Tag Archives: Jobs

Obama’s Economic Miracle? | Apr 2016

Intel Lays Off 12,000 People After They Lobbied FOR MORE FOREIGN H1-B WORKERS –

– ProgressivesToday.com

Intel-logo

“12,000 people are now out of work after their employer, tech giant Intel, lobbied for more foreign workers to come into the U.S.

What are these newly unemployed people supposed to do now?

The Daily Caller reports:

Intel Lays Off 12,000 People After Lobbying For More Foreign Workers

One of the top users of foreign workers imported via the H-1B visa program announced Tuesday it’s laying off about ten percent of its global workforce.

Tech giant Intel is laying off some 12,000 workers, although it’s one of the country’s 15 largest users of H-1Bs, which are temporary visas that allow companies to hire foreign workers for American tech jobs. The big-time layoffs come even as the company has called for hikes in the number of foreign workers it is able to hire using H-1B visas.

The chip-making giant said the mass firings are part of a “restructuring initiative” that will further its shift away from the PC business toward smart devices and cloud-based computing.

But the firings stand out in light of Intel’s lobbying to expand the H-1B visa program. In 2013, the company’s government affairs managers complained that Intel simply can’t find enough homegrown workers in technical fields to meet its needs. And in 2014, the company called for allowing the spouses and children of H-1B recipients to automatically qualify for work in the U.S. as well.

Our leaders just keep giving it all away.

And yet some people continue to wonder why Trump is so popular.”

…Continue reading @ www.progressivestoday.com

 

Silicon Valley in Meltdown as Intel Slashes 12,000 Jobs

– Breitbart

BB5

“The meltdown of Silicon Valley tech jobs accelerated Tuesday, as Intel announced 12,000 job cuts worldwide and a plan to dump product lines, despite reporting higher profits.

Intel Corporation (INTC: NASDAQ) reported that first quarter net income rose 2.7 percent to $2.05 billion, and sales climbed 7.2 percent to $13.7 billion. The earnings were 14 percent higher than expected, and the sales were in line with expectations.

But during what was anticipated to be an upbeat earnings call, new President Murthy Renduchintala, brought in from Qualcomm in late November, announced he was presenting a plan to CEO Brian Krzanich to slash employment by 11 percent and give CFO Stacy Smith direct control of manufacturing, sales, and operations.

Krzanich immediately followed up with an email to employees stating, “These are not changes I take lightly. We are saying goodbye to colleagues who have played an important role in Intel’s success.”

Although Intel expects to take about a $1.2 billion restructuring write-off for the layoffs this quarter, the move will save $750 million in expenses this year and generate estimated annual savings of $1.4 billion by the middle of 2017, according to SiliconValley.com.

Breitbart News predicts Intel is restructuring its Client Computing Group to exit stand-alone central processing units (CPUs) for personal computers (PCs) and fully embrace its disruptive 3D XPoint memory technology, which combines huge storage-class memory and a processor into a single device. The compact high-bandwidth package will eliminate the need for standalone dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips.

Intel believes that PCs will all but disappear because 3D XPoint smartphones will pack more than enough computing power and energy efficiency for 90 percent of users’ tasks.

Microsoft has developed cloud-based “Continuum” so display and input can seamlessly flow across a variety of devices. The coming Windows-based “Phone Computer” may be an existential threat to Apple’s iPhone business and student user loyalty.

Breitbart News has been reporting a string of mass layoffs hitting Silicon Valley technology companies since the first of the year. With growth slowing, big private equity player Morgan Stanley marked down the value of its private equity stakes in tech by 32 percent on Feb. 26.

According to Wall Street analyst Chris Martenson, Silicon Valley is about to suffer a wave of mass layoffs that could be “worse today than back in 2008/9.”

…Continue reading the noteworthy article by Chriss W. Street @Breitbart

 

UC Berkeley Touts $15 Minimum Wage Law, Then Fires Hundreds Of Workers After It Passes

– Investor’s Business Daily

EDIT2-minimum-042116-AP

“Labor Markets: Hundreds of employees at the University of California at Berkeley are getting schooled in basic economics, as the $15 minimum wage just cost them their jobs. Too bad liberal elites “fighting for $15” don’t get it.

A week after California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the state’s $15 minimum wage boost into law, UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks sent a memo to employees announcing that 500 jobs were getting cut.

Coincidence? Not really.

Last year, University of California President Janet Napolitano announced plans to boost its minimum wage to $15 at the start of next school year, independent of the state law. Since UC Berkeley was already in financial trouble — it ran a $109 million deficit last year and is projecting a deficit of $150 million this year — number crunchers there had to have factored in the higher mandated wage when making their layoff decisions.

Those workers might want to have a chat with the folks at UC Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research, who just days before Brown signed the wage-hike bill released a study touting the minimum wage as a boon to low-income household breadwinners.

After that report came out, Ken Jacobs, chairman of the UC Berkeley center, told the Los Angeles Times, “This is a very big deal for low-wage workers in California, for their families and for their children.”

It is a big deal, as well, to those soon to be out of work UC Berkeley workers.

But why is anyone surprised about jobs cuts following a wage hike? It’s one of the most basic laws of economics. Any high school kid taking Econ 101 can explain it:  If you raise the price of something, demand goes down.”

….Continue reading @ Investor’s Business Daily

 

Pink Slips at Disney. But First, Training Foreign Replacements

– New York Times

04VISAS-master675

ORLANDO, Fla. — The employees who kept the data systems humming in the vast Walt Disney fantasy fief did not suspect trouble when they were suddenly summoned to meetings with their boss.

While families rode the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train and searched for Nemo on clamobiles in the theme parks, these workers monitored computers in industrial buildings nearby, making sure millions of Walt Disney World ticket sales, store purchases and hotel reservations went through without a hitch. Some were performing so well that they thought they had been called in for bonuses.

Instead, about 250 Disney employees were told in late October that they would be laid off. Many of their jobs were transferred to immigrants on temporary visas for highly skilled technical workers, who were brought in by an outsourcing firm based in India. Over the next three months, some Disney employees were required to train their replacements to do the jobs they had lost.”

…Continue reading @ NY Times

 

Retailer Bankruptcies Are Hailing Down on the US Economy

– MarketExpress

retailer-us-economy-marketexpress-in

“Another retailer is heading for bankruptcy. This time Aeropostale, with 800 teen-clothing stores, after three years in a row of losses. It’s “preparing to reorganize under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and could file as soon as this month, according to people familiar with the matter,” Bloomberg reported today.

Upon Bloomberg’s propitious report, Aeropostale shares plunged 28% to 15 cents. It has been a penny stock since last September. The New York Stock Exchange, which had threatened the company with delisting, removed the stock before 2 p.m. today, and trading of the shares has been suspended.

Bloomberg:

Aeropostale is trying to work out a loan to finance its operations during the bankruptcy process, according to the people. A deal to avert a filing or find a buyer also could still emerge, they said.

Which is what just about all collapsing retailers are valiantly trying to do. And often to no avail.

In March, Aeropostale had already announced that it would “evaluate strategic alternatives.” It hired Stifel Financial Corp. to work on a sale or restructuring. According to Bloomberg, it’s also working with law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and FTI Consulting, “people familiar with the matter said last week.”

As in so many cases, there is a private equity angle. PE firm Sycamore Partners owns a large state in Aeropostale and is its main lender. But they have been embroiled in a feud. Sycamore also owns Aeropostale’s key clothing supplier, MGF.

In 2013, when Sycamore acquired its stake in Aeropostale and lent if $150 million, it obtained two seats on the board and set up the supply deal with MGF. Bloomberg:

At the time, Sycamore was seen as possible savior for the troubled chain. Some investors expected the investment firm to eventually acquire the rest of Aeropostale, helping redeem a stock that has been declining since 2010.

But that didn’t work out. These hopeful investors lost their shirts. Sycamore’s two directors left Aeropostale’s board. In March, Aeropostale said that MGF has stopped delivering merchandise in violation of the terms of its agreement, leaving the retailer short on merchandise. MGF, as Bloomberg put it, said “it was merely seeking protection from Aeropostale.”

There are numerous other 1990s and 2000s brands that didn’t quite make the transition in the relentlessly tough US retail environment of squeezed consumers, fickle and picky teens, smart women, shoppo-phobic men, inscrutable millennials, and a brutal shift to online sales.

And now their bankruptcies are hailing down on the US economy with increasing intensity. Here are a few standouts in 2016 and 2015. Note the PE firms behind many of them:

April 16, 2016: Vestis Retail Group, the operator of sporting goods retailersEastern Mountain Sports (camping, hiking, skiing, adventure sports),Bob’s Stores (family clothing and shoes), and Sport Chalet (general sporting goods), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It will close all 56 stores and stop online sales.

In the filing, it blamed the going-out-of-business sales at “certain Sports Authority locations,” plus the weather, which had been too warm, and trouble with switching to a new software platform. It’s owned by private equity firm Versa Capital Management LLC.

April 7, 2016: Pacific Sunwear of California, clothing retailer with nearly 600 stores and derailed ambitions of skate-and-surf cool, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. PE firm Golden Gate Capital, a lender to the company, agreed to convert over 65% of its loan into equity of the reorganized company and add another $20 million in financing. Wells Fargo agreed to provide $100 million of debtor-in-possession financing.

March 2, 2016: Sports Authority filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It said it would close 140 of its 450 stores, including all stores in Texas. In 2006, it had been taken over in a leveraged buyout by a group of PE firms led by Leonard Green & Partners [Another Private-Equity LBO Queen Bites the Dust].

February 2, 2016: Hancock Fabrics filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, for the second time. It closed 70 of its retail sewing and crafting stores. Its inventories are being liquidated with going-out-of-business sales at the remaining 185 stores.

January 16, 2015: Wet Seal, teen fashion retailer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

October 2015: American Apparel filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, after years of all sorts of sordid turmoil – and losses since 2009.”

…Continue reading @ MarketExpress

 

U.S. Jobless Claims Fall To Lowest Level Since 1973

– WSJ

“An important measure of layoffs hit its lowest mark since the Nixon administration, a sign of increasing momentum in the labor market and a possible hint at the extent of job growth for the full month of July.”

…Read more on the rosy outlook @ Wall Street Journal

 

 

 

Indiana Loses 2,100 Jobs to Mexico – NAFTA Aftermath – Feb 2016

Carrier in Indy, UTEC in Huntington to move units to Mexico, costing 2,100 jobs

– Indianapolis Star

car1

“Mayor Joe Hogsett issues executive order to assemble local, state and federal resources for displaced workers and calls shutdown ‘incredibly disappointing.’

“Two Indiana plants that make products for the heating, ventilating and air conditioning industry are shifting their manufacturing operations to Mexico, which will cost about 2,100 workers their jobs, company officials announced Wednesday.

Carrier is shuttering its manufacturing facility on Indianapolis’ west side, eliminating about 1,400 jobs during the next three years.”

Read the whole story in the Star by Kris Turner in the IndyStar.com

 

 

 

Video: Carrier Air Conditioner (part of United Technologies) Moving 2,100 Jobs to Mexico 

– Youtube Feb 12

More here @ Youtube

 

 

 

Video: Indiana workers explode when told their jobs are moving to Mexico

– deathandtaxesmag.com

indiana1

“Some 1,400 people will lose their jobs when the plant moves to Mexico. Theirs are only the latest lost due to the effects of the disastrous North American Free Trade Agreement, which allowed U.S. companies to shift production to Mexico where they could pay three dollars an hour, not have to worry about unions, child labor laws, or work safety, and then ship their product back to the U.S. duty and restriction free.

NAFTA was widely supported by Republicans in congress, heralded by President Bill Clinton and defended by First Lady Hillary Clinton. While serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton championed the similarly criticized Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement, recently signed into law by President Obama, but came out against it around the time she announced her candidacy for president.”

More here @ deathandtaxesmag.com

 

 

 

NAFTA at 20 – New Report from Public Citizens’ Global Trade  Watch

– PublicCitizens.org

public cit1

“The North American Free Trade Agreement took effect on January 1, 1994.

NAFTA opponents – including labor, environmental, consumer and religious groups – argued that NAFTA would launch a race-to-the-bottom in wages, destroy hundreds of thousands of good U.S. jobs, undermine democratic control of domestic policy-making and threaten health, environmental and food safety standards.

NAFTA promoters – including many of the world’s largest corporations – promised it would create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage U.S. jobs, raise living standards in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, improve environmental conditions and transform Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming new market for U.S. exports.

Why such divergent views? NAFTA was a radical experiment – never before had a merger of three nations with such radically different levels of development been attempted. Plus, until NAFTA, “trade” agreements only dealt with cutting tariffs and lifting quotas to set the terms of trade in goods betweencountries. But NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws – regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils.”

Read more here @ Citizen.org

 

 

Due Process for Illegal Aliens in US? – Feb 2016

Trump: Illegals Being Entitled to Due Process an Open Question

– Breitbart

tr9

“Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated that people in the United States illegally “may or may not” be entitled to due process before being deported, and that while he doesn’t agree they are necessarily entitled to due process, it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t give them due process. He also said that while he supports medical marijuana, he’d have to see the health impacts of Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana are on Wednesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor.”

Trump said, in response to host Bill O’Reilly arguing illegal immigrants would be entitled to due process before being deported, [relevant exchange begins around 2:30] “If they’re here illegally they may or they may not be [entitled to due process]. Just like the argument we had about the anchor babies. In my opinion, you don’t need –.”

After O’Reilly cut in to object, “I’m telling you all settled law says once you’re here, you are entitled to our constitutional protections, every single case.”

Trump countered, “I disagree. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do that.”

Read more here @ Breitbart.com

ICE: Illegal immigrants allowed due process

– StandardSpeaker.com

bb2

“Just like United States citizens, illegal immigrants have due process rights.

And so when illegal immigrants are taken into custody, they’re not always automatically deported to their home countries, according to a spokesman for Immigrations and Custom’s Enforcement, the federal agency charged with enforcing customs and immigration laws.

Mark Medvesky, of ICE’s Philadelphia headquarters, wasn’t familiar with the case of Ambrosio Perez-Vasquez, Hazleton, the illegal immigrant recently released from ICE custody and who this week posted bail on charges he was using a fake driver’s license and Social Security number when he was stopped by Beaver Meadows police in July.

But Medvesky explained why an illegal immigrant might be released. Immigration law, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows illegal immigrants the right to due process, he said.

“There are certain processes and evaluations that happen” because of the law, Medvesky explained.

Most individuals charged by ICE with being in the United States illegally are issued a “charging document,” and then have the right to a removal proceeding before an immigration judge, he said.”

– It’s rather interesting and more complex than one would think. Read more @ Standardspeaker.com

 

Illegal Aliens entitled to Legal Law Review: 

 

Calcano-Martinez v. INS, INS v. St. Cyr

In the final week of its 2001 term, the United States Supreme Court handed down 5-4 rulings in a consolidated case that challenged provisions of the 1996 immigration law reforms. In Calcano-Martinez v. INS and INS v. St. Cyr, the Court reaffirmed the right of noncitizens to seek federal court review of legal interpretations made in deportation cases, and eliminated the ability of the INS to subject many legal residents to “mandatory” deportation for old criminal offenses.”

More here @ Civilrights.org

 Great Site for Constitutional Pro and Con

– Immigration.procon.org

Should Immigrants in the United States Illegally Have Constitutional Rights and Protections When on American Soil?

“Pro                                                  Con

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in a section entitled “Immigrants’ Rights” on its website (accessed Mar. 6, 2007), offered the following:
“It is true that the Constitution does not give foreigners the right to enter the U.S. But once here, it protects them from discrimination based on race and national origin and from arbitrary treatment by the government. Immigrants work and pay taxes; legal immigrants are subject to the military draft. Many immigrants have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that punish them violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment.”

Mar. 6, 2007 – American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 


 

In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision written by Justice J. Stewart, held:

“It is undoubtedly within the power of the Federal Government to exclude aliens from the country. It is also without doubt that this power can be effectuated by routine inspections and searches of individuals or conveyances seeking to cross our borders.

Whatever the permissible scope of intrusiveness of a routine border search might be, searches of this kind may in certain circumstances take place not only at the border itself, but at its functional equivalents as well. But the search of the petitioner’s [foreign national] automobile by a roving patrol, on a California road that lies at all points at least 20 miles north of the Mexican border, was of a wholly different sort. In the absence of probable cause or consent, that search violated the petitioner’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’

The needs of law enforcement stand in constant tension with the Constitution’s protections of the individual against certain exercises of official power. It is precisely the predictability of these pressures that counsels a resolute loyalty to constitutional safeguards.”

1973 – Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (43 KB)  


 

Gerald L. Neuman, JD, PhD, Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School, in his 1996 book entitled Strangers to the Constitution: Immigrants, Borders, and Fundamental Law, wrote the following:
“The Supreme Court has also held for more than a century that aliens within the United States are persons entitled to constitutional protection. That includes aliens who are unlawfully present, although recent Supreme Court dicta suggest that intensified concerns over both drugs and migrants penetrating the border may put pressure on that commitment. Moreover, the Court has further held that aliens not present in the United States are entitled to constitutional protection with regard to actions taken within the United States against their property rights.”

1996 – Gerald L. Neuman, JD, PhD 

Richard B. Freeman, PhD, Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard University, in an Oct./Nov. 1998Boston Review essay entitled “Let the People Decide. A response to ‘The Immigrant as Pariah’ by Owen Fiss,” stated:

“[Dr. Owen] Fiss wants the judiciary to draw a boundary in the gray area in favor of immigrants, on the principle that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution prohibits ‘the creation of a near caste-structure …of socially and economically disadvantaged groups …that live at the margin of society;’ and that immigrants are exceptionally likely to fall into this group…

I find his arguments strained, and reject as antidemocratic the notion that the judiciary should determine policy in this area. We may all oppose social exclusion, but to argue that the Constitution requires that courts regulate social policies to limit such exclusion seems to be an extraordinary reading of law. …in all instances, I would leave the decision in the hands of the electorate.”

Oct./Nov. 1998 – Richard B. Freeman, PhD 


Myron Weiner, PhD, late Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an Oct./Nov. 1998 Boston Review essay entitled “Messy Realities,” made the following remarks:
“What we don’t need–at the expense of workers and taxpayers–is the kind of solution [where] everyone present within the boundaries of the United States ought to have the same rights and benefits. It would be politically irresponsible to turn these legislative issues over to the courts to decide on the basis of constitutional principles. Instead, we need reasoned analysis and public discussion of how we can balance diverse objectives to accomplish what is fiscally possible, what is humane, and what best serves the goals of incorporating migrants into citizenship, deterring illegals, maintaining public health, and protecting children.”

Oct./Nov. 1998 – Myron Weiner, PhD 


 

The University of South Alabama, in a Jan. 31, 2006 enrollment services website section entitled “Constitutional Rights of International Students and Scholars,” stated:
“People often speak about the Constitution and their ‘Constitutional Rights’ or ‘Civil Liberties.’ […] Very few people have taken the time to read the Constitution of the United States and to understand their rights and how they work. The Constitution refers to three kinds of people to whom the Constitution applies: citizens, persons, and the people. Those distinctions mean that aliens have some rights, but not all. In looking at Constitutional Rights, note first to whom the discussion applies…
If you are an alien who has been admitted to the U.S., then generally you have these rights. If you entered the U.S. illegally and were, therefore, not properly ‘admitted,’ then some of the protections do not apply to you… Under the basic rules of international law, every state (country) has the sovereign right to determine who may enter and remain within its borders and under what conditions. In general, a person who is not a citizen of a country has no ‘right’ to be in that country. As an alien, not a citizen, you do not have all of the rights or protections that a citizen has.”Jan. 31, 2006 – University of Southern Alabama 

Read more @ immigration.procon.org

 

United States Supreme Court

PLYLER v. DOE, (1982)

– FindLaw.com

 

– Burger’s Dissent

“Were it our business to set the Nation’s social policy, I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children — including illegal aliens — of an elementary education. I fully agree that it would be folly — and wrong — to tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons, many having a limited or no command of our language.  However, the Constitution does not constitute us as “Platonic Guardians,” nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, “wisdom,” or “common sense.” See TVA v. Hill,437 U.S. 153, 194-195 (1978). We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role as the Court does today….

In a sense, the Court’s opinion rests on such a unique confluence of theories and rationales that it will likely stand for little beyond the results in these particular cases. Yet the extent to which the Court departs from principled constitutional adjudication is nonetheless disturbing.

I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentapplies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state. However, as the Court concedes, this “only begins the inquiry.” Ante at 215. The Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of different categories of persons.Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 549 (1972); Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75 (1971); Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147-148 (1940).

The dispositive issue in these cases, simply put, is whether, for purposes of allocating its finite resources, a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate between persons who are lawfully within the state and those who are unlawfully there.”

Read the entire Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court 5-4 Decision here @ FindLaw.com