Slaughterhouse accidents in the US- and unions

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If you're smart you'll become educated and hopefully start your own business so you will be the ****ter instead of the ****tee.

That's assuming your business makes money. I'll bet that most new businesses fail.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sandman
That's assuming your business makes money. I'll bet that most new businesses fail.

And you'd be right on that.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If you're smart you'll become educated and hopefully start your own business so you will be the ****ter instead of the ****tee.

That embodies much of the problem that there is. It seems like an impossible battle to put things right, so people try to get out of 'that city' rather than fix it...I suppose it is how the current system perpetuates itself - by dangling that carrot.

[Cyclotron]

I go to school up in southeast Washington. There was a rally in Pasco, WA about a year or so ago in favor of meatpacking workers there, who were getting their benefits rolled back and were being constantly harassed by the company (I can't remember which one, off the top of my head) when they tried to start a union. The union issue was eventually put to a vote, which failed; I'm not sure if it was the corporate disinformation or what, but I just don't understand why workers would choose not to asociate in a union when it's clearly in their best interest. Likely a result of intimidation from yet another company that finds it astonishingly easy to intimidate people into staying out of organized labor.

I don't know about illegals, but the majority of people at the rally did appear to be latinos - Washington is seeing a lot of new immigrants, many quite poor, who I'm sure are willing to take whatever meager wages the plant hands out.

[DanS]

A couple of things. $6 - $9.25 isn't so bad for unskilled work in places like rural Kansas. It costs very little to live there. I imagine most of those workers send money back to their families in Mexico.

The problem with being in a dangerous line of work when you are illegal is that you may not have clear recourse to benefits if you get hurt. Also, it would seem difficult to organize a union for unskilled work.

A good start to cleaning this stuff up is to legalize the workers such that they have benefits. If they get benefits, then the premiums that the companies pay will reflect the dangerous work profile and will incentivize the companies to minimize injuries.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Oerdin
but which does absolutely nothing to punish companies

Title 7 of the house plan talks about a verification of employee's legality and penalties system for employers that knowingly hire illegals. basically it revives the SS letters, and mandates determining the legitimacy of an SS#. It also increases the penalties by an order of magnitude(still quite low).

The Democrats best plan for victory involves demanding blood,heads on pikes,carcasses,etc from outsourcers,offshorers,and companies hiring illegals. if the Republicans are split between the status quo and draconian enforcement measures the Democrats could pull this off.

Originally posted by Cyclotron
but I just don't understand why workers would choose not to asociate in a union when it's clearly in their best interest

why is it in their best interest? they have to know that they'll just get replaced if they do this.

[Alexander's Horse]

hey Dan, long time no see, if the workers don't have workplace insurance can they sue instead?

[DanS]

Hey, Horse. I guess they can, but they would seem to be at an immediate disadvantage because of their status. There are lawyers that take disability cases without immediate compensation, but I wonder whether they would take an illegal's case.

[Alexander's Horse]

the illegals wouldn't have been able to access union welfare before anyway

[DanS]

I'm not sure that's the case. I have a hunch that the construction and service unions find it easier to mask fraudulent documentation. The construction and office cleaning work crews that I see every day in DC are all Spanish-speaking and some are unionized, so you add 2 and 2...

But I agree that even if the slaughterhouses were all unionized, and the unions chose to mask fraudulent documentation, the illegals would still be in a precarious position (please let me know if that's not the thrust of what you are saying).

[Adam Smith]

Laz:

I don't know what data your sources are drawing on, but there are a couple of statements in the source you presented that appear to contradict government data I can readily lay my hands on.

They labor long hours for between $6.00 and $9.25 per hour.

Its not clear if this applies to all workers or just Latinos. In April, 2005 the average wage for all workers in Animal Slaughtering and Processing (NAICS Code 3116) was $11.41 per hour.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb14.txt

SInce 1994, OSHA inspections at the slaughterhouses have decreased by 43%.

OSHA inspections at Meat Products plants (Industry Group 201, includes meat packing, sausage, poultry) rose from 390 in 1994 to 410 in 2004, an increase of 5 percent. 2005 insepctions were slightly less than 1994, but may not yet include all inspection reports.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/industry.html

The accident rate in these slaughterhouses is held to be about 36% nation-wide--many times the national industrial average.

In 2004, the latest year for which data are presently available, reportable injuries in animal slaughtering and processing (NAICS Code 3116) were 9.8 per 100 full time equivalent workers. While this is about twice the national average of all private industry (4.8), it is similar to the injury rate in many other industries such as construction, dairy farming, and saw mills.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb1487.pdf

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Laz:

I don't know what data your sources are drawing on, but there are a couple of statements in the source you presented that appear to contradict government data I can readily lay my hands on.

I wondered if that was the case, which is why I'm looking for more comments. The quote was drawn from a blog- a source I usually try very hard not to rely on.

[Drake Tungsten]

He claims that by moving the slaughterhouses to isolated plains cities, the meat companies can escape from unionised labour and keep journalists, reformers and regulators at arm's length.

That or they find it convenient to be near the isolated feed lots that produce the animals they're slaughtering. Add another one to the list of reasons not to care what Thomas Frank thinks is the matter with Kansas...

[Solly]

What's the problem? The free market will do its stuff in the end, and if the people aren't happy with the quality of the meat or the way it is prepared, they will go elsewhere.

If jobs are so bad in America, why have they got such high immigration?

[Proteus_MST]

Customers rarely care about the working conditions of the workers who produce the products they buy.
Most of the times it´s more important that the products are as cheap as possible (i.e. as long the quality isn´t too bad compared to more expensive products)

So, as long as quality doesn´t suffer from the poor the working conditions I doubt that people will buy other, probably more expensive meat, "just" because they care for the people working there