We have an update on Vanderbilt Landscaping (not affiliated with Vanderbilt University), which I wrote about last August, after it treated its Mexican guest workers like modern-day slaves. One had to actually escape with the help of an Atlanta human rights group.
The Dept. of Labor has fined the company for violating H-2B visa rules, and ordered back pay to 42 guest workers.
Horwitz called the nearly $40,000 in backpay and fines a big victory, but he also said the fight isn’t over. In fact, just last week, Jimenez and 14 other former employees of Vanderbilt Landscaping filed a federal lawsuit in Nashville, alleging human trafficking, forced labor, and civil rights violations.
“Some of the elements of that lawsuit included workers’ passports being held, workers being told they weren’t allowed to leave the premises, and if they did leave, they were told their passports would be burned,” said Horwitz.
According to the Department of Labor, the company has agreed to pay the $18,496 in backpage, but has filed an appeal in regards to the $18,000 penalty being imposed by the government.
Something not mentioned in this update is that the company had $2.4 million in state Transportation Department contracts, plus a $900,000 a stimulus loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I would expect a company in violation of the law would lose its government contracts and be ineligible for benefits like Dept. of Agriculture loan guarantees. But the follow up story didn’t address that. For that matter, I don’t know why companies getting state and federal contracts are hiring cheap foreign labor, but I’ve already harangued about that enough.
America is truly a fucked up country right now.
Southern Beale 
>I don’t know why companies getting state and federal contracts are hiring cheap foreign labor…G.E. might be number 1.~
>I don’t know why companies getting state and federal contracts are hiring cheap foreign laborDaddy needs to gas up his Hummer!
>I sarcastically made a comment on this Gin And Tacos thread about merit based pay that we should peg state and local business taxes on the unemployment rate of the states and counties: the higher the unemployment rate, the higher their taxes. I was joking but the more I think about it the more I like the idea.Not that it would ever pass, of course. But damn, here we've got high unemployment and if companies aren't outsourcing our jobs to Mexico and India, they're hiring guest workers and illegals to do the jobs here. WTF is that about except greed? It's not like we're all getting rich off the minimum wage. I mean shit, it costs money to live in this country. Rents are high, food is expensive … healthcare costs are ridiculous …. What do they expect people to do? If businesses expect people to pay for their stuff then people have to have jobs so they can earn some income. I mean, it's not exactly rocket science.
>Even Henry Ford had that one figured out.I guess the current thinking of Oligarch Heirs is that once they've bled off all the money, they just live on it forever inside ever-tightening fortresses.
>You are on to something with your idea about taxing states for unemployment rates… Some states are using prison labor for many of the jobs they need done. They are also lowering the amount of weeks that they will pay unemployment, so the Federal will pick it up after 20 weeks? So, for every worker that files a claim they should be taxed or fined. Maybe they would find a way to employ people sweeping sidewalks or maybe they would just throw them in prison for more cheap labor.. Looks like we are going to need more missile parts in the near future.All of this is leading to where the big business players want: lower labor costs.. And, they are getting what they want, so hang on, its all downhill from here.
>SB – That is a great idea for generating new jobs. Making business taxes highest in places that have high unemployement will definitely draw the new companies in. Companies love paying taxes – just ask GE.On a side note, the unemployment tax businesses pay is partially based on how many of their ex-employees file for unemployment benifits. So if a company lays off a lot of people, their unemployment taxes do in fact go up. TN also has had an overall increase in the unemployment tax rate for all companies to cover the added expenses of such high unemployment as well as the extended benifits.
>Jim, since companies have *already* paid the unemployment tax can you explain to me how the state & federal governments can deny people's unemployment benefits? If it's already been paid isn't it money that's owed them? You know … like insurance? Not "entitlement"?And as for companies not liking to pay taxes, well I'm sorry. I don't like to floss my teeth either but I do it because the alternative sucks. You're right, GE isn't paying any taxes and what are we getting for it? They're already outsourcing jobs and hiring cheap labor, legally and illegally. Their profits are higher than ever. When exactly is all of this going to trickle down on the rest of us? When are we going to have jobs? When do we get enough money to finance our schools? When are all of the glorious free market fairies going to show up and make everyone's life so wonderful?We've been waiting for 30 years and it still hasn't happened. Corporate taxes are lower than ever. Rich people pay the lowest taxes since, what, 1920s? Yet ordinary Americans have never been worse off.I'd say this shows the failure of your ideology. When stuff stops working, change course.
>Jim also ignores the fact that higher taxes can be, you know, USED to build stuff and hire people, and thus LOWER the unemployment rate. It's not as if the funds just disappear.Called a correction mechanism. They are very popular with businesses. Because they, you know, WORK.
>SB – I am not aware of eligible people being denied unemployment payments. There are some that have run out of benifits as defined by the plan, but are new people being denied benifits?Zombie – It all comes down to whether you think the state or the private company will direct the money appropriately. In my opinion, the state tends to direct alot of tax money back to these same corporations, to their friends or family members, or just spend it on projects that we do not need just to show the voters they are bringing money back to their district.Personally I would be in favor of eliminating all business taxes and going to a straight income tax on everyone with no exemptions. Progressive tax brackets can remain so that the "rich" pay their "fair share."
>Here's a rundown for you.The mere fact that we have 99ers and battle at the federal level over extending unemployment tells us that this "tax" has not been sufficient. People have been unemployed for months, the private sector is not creating jobs despite years of tax cuts and now Republicans are screaming that government is too big so state and federal workers are cut. Well if the private sector refuses to create jobs then the government has to. The alternative is people being unemployed for weeks, months and even years and if you won't offer them unemployment benefits and cut job training programs and grants to education so people can go back to school, how are they supposed to buy the stuff that keeps the economy going? If no one has any money, who will do the consuming? Republican policies have created a vicious cycle. The wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few people, instead of the many. I don't care how many kids and grandkids Sam Walton had, they can't possibly buy enough crap to keep all of America employed.
>As long as businesses are people in the eyes of the courts and the law, Jim, they need to pay their taxes like everyone else.
>SB – corporations don't pay taxes, they collect taxes. Consumers pay all business taxes in one way or another. If you eliminate all business taxes, then one of the following is going to happen with the business income:1. It is paid out as salary to employees – taxable revenue for the government2. It is re-invested into the company as capital improvements – jobs for new construction, equipment being purchased, etc. – more taxable income for the government3. It is invested in a bank or another business – This becomes capital that banks can lend to other borrowers for things like home purchases, business start-ups, etc. – again creating jobs in construction or other industries.It is not like this money would just dissappear if the business did not pay taxes on it. It would circulate in the economy in some sort of fashion. Now if the government takes it as taxes, then they to can circulate it into the economy, but it is then at the discretion of the politicians as to who gets the money. As I said above, that tends to be the politicians friends, family, or campaign contributors…. regardless of which party is in power.As far as the unemployment insurance goes, again what you cited were people that had exhausted the benifits as designed in the insurance program. The call to extend their benifits would be like telling a life insurance policy to pay out more than the defined benifit because the person had more debt than the insurance policy covered. They didn't pay for more insurance, so it is hard to justify paying more of a benifit. In the unemployment insurance situation, the recipeint has not paid anything towards the insurance as it is covered solely by business taxes. Increasing the benifit necessarily leads to an increase in business taxes that are in turn charged to the general public as business expenses – again corporations don't pay taxes, they collect taxes.
>Corporations don't pay taxes? You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.I don't have time to mess with you this week I have work to do. Suffice to say, Jim: you're clueless.
>SB – all of the tax money paid by a Corporation was collected from a consumer. It is not like the corporation can just decide to print some money to pay for its taxes, they only generate the tax money by selling something. Therefore, the corporation in reality is not paying a tax, they are collecting taxes from the people and sending them in to the government. The taxes are an expense to the corporation that has only one source of revenue – their customers.
>Southern Beale:Re the minimum wage. As Al Capone might have said had he been REAL crook:"You can always get more out of your guest workers with minimum wage and the threat of deportation, then you can out of the local labor force with minimum wage alone."I wonder if our colossally wrong commenter, Jim, is the same Jim whose comments I've been seeing over at Mikeb302000's blog of late. I mean it's possible that there are two clueless dolts named Jim, or that one of them is a Poe, but…
>The taxes are an expense to the corporation that has only one source of revenue – their customers.And when their customer is the government, in the case of Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, and even the small business mentioned in this post, Vanderbilt Landscaping .. what then? Does the universe implode?All you are doing is pointing out the interconnectedness of things in an economy. Three stars to you. It doesn't follow that by removing all corporate taxes consumer costs would go down or more investment would happen: with all of the loopholes, offshore schemes etc. corporations pay little if any tax as it is anyway, and prices still rise while investment these past few years has been nil. What has happened in the real world is that executives pocket the profits or gamble their pile of gold in the Wall Street casino.Government has a function and it needs to be funded to perform those functions.
>1. It is paid out as salary to employees – taxable revenue for the government2. It is re-invested into the company as capital improvements – jobs for new construction, equipment being purchased, etc. – more taxable income for the government3. It is invested in a bank or another business – This becomes capital that banks can lend to other borrowers for things like home purchases, business start-ups, etc. – again creating jobs in construction or other industries.So why is none of that happening?And at the same time, you pretend that taxes collected by the government are never seen again, or that if they are used to purchase goods and services, that somehow this does NOT force 2 & 3, not to mention that the State or Feds, you know, GET something in return.
>zombie – it is happening now. The problem is in the tax laws that grant 13 million exemptions and in essence encourage people to hide their wealth from the government. Get rid of the current tax code. Go to a simple income tax with no exemptions and progressive tax brackets, or even better, a consumption tax (sales tax) that people could not avoid. With the correct allocations for the poor, a straight sales tax could fairly fund the government because those that make more money would spend more money either for goods or services (services would need to collect sales tax). There are alot of options out there on how to equitablly collect the revenue the government needs to operate while also encouraging businesses to grow and employee more people. Government sector job growth is not ideal as you simply need more tax revenue to pay for the government jobs.Also, I did not state that "taxes collected by the government are never seen again." I said the government does a poor job of distributing the tax revenue. Alot of it goes to their buddies, family, or campaign contributors – the same corporations that alot of you complain don't pay their fair share.
>Jim that's just ridiculous. You're saying the reason businesses aren't hiring and reinvesting in their companies right now is because of the tax law? Corporate taxes were higher back in the "golden days" of the 1950s and 1960s, when our economic productivity was much higher. What's the difference? Did it take them 50-60 years to get a chip on their shoulder?That's asinine. More Cato Institute bullshit.Consumption tax as presented by the wingtard crowd is the worst Cato Institute bullshit idea ever. I wouldn't mind looking at a VAT situation, but every consumption tax or flat tax idea I've heard form the right is essentially another tax on low income and the middle class because they're paying from a smaller pool. Alot of it goes to their buddies, family, or campaign contributors – the same corporations that alot of you complain don't pay their fair share.You mean like how Bush/Cheney gave all that money to Halliburton for our illegal war in Iraq?Look, everyone knows that government distributes its tax money from a leaky bucket but that's unavoidable nor is it any different from how the private sector operates. The news is full of stories of corporate malfeasance. Human nature is what it is and that ain't changing. But with the government you at least have accountability, candor, and control. If the government does something bad you can vote the assholes out. When a corporation misbehaves, if you even find out about it, there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
>" I wouldn't mind looking at a VAT situation, but every consumption tax or flat tax idea I've heard form the right is essentially another tax on low income and the middle class because they're paying from a smaller pool. "Who do you think would ultimately pay for a VAT tax?"You mean like how Bush/Cheney gave all that money to Halliburton for our illegal war in Iraq?"That is indeed one example, and as you pointed out the public voted them out… how has government spending been since then? Oh wait we already voted out the next group of losers… are you happy with the government now that Republicans got back in power? No? Lets vote them out again… I am sure it is gonna get better soon…"Look, everyone knows that government distributes its tax money from a leaky bucket but that's unavoidable nor is it any different from how the private sector operates."There is one big difference. I can choose which corporations receive my business. I do not get to choose directly how the government spends my tax dollars. If a corporation is wasteful they should fail. But wait, who decided that some corporations are "too big to fail?" Why it was the government – forcing me to support bad corporations with my tax dollars.
>Jim:I don't understand your point or your logic. You're saying that businesses pass on the cost of taxes to their customers? Is that it? So what? By your logic they also pass on the cost of their rent, utility bills, insurance, employee compensation, etc. Everything they pay for, everything that is a cost of doing business, is arguably passed on to the consumer. Should we not have them pay for anything? Give them free rent, free utilities etc. so we can all buy cheaper crap. Is that your point?That makes zero sense.