US incomes

[Big Muddy rancher]

What other then record fat cattle prices do you need to see that value is being passed down?

 

[Econ101]

What other then record fat cattle prices do you need to see that value is being passed down?

That is has to do with tight supplies of cattle, BMR. Nothing else.

 

[mrj]

MRJ, I totally agree with you on the ciggs. My dad smokes and I wish he didn't. He stops sometimes but not enough. My Dad's aunt died of emphasima smoking a cigg and on the oxygen machine. Not a good sight. It is too bad too many poor people smoke to handle stress or to socialize. It is funny how so much of the tobacco money went into state coffers instead of the agreed upon anti-smoking campaigns.

MRJ, Tyson has tried to be the low cost and highest margin poultry producer and packing operator but off of the backs of their employed. Why do you think they have so many labor problems. When they speed the lines up, they do not increase the wages, but they do increase the work load. In our area they had to bring in a lot of foreign workers to put up with this kind of management.

As far as having to increase prices because of higher wages, yes sometimes they have to increase the price of goods, sometimes not. It is pretty bad that someone that treats employees decent has to compete with someone who does not. Food in the U.S. is cheap. I would rather see people make decent wages at whatever job it is they do as long as they work hard and earn it.

Someone has to work on those packing plant kind of jobs. I sure wouldn't do it for what they pay---unless I really had to. Those people working at those jobs should be respected for what they do. To me it is lot harder working at a factory type job where you do the same old thing over and over than the brainy kind of jobs that require higher education. I still respect the people who do them. I am just not willing to cheat them in some way or another.

Econ, I need to be shown some proof that Tyson et. al. are the guilty parties in not raising wages. How do you know there isn't an element of Union organizers at work promoting the labor problems? Where would they get the money to increase the laborers wages? I really don't want them to cut the prices they pay for cattle, and where else are they going to get the money from? And what happens when such industries try to mechanize more......more complaints of "worker abuse" seems the usual.

Re. packing plant wages, I do know that some years ago young men from ranches went to work in some of those plants because the beginning wages were far higher than anything else a guy just out of highschool could get. Don't know what they are currently. But do know that management can't just set the wages at what laborers want without having it come from somewhere. Isn't it probable that in most factory type jobs, those who excell, come to work sober, work hard, maybe attend classes to improve themselves....will rise above the bottom of the wage scale? Who says the workers are not respected for what they do, but doesn't respect have to be earned by appropriate behaviors?

MRJ

MRJ, There will never be enough proof for you presented to change your mind on anything.

Don't worry, Tyson did not cut the price paid for cattle in Canada due to labor costs.

Tyson has coyoted in workers from Mexico to get some of their labor in the U.S. I don't know why SH didn't get those coyotes, must have been too far south for his area. I would venture to guess it is the same way in Canada but I do not know. I would fire drunk workers too, if I were a company paying the bill. I don't think that is what the labor issue is about.

Econ, didn't you know that when you lie about one thing, people think you will lie about other things? It is such a big lie to say that proof would never change my mind as to be laughable!

BTW, has Tyson beef found guilty of "coyoting in workers from Mexico"?

I'd like to see the headlines of the story with proof of that!

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Econ, I need to be shown some proof that Tyson et. al. are the guilty parties in not raising wages. How do you know there isn't an element of Union organizers at work promoting the labor problems? Where would they get the money to increase the laborers wages? I really don't want them to cut the prices they pay for cattle, and where else are they going to get the money from? And what happens when such industries try to mechanize more......more complaints of "worker abuse" seems the usual.

Re. packing plant wages, I do know that some years ago young men from ranches went to work in some of those plants because the beginning wages were far higher than anything else a guy just out of highschool could get. Don't know what they are currently. But do know that management can't just set the wages at what laborers want without having it come from somewhere. Isn't it probable that in most factory type jobs, those who excell, come to work sober, work hard, maybe attend classes to improve themselves....will rise above the bottom of the wage scale? Who says the workers are not respected for what they do, but doesn't respect have to be earned by appropriate behaviors?

MRJ

MRJ, There will never be enough proof for you presented to change your mind on anything.

Don't worry, Tyson did not cut the price paid for cattle in Canada due to labor costs.

Tyson has coyoted in workers from Mexico to get some of their labor in the U.S. I don't know why SH didn't get those coyotes, must have been too far south for his area. I would venture to guess it is the same way in Canada but I do not know. I would fire drunk workers too, if I were a company paying the bill. I don't think that is what the labor issue is about.

Econ, didn't you know that when you lie about one thing, people think you will lie about other things? It is such a big lie to say that proof would never change my mind as to be laughable!

BTW, has Tyson beef found guilty of "coyoting in workers from Mexico"?

I'd like to see the headlines of the story with proof of that!

MRJ

MRJ, Tyson was caught red handed by the FBI on that one. It was before 911 and no one had the will to do anything about illegals. I personally don't think the illegals are all to blame here. Industry brings them in to get a cheap labor source.

I have talked to quite a few of the Mexicans that were brought in and have personal knowledge on that one. As for your proof, go google it. There are a lot of articles on that. I believe the trial was held down in Chattanooga, TN, for one. You will see it was pre-911. There was more than one complex of Tyson's that was involved in the smuggling.

Report back when you are done. Here is one article to get you started:
dvertise | Search | Cartoons | Classifieds | Contact | Shop December 01, 2005
Web
NewsMax.com
Powered by
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner

Tyson Execs Charged in Smuggling Illegal Aliens

NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Dec. 20, 2001

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in Chattanooga, Tenn., has returned a 36-count indictment against executives and managers of Tyson Foods Inc. for conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens to its U.S. facilities for profit, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

The company disputed the government's allegations.

Tyson, the world's largest producer and processor of poultry in the United States, enjoyed close ties to the Clinton administration.

The indictment, unsealed Wednesday in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, is the result of an undercover investigation conducted for two and a half years by the Immigration and Naturalization Service into the business practices of Tyson Foods, the department said.

"Tyson Foods executives and managers are accused in the indictment of conspiring to import and transport illegal alien workers from the Southwest border to Tyson plants throughout the United States," the department said in a statement. "Fifteen Tyson Foods plants in nine states have been implicated in this conspiracy to defraud the United States government."

INS Commissioner James Ziglar said, "This case represents the first time the INS has taken action against a company of Tyson's magnitude."

According to the indictment, Tyson Foods cultivated a corporate culture in which the hiring of illegal aliens was condoned to meet production goals and cut costs to maximize profits.

The indictment describes a scheme by which the defendants allegedly requested delivery of illegal aliens to work at Tyson plants in the United States and aided and abetted them in obtaining false documents so they could work at Tyson poultry processing plants "under the false pretense of being legally employable."

In addition to charging Tyson Foods, the indictment includes two corporate executives: Robert Hash, vice president, Retail Fresh Division, and Gerald Lankford, former human resources manager, Retail Fresh.

Also indicted are four former managers: Keith Snyder, complex manager, Noel, Mo.; Truley Ponder, former complex manager, Shelbyville, Tenn.; Spencer Mabe, former plant manager, Shelbyville; and Jimmy Rowland, former complex personnel manager, Shelbyville.

In a statement released from Tyson's headquarters in Springdale, Ark., the company said it would defend itself.

"The prosecutor's claim in this indictment of a corporate conspiracy is absolutely false," the statement said. "In reality, the specific charges are limited to a few managers who were acting outside of company policy at five of our 57 poultry processing plants. As a result of an internal investigation several months ago, four managers named in the indictment were terminated, and two others are now on administrative leave, pending the outcome of this matter."

The company said it also "has a long history of partnering" with the INS "to ensure corporate compliance with immigration laws" and "we will continue to cooperate."

The company said it has "taken a number of actions to help ensure that all of our team members are legally documented" and trains its managers in "methods for detecting improperly documented workers."

The company charged that the "indictment came because Tyson refused to agree to the prosecutor's outrageous financial demands" that would have resulted in a settlement, and said "we will vigorously defend our business, our diverse work force and our reputation."

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the Bedford County, Tenn., Sheriff's Department, the Shelbyville Police Department and the Tennessee Highway Patrol participated in the INS investigation.

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:dvertise | Search | Cartoons | Classifieds | Contact | Shop December 01, 2005
Web
NewsMax.com
Powered by
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner

Tyson Execs Charged in Smuggling Illegal Aliens

NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Dec. 20, 2001

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in Chattanooga, Tenn., has returned a 36-count indictment against executives and managers of Tyson Foods Inc. for conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens to its U.S. facilities for profit, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

The company disputed the government's allegations.

Tyson, the world's largest producer and processor of poultry in the United States, enjoyed close ties to the Clinton administration.

The indictment, unsealed Wednesday in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, is the result of an undercover investigation conducted for two and a half years by the Immigration and Naturalization Service into the business practices of Tyson Foods, the department said.

"Tyson Foods executives and managers are accused in the indictment of conspiring to import and transport illegal alien workers from the Southwest border to Tyson plants throughout the United States," the department said in a statement. "Fifteen Tyson Foods plants in nine states have been implicated in this conspiracy to defraud the United States government."

INS Commissioner James Ziglar said, "This case represents the first time the INS has taken action against a company of Tyson's magnitude."

According to the indictment, Tyson Foods cultivated a corporate culture in which the hiring of illegal aliens was condoned to meet production goals and cut costs to maximize profits.

The indictment describes a scheme by which the defendants allegedly requested delivery of illegal aliens to work at Tyson plants in the United States and aided and abetted them in obtaining false documents so they could work at Tyson poultry processing plants "under the false pretense of being legally employable."

In addition to charging Tyson Foods, the indictment includes two corporate executives: Robert Hash, vice president, Retail Fresh Division, and Gerald Lankford, former human resources manager, Retail Fresh.

Also indicted are four former managers: Keith Snyder, complex manager, Noel, Mo.; Truley Ponder, former complex manager, Shelbyville, Tenn.; Spencer Mabe, former plant manager, Shelbyville; and Jimmy Rowland, former complex personnel manager, Shelbyville.

In a statement released from Tyson's headquarters in Springdale, Ark., the company said it would defend itself.

"The prosecutor's claim in this indictment of a corporate conspiracy is absolutely false," the statement said. "In reality, the specific charges are limited to a few managers who were acting outside of company policy at five of our 57 poultry processing plants. As a result of an internal investigation several months ago, four managers named in the indictment were terminated, and two others are now on administrative leave, pending the outcome of this matter."

The company said it also "has a long history of partnering" with the INS "to ensure corporate compliance with immigration laws" and "we will continue to cooperate."

The company said it has "taken a number of actions to help ensure that all of our team members are legally documented" and trains its managers in "methods for detecting improperly documented workers."

The company charged that the "indictment came because Tyson refused to agree to the prosecutor's outrageous financial demands" that would have resulted in a settlement, and said "we will vigorously defend our business, our diverse work force and our reputation."

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the Bedford County, Tenn., Sheriff's Department, the Shelbyville Police Department and the Tennessee Highway Patrol participated in the INS investigation.

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Department of Justice Seal Department of Justice
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER, 19, 2001
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CR
(202) 616-2777
TDD (202) 514-1888

INS INVESTIGATION OF TYSON FOODS, INC.
LEADS TO 36 COUNT INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY
TO SMUGGLE ILLEGAL ALIENS FOR CORPORATE PROFIT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - - Michael Chertoff, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division announced today that a federal grand jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee returned a thirty-six count indictment against executives and managers of Tyson Foods, Inc., the world's largest producer, processor, and marketer of poultry-based food products, for conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens to Tyson Foods processing facilities in the United States for profit.

"The Department of Justice is committed to vigorously investigating and prosecuting companies or individuals who exploit immigrants and violate our nation's immigration laws," said Chertoff. "The bottom line on the corporate balance sheet is no excuse for criminal conduct."

The thirty-six count indictment unsealed today in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, is the result of a two-and-one-half year undercover investigation conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into the business practices of Tyson Foods. Tyson Foods executives and managers are accused in the indictment of conspiring to import and transport illegal alien workers from the Southwest border to Tyson plants throughout the United States. Fifteen Tyson Foods plants in nine states have been implicated in this conspiracy to defraud the United States government.

"This case represents the first time INS has taken action against a company of Tyson's magnitude," said INS Commissioner James Ziglar. "INS means business and companies, regardless of size, are on notice that INS is committed to enforcing compliance with immigration laws and protecting America's workforce."

According to the indictment, Tyson Foods cultivated a corporate culture in which the hiring of illegal alien workers was condoned in order to meet production goals and cut costs to maximize profits. The indictment describes a scheme by which the defendants requested delivery of illegal aliens to work at Tyson plants in the United States and aided and abetted them in obtaining false documents so they could work at Tyson poultry processing plants "under the false pretense of being legally employable."

In addition to charging Tyson Foods Inc., the indictment includes two corporate executives, Robert Hash, Vice-President, Retail Fresh Division and Gerald Lankford, former Human Resources Manager, Retail Fresh. Also indicted are four former managers Keith Snyder, Complex Manager, Noel, Missouri; Truley Ponder, former Complex Manager, Shelbyville, Tennessee; Spencer Mabe, former Plant Manager, Shelbyville, Tennessee; and Jimmy Rowland, former Complex Personnel Manager, Shelbyville, Tennessee.

The United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the Bedford County Tennessee Sheriff's Department, the Shelbyville Tennessee Police Department and the Tennessee Highway Patrol participated in this INS investigation.

###

01-654

 

[agman]

Jason, " Everytime you add value to a carcass it helps the producer. "

It helps the packer everytime. They don't always share in the bounty. I repeat again that packers will pay the least amount for cattle as they can. Canadian producers, of all people, should realize this - you just went thru a hosing royale from the packers. Were you compensated for your value or did the packers play low ball?

If you as a producer did nothing to add to that value why should you be compensated? On the otherhand, if you produce an animal of superior red meat yield or quality grade then you should be compensated according to your contribution to the added value. That is the way programs are designed and that is how producers get paid. They should get nothing more and certainly nothing less than their percentage contribution to that added value.

 

[Econ101]

Jason, " Everytime you add value to a carcass it helps the producer. "

It helps the packer everytime. They don't always share in the bounty. I repeat again that packers will pay the least amount for cattle as they can. Canadian producers, of all people, should realize this - you just went thru a hosing royale from the packers. Were you compensated for your value or did the packers play low ball?

If you as a producer did nothing to add to that value why should you be compensated? On the otherhand, if you produce an animal of superior red meat yield or quality grade then you should be compensated according to your contribution to the added value. That is the way programs are designed and that is how producers get paid. They should get nothing more and certainly nothing less than their percentage contribution to that added value.

Agman, I completely agree with you on this point. The problem is that the extra value from "processing" is being used as an excuse. All processing does not bring a return on investment. Sometimes the return is not worth the investment. Hashing out these issues takes technical analysis and sometimes it just boils down to a guestimate. Packers have and keep all of the information. It is private. Academia does not have access to all of the data and when they do get data, it is usually picked over. I could show you study after study where this is the case. You hear about it from the FDA all of the time. The university funding from industry often biases the results or supresses the findings.

 

[mrj]

MRJ, There will never be enough proof for you presented to change your mind on anything.

Don't worry, Tyson did not cut the price paid for cattle in Canada due to labor costs.

Tyson has coyoted in workers from Mexico to get some of their labor in the U.S. I don't know why SH didn't get those coyotes, must have been too far south for his area. I would venture to guess it is the same way in Canada but I do not know. I would fire drunk workers too, if I were a company paying the bill. I don't think that is what the labor issue is about.

Econ, didn't you know that when you lie about one thing, people think you will lie about other things? It is such a big lie to say that proof would never change my mind as to be laughable!

BTW, has Tyson beef found guilty of "coyoting in workers from Mexico"?

I'd like to see the headlines of the story with proof of that!

MRJ

MRJ, Tyson was caught red handed by the FBI on that one. It was before 911 and no one had the will to do anything about illegals. I personally don't think the illegals are all to blame here. Industry brings them in to get a cheap labor source.

I have talked to quite a few of the Mexicans that were brought in and have personal knowledge on that one. As for your proof, go google it. There are a lot of articles on that. I believe the trial was held down in Chattanooga, TN, for one. You will see it was pre-911. There was more than one complex of Tyson's that was involved in the smuggling.

Report back when you are done. Here is one article to get you started:
dvertise | Search | Cartoons | Classifieds | Contact | Shop December 01, 2005
Web
NewsMax.com
Powered by
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner

Tyson Execs Charged in Smuggling Illegal Aliens

NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Dec. 20, 2001

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in Chattanooga, Tenn., has returned a 36-count indictment against executives and managers of Tyson Foods Inc. for conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens to its U.S. facilities for profit, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

The company disputed the government's allegations.

Tyson, the world's largest producer and processor of poultry in the United States, enjoyed close ties to the Clinton administration.

The indictment, unsealed Wednesday in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, is the result of an undercover investigation conducted for two and a half years by the Immigration and Naturalization Service into the business practices of Tyson Foods, the department said.

"Tyson Foods executives and managers are accused in the indictment of conspiring to import and transport illegal alien workers from the Southwest border to Tyson plants throughout the United States," the department said in a statement. "Fifteen Tyson Foods plants in nine states have been implicated in this conspiracy to defraud the United States government."

INS Commissioner James Ziglar said, "This case represents the first time the INS has taken action against a company of Tyson's magnitude."

According to the indictment, Tyson Foods cultivated a corporate culture in which the hiring of illegal aliens was condoned to meet production goals and cut costs to maximize profits.

The indictment describes a scheme by which the defendants allegedly requested delivery of illegal aliens to work at Tyson plants in the United States and aided and abetted them in obtaining false documents so they could work at Tyson poultry processing plants "under the false pretense of being legally employable."

In addition to charging Tyson Foods, the indictment includes two corporate executives: Robert Hash, vice president, Retail Fresh Division, and Gerald Lankford, former human resources manager, Retail Fresh.

Also indicted are four former managers: Keith Snyder, complex manager, Noel, Mo.; Truley Ponder, former complex manager, Shelbyville, Tenn.; Spencer Mabe, former plant manager, Shelbyville; and Jimmy Rowland, former complex personnel manager, Shelbyville.

In a statement released from Tyson's headquarters in Springdale, Ark., the company said it would defend itself.

"The prosecutor's claim in this indictment of a corporate conspiracy is absolutely false," the statement said. "In reality, the specific charges are limited to a few managers who were acting outside of company policy at five of our 57 poultry processing plants. As a result of an internal investigation several months ago, four managers named in the indictment were terminated, and two others are now on administrative leave, pending the outcome of this matter."

The company said it also "has a long history of partnering" with the INS "to ensure corporate compliance with immigration laws" and "we will continue to cooperate."

The company said it has "taken a number of actions to help ensure that all of our team members are legally documented" and trains its managers in "methods for detecting improperly documented workers."

The company charged that the "indictment came because Tyson refused to agree to the prosecutor's outrageous financial demands" that would have resulted in a settlement, and said "we will vigorously defend our business, our diverse work force and our reputation."

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the Bedford County, Tenn., Sheriff's Department, the Shelbyville Police Department and the Tennessee Highway Patrol participated in the INS investigation.

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:dvertise | Search | Cartoons | Classifieds | Contact | Shop December 01, 2005
Web
NewsMax.com
Powered by
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner
banner

Tyson Execs Charged in Smuggling Illegal Aliens

NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Dec. 20, 2001

WASHINGTON – A federal grand jury in Chattanooga, Tenn., has returned a 36-count indictment against executives and managers of Tyson Foods Inc. for conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens to its U.S. facilities for profit, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

The company disputed the government's allegations.

Tyson, the world's largest producer and processor of poultry in the United States, enjoyed close ties to the Clinton administration.

The indictment, unsealed Wednesday in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, is the result of an undercover investigation conducted for two and a half years by the Immigration and Naturalization Service into the business practices of Tyson Foods, the department said.

"Tyson Foods executives and managers are accused in the indictment of conspiring to import and transport illegal alien workers from the Southwest border to Tyson plants throughout the United States," the department said in a statement. "Fifteen Tyson Foods plants in nine states have been implicated in this conspiracy to defraud the United States government."

INS Commissioner James Ziglar said, "This case represents the first time the INS has taken action against a company of Tyson's magnitude."

According to the indictment, Tyson Foods cultivated a corporate culture in which the hiring of illegal aliens was condoned to meet production goals and cut costs to maximize profits.

The indictment describes a scheme by which the defendants allegedly requested delivery of illegal aliens to work at Tyson plants in the United States and aided and abetted them in obtaining false documents so they could work at Tyson poultry processing plants "under the false pretense of being legally employable."

In addition to charging Tyson Foods, the indictment includes two corporate executives: Robert Hash, vice president, Retail Fresh Division, and Gerald Lankford, former human resources manager, Retail Fresh.

Also indicted are four former managers: Keith Snyder, complex manager, Noel, Mo.; Truley Ponder, former complex manager, Shelbyville, Tenn.; Spencer Mabe, former plant manager, Shelbyville; and Jimmy Rowland, former complex personnel manager, Shelbyville.

In a statement released from Tyson's headquarters in Springdale, Ark., the company said it would defend itself.

"The prosecutor's claim in this indictment of a corporate conspiracy is absolutely false," the statement said. "In reality, the specific charges are limited to a few managers who were acting outside of company policy at five of our 57 poultry processing plants. As a result of an internal investigation several months ago, four managers named in the indictment were terminated, and two others are now on administrative leave, pending the outcome of this matter."

The company said it also "has a long history of partnering" with the INS "to ensure corporate compliance with immigration laws" and "we will continue to cooperate."

The company said it has "taken a number of actions to help ensure that all of our team members are legally documented" and trains its managers in "methods for detecting improperly documented workers."

The company charged that the "indictment came because Tyson refused to agree to the prosecutor's outrageous financial demands" that would have resulted in a settlement, and said "we will vigorously defend our business, our diverse work force and our reputation."

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the Bedford County, Tenn., Sheriff's Department, the Shelbyville Police Department and the Tennessee Highway Patrol participated in the INS investigation.

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Department of Justice Seal Department of Justice
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER, 19, 2001
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CR
(202) 616-2777
TDD (202) 514-1888

INS INVESTIGATION OF TYSON FOODS, INC.
LEADS TO 36 COUNT INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY
TO SMUGGLE ILLEGAL ALIENS FOR CORPORATE PROFIT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - - Michael Chertoff, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division announced today that a federal grand jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee returned a thirty-six count indictment against executives and managers of Tyson Foods, Inc., the world's largest producer, processor, and marketer of poultry-based food products, for conspiracy to smuggle illegal aliens to Tyson Foods processing facilities in the United States for profit.

"The Department of Justice is committed to vigorously investigating and prosecuting companies or individuals who exploit immigrants and violate our nation's immigration laws," said Chertoff. "The bottom line on the corporate balance sheet is no excuse for criminal conduct."

The thirty-six count indictment unsealed today in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, is the result of a two-and-one-half year undercover investigation conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into the business practices of Tyson Foods. Tyson Foods executives and managers are accused in the indictment of conspiring to import and transport illegal alien workers from the Southwest border to Tyson plants throughout the United States. Fifteen Tyson Foods plants in nine states have been implicated in this conspiracy to defraud the United States government.

"This case represents the first time INS has taken action against a company of Tyson's magnitude," said INS Commissioner James Ziglar. "INS means business and companies, regardless of size, are on notice that INS is committed to enforcing compliance with immigration laws and protecting America's workforce."

According to the indictment, Tyson Foods cultivated a corporate culture in which the hiring of illegal alien workers was condoned in order to meet production goals and cut costs to maximize profits. The indictment describes a scheme by which the defendants requested delivery of illegal aliens to work at Tyson plants in the United States and aided and abetted them in obtaining false documents so they could work at Tyson poultry processing plants "under the false pretense of being legally employable."

In addition to charging Tyson Foods Inc., the indictment includes two corporate executives, Robert Hash, Vice-President, Retail Fresh Division and Gerald Lankford, former Human Resources Manager, Retail Fresh. Also indicted are four former managers Keith Snyder, Complex Manager, Noel, Missouri; Truley Ponder, former Complex Manager, Shelbyville, Tennessee; Spencer Mabe, former Plant Manager, Shelbyville, Tennessee; and Jimmy Rowland, former Complex Personnel Manager, Shelbyville, Tennessee.

The United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Social Security Administration, the Bedford County Tennessee Sheriff's Department, the Shelbyville Tennessee Police Department and the Tennessee Highway Patrol participated in this INS investigation.

###

01-654

Econ, you made the charges, you are the one who needs to present the proof.

I'm looking through your material quickly because when I get a phone call, I need to get dinner on the table......and yes, I know it is far past dinner time, but that is life on this ranch.

So far, I see many claims against employees of Tyson, denials by management of Tyson, some statements by management of Tyson helping INS assure compliance, indication of Tyson rejecting "outrageous financial demands" to get a settlement and more.

While I do not know the outcome, I wonder why it doesn't bother you that the tone of the news releases and even the government employees of the States Attorneys office is to paint Tyson as guilty without any trial and finding of guilt?

Does it trouble you not at all that there have been similar governent agency "shakedowns" of ranchers on public lands in the west, ag and other businesses via several "alphabet soup" agencies. A form of "we are accusing you of this, this, and this. If you admit, or even if you do not, admit guilt, you can pay the fine and we will go away". That is absolutely wrong! If government agencies truly have a case of intentional wrong done on the part of any business or individual, it should be taken through the court system, with full re-imbursement and damages awarded to the individual or business if the government is found to be in the wrong, IMO.

BTW, I also know that not all juries are not always right, and too often are prone to find against people or businesses perceived to have "deep pockets". Justice is not always served, but it is the only system we have at this point in time.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

MRJ, I told you that you are only going to believe what you want to believe. I have some very close relations and friends who knew what was happening at the time. Tyson got off because of its political ties in D.C. No, I can not prove that, but it is the inside story. Tyson was one of the biggest contributors and went in with Walmart at the Bush swear in and parties. You can do your own research on that too.

 

[agman]

Jason:"The imports are there and you have record prices. Everytime you add value to a carcass it helps the producer. "

The argument for the increased price spread between retail and producer level has always been value added by processors. You can not claim that when you add value to a carcass it helps the producer unless part of it is passed down to the producers. There has been no proof of that happening.

What does the price spread at retail have to do with the packer? Your total lack of understanding of this issue is so transparent and superficial it is truly pathetic.

 

[agman]

What other then record fat cattle prices do you need to see that value is being passed down?

That is has to do with tight supplies of cattle, BMR. Nothing else.

Improved demand has nothing to do with the higher prices?!!!! I submit that analysis from 1998 -2003 will clearly show the bulk of the price gain is from improved beef demand which was passed directly to producers in the form of higher prices. The gain during 2004 was mainly driven by reduced supply. The year 2004 recorded the second largest annual decline in beef production on record. Production this year will exceed 2004. If prices during 2004 were on the same demand level as in 1998 annual cattle prices would have averaged $64.50 last year as opposed to $84.25. So much for your phony and unsupported supply comment. I cannot believe that you continually try to express an opinion and have absolutely no understanding of the basic factors that impact and determine prices.

Once again you have made a statement without the knowledge of empirical evidence which is basic to even expressing such an opinion. You are dead wrong again. No wonder you never got accepted into the Mensa Society. You cannot fake your self-indulging intellectual prowess all the time.

 

[fedup2]

I found several wage quotes but all were outdated. I did find a study on manufacturing that shows packing plants make a heck of a contribution to the local economy. Probably not what anyones looking for but I found it interesting.

My disclaimer: I am only posting this to share information! Not chosing sides in a discussion!

While the economic impact of a manufacturing plant is often measured by the number of jobs it provides, considering its local linkages can give a broader assessment of a plant's impact. Local purchases of materials are much larger than salaries and wages for many food processing, logging, and sawmill operations. For example, ERS estimates that an
average meat-packing plant with 370 jobs spent $7.6 million on salaries and wages and $32.5 million on materials purchased locally in 1995 (table 1). In this case, the primary stimulus to the local economy provided by the plant may be its purchases of raw materials from local businesses and farms, rather than the jobs directly created by the plant. In contrast, an average cotton fabric mill with 221 jobs spent about $4.3 million on salaries and wages, but only $1.5 million on local materials purchases.

Meat-packing plants appear to have a much more extensive impact on the local economy through the strength of their backward linkages than do cotton fabric mills. The average meat-packing plant spent $108,500 per job on salaries, wages, and materials, compared with only $26,000
per job spent by the average cotton fabric mill.

Comparison of value-added industries shows that food processing and primary wood products industries have the highest spending per job, because they are materials-intensive and locally purchase a large share of their materials. The highest spending per job is by fats and oils processors, manufacturers of dairy products, red-meat packers, grain
mills, logging operations, and sawmills.

Red-meat-packing plants spend twice as much as poultry-processing plants on a per job basis because of their higher wages and greater expenditures on materials. Labor-intensive industries, such as textiles and leather products, have the lowest spending per job. Spending per job in other value-added industries is comparable to levels in other manufacturing industries, where the average generally ranges between $40,000 and $60,000 per job. Note that this measure excludes some important spending that contributes to the local economy, such as tax payments, purchases of business services, and construction expenditures.

 

[Econ101]

Agman, when demand is up and supplies do not also go up, then you have tight supplies. If demand stays the same and supplies go down, you have tight supplies. If you have demand going up and supplies going up also, but not as fast, you have tight supplies. If you have demand going down but supplies going down faster, you have tight supplies. Do you get stuck in your numbers all the time?

What is your definition of tight supplies? If supplies were not tight, you would not have higher prices.

 

[Econ101]

Jason:"The imports are there and you have record prices. Everytime you add value to a carcass it helps the producer. "

The argument for the increased price spread between retail and producer level has always been value added by processors. You can not claim that when you add value to a carcass it helps the producer unless part of it is passed down to the producers. There has been no proof of that happening.

What does the price spread at retail have to do with the packer? Your total lack of understanding of this issue is so transparent and superficial it is truly pathetic.

The price spread I was talking about was producer vs. retail. Packers take part of that spread for their services. Do you not understand that, Agman?

 

[agman]

Jason:"The imports are there and you have record prices. Everytime you add value to a carcass it helps the producer. "

The argument for the increased price spread between retail and producer level has always been value added by processors. You can not claim that when you add value to a carcass it helps the producer unless part of it is passed down to the producers. There has been no proof of that happening.

What does the price spread at retail have to do with the packer? Your total lack of understanding of this issue is so transparent and superficial it is truly pathetic.

The price spread I was talking about was producer vs. retail. Packers take part of that spread for their services. Do you not understand that, Agman?

What portion has the packer taken? Has it increased or decreased?
Since you never know anything factual I will inform you that the packers share has declined by approximately three percentage points more than the producer's share since 1970. One more of your phony theories just got shot down a black hole.

If packers infact gained market power as you claim there would have been a gain, not a greater decline than the producers share during the same period. If facts confuse then you should not engage in debate. Such engagements make your positions look totally baseless, which they are, and extremely foolish. You are in way over your head attempting to debate an issue you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[Econ101]

What does the price spread at retail have to do with the packer? Your total lack of understanding of this issue is so transparent and superficial it is truly pathetic.

The price spread I was talking about was producer vs. retail. Packers take part of that spread for their services. Do you not understand that, Agman?

What portion has the packer taken? Has it increased or decreased?
Since you never know anything factual I will inform you that the packers share has declined by approximately three percentage points more than the producer's share since 1970. One more of your phony theories just got shot down a black hole.

If packers infact gained market power as you claim there would have been a gain, not a greater decline than the producers share during the same period. If facts confuse then you should not engage in debate. Such engagements make your positions look totally baseless, which they are, and extremely foolish. You are in way over your head attempting to debate an issue you know absolutely nothing about.

Agman, two questions:

Did the price spread for poultry increase in the last 3 years (I have always maintained that Tyson makes its play of cattle manipulation off the substitute market, not the cattle market. In the cattle market, the gain is in market concentration and power--this includes Canadian markets)?

Have there been any efficiency gains (or productivity gains) from the packers that were not competed away?

You like to make your analysis so simple just to fool people. Answer the questions, Agman.

 

[mrj]

I found several wage quotes but all were outdated. I did find a study on manufacturing that shows packing plants make a heck of a contribution to the local economy. Probably not what anyones looking for but I found it interesting.

My disclaimer: I am only posting this to share information! Not chosing sides in a discussion!

While the economic impact of a manufacturing plant is often measured by the number of jobs it provides, considering its local linkages can give a broader assessment of a plant's impact. Local purchases of materials are much larger than salaries and wages for many food processing, logging, and sawmill operations. For example, ERS estimates that an
average meat-packing plant with 370 jobs spent $7.6 million on salaries and wages and $32.5 million on materials purchased locally in 1995 (table 1). In this case, the primary stimulus to the local economy provided by the plant may be its purchases of raw materials from local businesses and farms, rather than the jobs directly created by the plant. In contrast, an average cotton fabric mill with 221 jobs spent about $4.3 million on salaries and wages, but only $1.5 million on local materials purchases.

Meat-packing plants appear to have a much more extensive impact on the local economy through the strength of their backward linkages than do cotton fabric mills. The average meat-packing plant spent $108,500 per job on salaries, wages, and materials, compared with only $26,000
per job spent by the average cotton fabric mill.

Comparison of value-added industries shows that food processing and primary wood products industries have the highest spending per job, because they are materials-intensive and locally purchase a large share of their materials. The highest spending per job is by fats and oils processors, manufacturers of dairy products, red-meat packers, grain
mills, logging operations, and sawmills.

Red-meat-packing plants spend twice as much as poultry-processing plants on a per job basis because of their higher wages and greater expenditures on materials. Labor-intensive industries, such as textiles and leather products, have the lowest spending per job. Spending per job in other value-added industries is comparable to levels in other manufacturing industries, where the average generally ranges between $40,000 and $60,000 per job. Note that this measure excludes some important spending that contributes to the local economy, such as tax payments, purchases of business services, and construction expenditures.

This is very interesting information more 'average joe's' need. Seeing the value of these types of plants ranked just demonstrates more strongly the harm "anti" groups do when they say "not in my back yard" to such plants. Same for the eco-extremists that have virtually eliminated logging in our Black Hills, for instance.

Do you have a link or source where I could look at this and/or pass it on to community development people?

MRJ

 

[agman]

Agman, when demand is up and supplies do not also go up, then you have tight supplies. If demand stays the same and supplies go down, you have tight supplies. If you have demand going up and supplies going up also, but not as fast, you have tight supplies. If you have demand going down but supplies going down faster, you have tight supplies. Do you get stuck in your numbers all the time?

What is your definition of tight supplies? If supplies were not tight, you would not have higher prices.

You have just made a total fool of yourself with that phony comment. Don't try to come off anymore as one with even a modest understanding of economics or supply/demand relationships. I really can't believe that even you made such a dumb statement..and you are going to school me on supply/demand analysis!!!! I am still waitng!!! You need to go back and start your basic economic classes all over. I must only assume from your totally laughable and erroneous statement that you failed Econ101. Do you really believe anyone credible in Washington would ever pay attention to anything you suggest?

Your last question is even too much for me to tolerate as it is simply such a display of ignorance on your part. Copied from above..."If supplies were not tight, you would not have higher prices." Do you really believe that rising supplies cannot occur while price also advance? That condition is a test book case of rising demand - more product consumed at higher prices. You learn that in Econ 101. Can you tell all the readers on this forum if that condition has ever occurred with beef; if so, when? I know you do not know the answer as usual so it will really be funny to read your dissertation and dance around on this one. I suggest you rename yourself the "Boogie Man" as you have perfected the art of dancing.

 

[agman]

Jason:"The imports are there and you have record prices. Everytime you add value to a carcass it helps the producer. "

The argument for the increased price spread between retail and producer level has always been value added by processors. You can not claim that when you add value to a carcass it helps the producer unless part of it is passed down to the producers. There has been no proof of that happening.

What does the price spread at retail have to do with the packer? Your total lack of understanding of this issue is so transparent and superficial it is truly pathetic.

The price spread I was talking about was producer vs. retail. Packers take part of that spread for their services. Do you not understand that, Agman?

Oh, I most certainly understand but it is again apparent that you do not know since you switched the subject to chicken. Do I have to copy your post?

I will state my question one more time. What did the beef packer spread do versus the producer spread when compared to retail? Once again, did it increase or decrease more than the producer's share since 1970. Did the trend change in the period of marketing agreements versus the pre marketing agreement era; if so how much and what was the direction of change? You don't know the answers so you can quit pretending that you do.

 

[Econ101]

What does the price spread at retail have to do with the packer? Your total lack of understanding of this issue is so transparent and superficial it is truly pathetic.

The price spread I was talking about was producer vs. retail. Packers take part of that spread for their services. Do you not understand that, Agman?

Oh, I most certainly understand but it is again apparent that you do not know since you switched the subject to chicken. Do I have to copy your post?

I will state my question one more time. What did the beef packer spread do versus the producer spread when compared to retail? Once again, did it increase or decrease more than the producer's share since 1970. Did the trend change in the period of marketing agreements versus the pre marketing agreement era; if so how much and what was the direction of change? You don't know the answers so you can quit pretending that you do.

Agman, if you want fact verified, go look it up. If you want to make a point, make it. Don't get me to make a point for you, I will not do it. Do your own work. I have gone over this with Jason before when he has tried to make me look something up for him to "prove" something he thought I should prove. Calling me dumb, ignorant of the industry or anything else for not coming up with your supporting facts for you to make your point is a little juvinile, don't you think?

I don't necessarily think marketing agreements have anything to do with the producer price spread. If you want to make some kind of point on that subject, then let us hear it. That is not to say that in the future, they may have some effect. It depends.

If you want to make the point that marketing agreements have decreased the packer margins by 3%, then make that point. Don't ask me to make it for you. I don't happen to believe that it is true except in the sense that Tysons and Swift and Cargill can accept lower margins in beef because they make up the profit lost in their substitutes. Tysons is trying to play the poultry and some hog game, swift the hogs, and Cargill the international market, to do this.

My post on poultry pointed this fact out. I am sorry you do not understand these concepts and must try to bash me for not making some kind of point or answering some kind of question you have.

Why don't you make your argument before I have to guess what you are trying to get at. At this point in time I am not going to argue with your 3% decrease in margin from the 1970s. I just don't see the relevance until you do make your point. Whether or not I agree with the 3% is immaterial. It is your supporting information you want to bring to the discussion, not mine. I told you the exact numbers on the point I wanted to bring out, I did not ask you to do it for me. I also told you a specific time period and where you could go to verify the information. It fits nicely within the time frame that beef prices started to rise, now doesn't it?

Can poultry prices rise as much as they did without poultry being substituted for beef absent some supply shock on the poultry side?

I suppose you could go into your pat answer of change of demand for poutlry if you wanted.

 

[agman]

The price spread I was talking about was producer vs. retail. Packers take part of that spread for their services. Do you not understand that, Agman?

Oh, I most certainly understand but it is again apparent that you do not know since you switched the subject to chicken. Do I have to copy your post?

I will state my question one more time. What did the beef packer spread do versus the producer spread when compared to retail? Once again, did it increase or decrease more than the producer's share since 1970. Did the trend change in the period of marketing agreements versus the pre marketing agreement era; if so how much and what was the direction of change? You don't know the answers so you can quit pretending that you do.

Agman, if you want fact verified, go look it up. If you want to make a point, make it. Don't get me to make a point for you, I will not do it. Do your own work. I have gone over this with Jason before when he has tried to make me look something up for him to "prove" something he thought I should prove. Calling me dumb, ignorant of the industry or anything else for not coming up with your supporting facts for you to make your point is a little juvinile, don't you think?

I don't necessarily think marketing agreements have anything to do with the producer price spread. If you want to make some kind of point on that subject, then let us hear it. That is not to say that in the future, they may have some effect. It depends.

If you want to make the point that marketing agreements have decreased the packer margins by 3%, then make that point. Don't ask me to make it for you. I don't happen to believe that it is true except in the sense that Tysons and Swift and Cargill can accept lower margins in beef because they make up the profit lost in their substitutes. Tysons is trying to play the poultry and some hog game, swift the hogs, and Cargill the international market, to do this.

My post on poultry pointed this fact out. I am sorry you do not understand these concepts and must try to bash me for not making some kind of point or answering some kind of question you have.

Why don't you make your argument before I have to guess what you are trying to get at. At this point in time I am not going to argue with your 3% decrease in margin from the 1970s. I just don't see the relevance until you do make your point. Whether or not I agree with the 3% is immaterial. It is your supporting information you want to bring to the discussion, not mine. I told you the exact numbers on the point I wanted to bring out, I did not ask you to do it for me. I also told you a specific time period and where you could go to verify the information. It fits nicely within the time frame that beef prices started to rise, now doesn't it?

Can poultry prices rise as much as they did without poultry being substituted for beef absent some supply shock on the poultry side?

I suppose you could go into your pat answer of change of demand for poutlry if you wanted.

The point you tried to make was to switch the debate from the producer/beef packer retail spread to chicken. That is what you did. You quoted Georgia dock whole chicken price at two points in time to make a point which is totally invalid. Question: Wholesale beef prices are $150 versus $125 this summer, an advance of 20%. What does that have to do with profitability or margin? Fed cattle producers are in the same boat. Prices are higher but that does not mean they are profitable. There primary input cost, feeders and calves, are also much higher.

Since you did not understand my comment regarding the change in the producers and beef packers share of retail since 1970 you diverted for some reason to chicken. You failed to address my questions since you simply do not know the answer. The correct answer blows your many and endless price manipulation theories completely out of the boat. You chose to go out to sea and your boat sunk. You are too far from shore to survive. You got in way over your head as you have on virtully every position you have taken. Your hypotheticals based on false assumptions don't cut it in the real world.

Also, I did not say that marketing agreements reduced packer margins by 3% as you falsely claim. What I did say "packer to retail price spreads declined 3 percentage points more than the producer to retail price spread since 1970. " The trend continued following the introduction of marketing agreements. If your price manipulation theory was correct the spread should have changed direction and widened. It did not, it continued to narrow. The latter is the opposite result that would occur if price manipulation actually was present. Don't try to divert to your phony and false chicken example again. Even on that point to show an absolute price difference as you did is totally meaningless. That only demonstrated how truly lost you are on this issue.

Psst...have you figured out yet that prices can and sometimes do go up without a decline in supply? What is that called? You are just way too easy.