or, you know, PAY MOREhttps://twitter.com/nytimes/status/980631962523262977 …
-
-
No, hiring refugees is good in general. Hiring them because you can pay them less due to a dire situation is pretty disgusting (although not uncommon)
-
Can you provide any particular reason why hiring refugees is better than hiring from the existing unemployed labor force?
-
Any particular reason why "it's good in general?"
-
Because people fleeing oppression or disaster should be able to work and eat as well?
-
and people who already live here shouldn't have priority for working because...?
-
Because it’s not a zero sum game economically? And putting people against each other in that way is ridiculously reactionary and nativist
-
If the unemployed are kept unemployed because cheaper labor is brought in from afar, then....
-
The article specifically says that high turnover is due to drastic reductions in wages and benefits, then hails Mr Wiley for recruiting from abroad to try and stabilize these poor conditions at the expense of the dissatisfied local labor
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.