The article doesn’t address the issue of day laborer status, e.g. legal or illegal immigrant, but the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, which is quoted as supporting this move has this piece on their website:
Bolding mine.
Hey, NDLON-if you want a spot for the workers to hang, how about doing it on your dime? Why should Depot, or any other retailer, be forced to subsidize your social agenda? All that does is add another unseen cost to the price of the goods everyone purchases. Shame on you, Depot-no balls.
Did you folks at NDLON consider those inconvenient things called United States immigration regulations? I guess your universal declaration trumps them, eh? Well, I’ve got a Universal Declaration, too: Unless you’re in the US legally, GET THE FUCK OUT!
I don’t see this as an immigration issue. I’m questioning why any private business should be required by law to provide services to people who are essentially hanging out on their property.
Having day laborers hanging around Home Depot provides a convenience to Home Depot’s customers, in that they don’t have to drive down the street to the 7-11 or whatever.
Oh, so they don’t have to do what the rest of the contractors in town do, which is post a business card on the board in the store, or sign up to work directly for Depot under the installed sales program?
They don’t appear to feel that they’re being forced. They appear to recognize that there is some sort of demand among their customers for convenient hired help. One would assume that having day laborers available for their customers to hire is a convenience, and will gain them more money than it will cost them even if they have to provide an awning, a water fountain, and a port-a-potty. Or else they would be screaming.
I doubt if the immigration status of those laborers - which seems to be your real issue - enters into their minds at all.
No, Frank. I indicated my displeasure at Home Depot with this statement from the OP:
No, smartass. I’ve been operating a general construction firm for over 15 years, and was involved in construction prior to that.
There is no slam dunk regarding how contractors view day laborers. In the trade journals, the division is pretty clear: one group will not hire illegals under any circumstances. That group is also in favor of assisting legal immigrants with efforts to obtain their citizenship, learning English, and promoting safe jobsite conditions. I’m with these guys.
The other group is looking to low-ball a job, and will hire illegals, not provide safety training, workmen’s comp, or any other benefit to the worker, because they’re considered expendable.
Tell me, Frank, what was the last trade related publication you’ve read?
There’s quite a bit of difference about doing something you want and doing something you want that is required by an authority. The law allows them to take a dual stance of “Sure, we don’t mind too much” but at the same time not alienate any customers by seemingly supporting illegal immigration. It also might soften the blow if this runs afoul of any federal laws.
Call me wacky, but I think it’s a good idea. Regardless of status, the laborers are going to be there, and if they are causing problems in the surrounding neighborhoods, something needs to be done about it.
Why is this Home Depot’s problem? Because Home Depot is profiting off of this. Unless you can really convince me that they have done all that they can to discourage day laborers…
Although you mentioned it inside your OP, your title is a little misleading. It’s not the California legislature that did this; it was the Los Angeles City Council.
“Surrounding neighborhoods?” I have never been to a Home Depot that wasn’t smack-dab in the middle of more retail. Are we referring to “neighbors” as neighboring businesses? Because “pissing in yards” makes it sound like some poor schmo’s house is next door to the Home Depot…
Whatever. I personally would never hire a day laborer I didn’t know, but I guess lots of folks do, or they wouldn’t be there. I thought that my HD no longer allowed them on property… I will look next time we are there.
Sounds to me like your real issue here is with the low-ball contractors who hire the day laborers, and that providing facilities at HD is essentially a subsidy for these guys.
I think that’s a totally legitimate complaint, and I’d be inclined to agree with you.
But by cloaking it in moral outrage and accusing Californians of being nuts because the LA City Council came down on the side of the humanitarian needs of the day laborers, you lost me.
So, a strip club should provide prostitutes in their parking lots because the customers find them convenient? Or to compare apples to apples, they should provide RVs with bedrooms so the ILLEGAL WORKERS can work more comfortably. I mean all that bending over in a car has got to be hard on the back and neck, no?
Fuck illegal immigrants. Fuck HD. And fuck anyone else who supports any support except for emergency medical care for those who knowingly ignore our immigration laws. What HD should be doing is calling the INS every hour of every fucking day. “There are people trespassing on our property. Get them the fuck off.”
Yeah, I think this is about right. The Home Depot near my house has kicked the day laborers off their property, so I expect that this is only an issue when HD allows the day laborers to be there. If they’re going to encourage this, then it’s reasonable that they provide some minimal services for the people while they’re on the premises.
Encourage might be the wrong word-- allow might be better. But clearly, they are benefiting from it or they wouldn’t allow it. As I said, the HD near my house no longer allows day laborers to congregate in the parking lot, and they don’t.