transparency that the free market of financing would provide. Under normal conditions, the frauds on producers would be transmitted to the new entrants through the financial institutions and prior experience. Thus the federal government is subsidizing the frauds in more ways than one at the behest of the bribe toting packers.

The bad thing is, without real penalties and compensation for those wronged, there is a race to the bottom of things integrators try to do to growers and get away with just as there has been a race to the bottom with their labor source. The lack of enforcement by GIPSA and the protection of GIPSA from effective oversight is part of the corruption the packers have attained through political favors of those they are bribing. With no accountability, it is a huge government backed fraud on investors/growers in that business and extra profits are used by the Tysons of the world to buy up competing meats and win the competition game with their peers and bribe more to win the game.

If you don't think this will eventually happen in the cattle business after price determination is not based on free markets, you would have to be the most uninformed person in the business.

SH, if you need a few lessons on economics so you can get this down, please pm me and I will try to help you. :lol: :lol:
 

fedup2

Well-known member
Tough one guys! In the eastern part of my state a lot of sugar beets are grown, years ago, a lot of illegals were brought in to hoe & thin beets. Regulations were changed to provide housing & care for these people. New trailer houses were purchased for the temporary housing during this season. A trailer designed to house 3 employees often had over 20 family members in it. When the season was over, the trailer was thrashed! The farmers were also stuck with many other bills. It wasn’t long before the farmers bought machinery to do the same job.

In the same part of the state, I was a field manager for an architectural -development firm. My company was paying $48 - $55 per square for shingling. Roofing companies from Texas started moving in with crews of illegals and dropped the per square price to $27, then to $12. The local crews who were licensed, bonded, & insured couldn’t compete with these people. They had to pay a decent wage to their employees. Did my company take advantage of this cheap labor? Hell yes! Did they pass any of the savings on to their customers? Hell No.

Are the packers paying more for cattle because of their cheap labor? Hell no! Will they pass on the added costs if they have to pay a decent wage? Hell yes, it will come off of the price of your cattle. That is just the way it works. All the bitching in the world will not change it. Right or wrong, everything you do to make it better for one group will come directly from your pocket in one way or another. Now its between your heart & your check book. Just how generous do you feel?

Is it just the packers? Hell no! I would bet over 98% of the businesses & the majority of shareholders in this country could give a damn less about anything but their bottom line. That is not about to change in the immediate future! Do you believe the oil exec who got 100 mill for a bonus gives any thought to the poor bastard who has to walk to work?

This topic is looking up a dead horses @ss because what you or I think isn’t going to change one darn thing. If you could change it & if it had to come directly out of your or my pocket….....it would stay the same!
 
Top