# Happy meals, unhappy workers



## PikeCdn (Apr 4, 2006)

Vietnamese workers earn less than $2 a day making stuffed animals and Happy Meal toys for U.S. consumers. An ongoing series of wildcat strikes this winter has forced the government to raise wages to prevent factories from moving to other countries

http://www.breakthesilence.ca/politics/ ... ymeals.htm

I boycotted mcdonalds yeaaarrs ago, have u? SHOULD we? I think so


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

Actually I dont eat at McD's except the egg-McMuffn (mmm), but that is once a year if that. I just got one question though. You put down $2 a day, but is that US dollars or is that in Vietnamese curency. I dont doubt that they are all gettting the big one where the sun dont shin but there has been tons of things like this that has come out only to show that they are actually being payed ok but when converted into the US $ it looks crappy.

This just shows how good we do have it.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Yeah, I am sure its no great job, but hey if you dont like your job quit.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

hill billy said:


> Yeah, I am sure its no great job, but hey if you dont like your job quit.


You do realize that they can't, right? It is either work a poor quality job making a cup of warm spit a week, or have your family starve.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

If it is the only job you can get dont complain......


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Oh my...


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Exactly ! ! !


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The real fact of the matter is that we should not be encouraging countries to expand their economies. When they expand such as China has done and India they start consuming more and more raw materials. This means less material for our own workers to use in making products to ship abroad.

It also means we are less likely to export one of the worst scourges to every hit man kind. *Liberalism!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

1 
2
3
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wink:


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

:lol: :lol:


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

My earlier point was if it is so hard to get a job over there,and I am sure there are people lined up waiting for a job, why would you want to put yourself on the line like that? If you dont like it quit, if it is the onlything you can find shut up and deal with it. It is better to make 2 dollars a day than nothing at all.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

hill billy said:


> My earlier point was if it is so hard to get a job over there,and I am sure there are people lined up waiting for a job, why would you want to put yourself on the line like that? If you dont like it quit, if it is the onlything you can find shut up and deal with it. It is better to make 2 dollars a day than nothing at all.


Essientially you are saying that the worker's don't matter, and that they should be happy to make anything at all. Thank God that isn't the way this country operates.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I do think God that our country doesnt operate like that, but it is different over there and apparently they dont care about the workers only paying them 2 dollars a day. Yes they should be happy to make anything at all. There are people in this country who would take 2 dollars a day.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I like to see people live comfortably, but there are many things to think about. We only need go back to our country many years ago. My father talked about making fifteen cents an hour in the depression and living ok. I don't know if the people are being treated poorly or not my point is when the average income is one dollar a day two dollars might be a lucrative job. Now don't forget, I am saying I don't know, just a thought. I would like more information before making a judgment.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

hill billy said:


> I do think God that our country doesnt operate like that, but it is different over there and apparently they dont care about the workers only paying them 2 dollars a day. Yes they should be happy to make anything at all. There are people in this country who would take 2 dollars a day.


So they are less than human, or at least less worthy than Americans?


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I never once said that, you try to put a spin on it I see cause you see where I am right. I never said they were less, I am saying we are more fortuante here in the states, and that they dont have the oppotunities we have to make desent money.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Indeed we are more fortunate here. Your claimed however that the workers should simply quit if they aren't happy with the wages. In the States, when wages are very low people protest to get reasonable payment. Because they are just as worthy as Americans of getting a decent wage they should have the right to protest as opposed to simply quitting as you suggest.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Now you are getting it MT! That is a reality that may be hard for you to embrace, but life is not fair, nor is it written that it should be. Only in a rose shaded world does that work.

Socialism promotes a distribution of wealth, but through the history of the world in each and every Government there are those at the top and those at the bottom. In our country one is not restricted in rising to the top. You will soon realize that once you are actually working towards a future in a industry or profession.

To put it bluntly, if any raw material or resource is going to be used, I would rather see it used by someone in the US than a country who is not friendly to our country. Vietnam if you have forgotten is a communist state. If that is to change it will have to come from within. Help can be given but not if the people do not make a push for the change. They currently are not a threat to our national security unlike other countries some from that region.

In retrospect they are in the situation of forced labor because of people with views similar to yours. Iraq may end up the same way because of people like you who do not realize the long term affects of cutting and running!!!!!!!

This thread is a good history lesson in why a job once started needs to be finished. If the US had stayed and the north not taken control do you think that those people would be working for $2.00 a day?

It is a case of having your cake and eating it! You have to do one or the other, but cannot do both!!!!!!!!! So before you go off spouting a bunch of BS as usual, stop and think hard about what I have pointed out. You just may see the truth for what it is!


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

That isnt america, you keep making a comparison. Over there the workers could be replaced rather easily. The employer could fire the old workers and have a new crew in there in a few days. Yes they deserve fair wages and the right to protest but that isnt america.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> In retrospect they are in the situation of forced labor because of people with views similar to yours. Iraq may end up the same way because of people like you who do not realize the long term affects of cutting and running!!!!!!!


What a terribly weak connection that is. Iraq is not "threatened" by communism at all.

As to your supposed cutting and running, I am quite tired of these terms that are created to cause knee jerk reactions and do not accurately portray the situation (see Patriot Act). This is a battle that shouldn't have been fought in the first place, and our occupation of Iraq has produced bubkis in recent years. Leaving isn't cutting and running, it is reasonable. Sitting around like the proverbial duck is unreasonable when there is no real progress being made. Sorry to throw the thread off topic but I can't d this ridiculous line of thought.



> That isnt america, you keep making a comparison. Over there the workers could be replaced rather easily. The employer could fire the old workers and have a new crew in there in a few days. Yes they deserve fair wages and the right to protest but that isnt america.


It is indeed not America, but that is no reason to not support fair wages worldwide, if only out of principle.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I never said I didnt support it I just said they arent as fortunate as Americans, I never said i wanted them that way, you have confused me with someone else on this thread.....


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

hill billy said:


> I never said I didnt support it I just said they arent as fortunate as Americans, I never said i wanted them that way, you have confused me with someone else on this thread.....


Cutting and Running is exsactly what the liberals want us to do.
Our country was not built on such cowardly acts.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

WHAT?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

hill billy said:


> WHAT?


Sorry that was for someone else, just being told to you.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

cool


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

MT only you could make a connection that I said Iraq was threatened by Communism!! Geez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In plain simple terms, I said the effects of a cut and run policy that we took in Vietnam has resulted in that country being a communist state! That policy of 30 years ago has a direct correlation to the forced labor situation and allows for people to work in the conditions and for the wages that are being paid!!!!!!!

I then went on to say that people like you are promoting the same actions for the current conflict in Iraq. You are unwilling to look back at history and see that a cut and run policy failed then and will fail again!

Allowing a government where the people do not have representation to rule that nation sentences the populace to a similar fate that the people of Vietnam are currently suffering!!!!!!!!

So as I said before read what is posted and try and learn from it, instead of responding and posting rhetoric. It matters not if we should or should not have went into Iraq. It matters not at this point why. What is reality is that we are there and the only outcome that should happen is that what has been started gets finished!!!!!!!

Even most of the Dem's with any common sense short of Kennedy and Kerry and those like them want the job completed. They may differ on how they think it should be done. But promoters of a cut and run policy are dooming the people and country of Iraq to a similar fate that Vietnam suffered and that is the only comparison of the two!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

As far as the workers in Vietnam, they should have the same rigths as we do, but they dont. I am not saying they are less than us or dont deserve it, but if that is the only job you can get, better be careful and not stir things up to much cause you might be unemployed.


----------



## SlipperySam (Jan 17, 2006)

Hill Billy - It wasn't that long ago that American workers didn't have great rights. Just ask your local union representatives. They will fill you in on that.

One reason we should care about global wages is because if you want to keep jobs in America...we need to make sure we are not out pricing our labor or being undercut by cheap labor. Have you heard of any companies moving to Mexico, Canada, etc? Think about it.....


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I never said America always had it good. I am well aware that this country has had many hardships along the way. But our gov. is different than theirs, we were able to grow due to our expanding economy..


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Iraq may end up the same way because of people like you who do not realize the long term affects of cutting and running!!!!!!!


Then ABBK said:


> Cutting and Running is exsactly what the liberals want us to do


Then Ron added another "cut and run" for good measure:


> But promoters of a cut and run policy are dooming the people and country of Iraq


Not to hijack this thread, but it evident that the republican buzz term people have done it again. They have created a catchy buzz term to criticise their opponents, and then started having their folks repeat it over and over until people accept it as fact.

First it they blamed the "liberal media" for any dissenting discussions... then John Kerry was a "flip flopper"... now people who want to seriously evaluate our policy in Iraq are guilty of "cut and run". Such a sad state of affairs when the American public evaluates candidates and decides serious policy questions on buzz terms instead of thinking freely.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

BigDaddy

Buzz terms are used by both sides, and we shouldn't pay much attention to some of them. Some of them are true, and some are not. 
As for Ron's point I agree with him. I am sure he is not talking about all democrats that want to review our policy, but about those who do advocate get out now. Those are only some liberals, so hence the blame gets pushed off on who - democrats of course. This we all know is not true of all of them. 
A call for policy review now does scare people. This isn't a good time for policy shift. Thousands of Iraq's people died because we didn't follow through last time. We stirred them up, then left them to their own devises, or more accurately to their own demise. Foreign policy needs to be decided before a war, after a war, and perhaps in some cases during a war, but during a war is a dangerous time to do it. 
Most of all it sends the wrong signal to the insurgents. If we were invaded by France, and we heard dissention among the French people would that give you hope? Of course it would. Let us see this thing through, then we need to make sure our political leaders are more responsive to us, and reflect our values.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)




----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

To be clear, I am not criticizing Ron's views. My comments were meant to capture the fact that buzz terms now become a part of the vernacular within a very short time. Furthermore, when used repeatedly enough by the media (notice I didn't say liberal media), people begin to assume that they are true. Many people assume the media is "liberal" because Rush says it is. Many people assumed that Kerry was a "flip flopper" because the conservative talking heads said he was.

Rove tried to add another buzz term to the American vernacular lately by repeatedly using the terms "pre-9/11 thinking" and "post-9/11 thinking" statements when trying to differentiate Democrats and Republicans. However, this failed to catch on.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That's good. Ron was absolutely right, and the least we can do is learn a lesson from Viet Nam. This should also tell those people to the very far left that not all is hunky dory in communist countries.

As for the media they it is changing. Of course Rush is not news he is entertainment. The media rated themselves back in the late 1980's early 1990's, and at that time 98 percent did consider themselves liberal. Some were able to present the news without showing bias, some were not capable. Today Katie Couric ( I have no idea how to spell her name) can not hide her bias. The New York Times can not hide their bias either. It is changing however, but I am still one of those that believes the media by in large is still liberal.

I always say you can tell when people are not bias we all hate them. Or, you can tell when your doing a good job everyone hates you. Or, I'm not biased I hate everyone equally.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Even most of the Dem's with any common sense short of Kennedy and Kerry and those like them want the job completed. They may differ on how they think it should be done. But promoters of a cut and run policy are dooming the people and country of Iraq to a similar fate that Vietnam suffered and that is the only comparison of the two!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


We shouldn't have been in Vietnam in the first place. It has never been America's job to police the globe, and it never will be. You can't expect to run a war once public support dies off. In both Vietnam and Iraq public support has died off for good reason, high casualties and little or no progress.



> Most of all it sends the wrong signal to the insurgents. If we were invaded by France, and we heard dissention among the French people would that give you hope? Of course it would. Let us see this thing through, then we need to make sure our political leaders are more responsive to us, and reflect our values.


This one turns my stomach. The idea that dissent is wrong because it gives aid to the enemy is not only jingoistic but very dangerous. Our country is based on a free exchange of ideas and has always been. If the entire country rallied behind every war effort who would be there to stop us if the war was not just? No physical aid is given to the enemy and the idea that people expressing their opinions thousands of miles away will add any more fervor to men who are forced to action by perpetual fighting, personal loss and often misplaced religious beliefs is incomprehensible.



> As for the media they it is changing. Of course Rush is not news he is entertainment.


Agreed, same as many of the hosts in Air America Radio. We reach the danger zone when people begin to take these people seriously.



> The media rated themselves back in the late 1980's early 1990's, and at that time 98 percent did consider themselves liberal.


You get funny answers depending on how you ask the question.



> It is changing however, but I am still one of those that believes the media by in large is still liberal.


I have a hard time coming to the same conclusion. I am something of a news junky. My google homepage is filled with 20 listings of the most current news from around the world. I recently finished doing research for a gov project in which I watched two Sunday morning talk shows and rated their bias issue by issue. I find that traces of liberal bias can be found now and again while most stations and organizations remain relatively unbiased. When conservative bias rears it head however, it is very evident and rather obvious.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

BigDaddy I used that term because of the accurate description it portraits. If you have a better term to use, please share it with us!

I do not know your age, so as to not assume anything. I will explain why my feelings of failure to look at history and apply it to today's events in Iraq bother me so much! I remember vividly the news broadcasts of our leaving of Vietnam. The people being pushed off of helicopters, trampling one another in an attempt to get inside the US Embassy grounds. Then later the news reports of wholesale slaughter of entire families, because of their support of the US.

Then to learn later on that North Vietnam was ready to sign a peace treaty had it not been for the protesters in the U.S. and all the lives that where lost as a result!

Now today we face a similar situation, and once again we see a repeat of the same mistakes being made! For example, Kerry saying publicly that troops should all be out by the end of 2006! Now if I was a leader in the insurgency, I would continue to hold out. Others like Kennedy and Shumar add strength to their resolve.

We can debate whether we should or should not have gone into Iraq, but nothing, and I mean nothing should be forgotten about what happened in Vietnam after we left and what happened to the people who did not get to leave! Only a fool or someone so blind for power will look past what our abandonment of the people of Vietnam has created!

Some of the events and actions taken by terrorists since 1975 can be linked to a belief that all they have to do is wait us out! I ask for one person to show me how the US will be safer if we withdraw now. Will the terrorists stop once we leave?

We knew what we where leaving the people of Vietnam to, we abandoned them. What affect will doing that again have on this nation? Most people do not have a clue as to the affects that it will have throughout that region!

I guess winning back control of the Senate or Pres is more important to a lot of people than our obligations we have.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> BigDaddy I used that term because of the accurate description it portraits. If you have a better term to use, please share it with us!


How about an "Exit Strategy"? or "Leaving a mucked up war with no prospects for victory before we take more casualties"?



> Then to learn later on that North Vietnam was ready to sign a peace treaty had it not been for the protesters in the U.S. and all the lives that where lost as a result!


That is absurd.



> Now today we face a similar situation, and once again we see a repeat of the same mistakes being made! For example, Kerry saying publicly that troops should all be out by the end of 2006! Now if I was a leader in the insurgency, I would continue to hold out. Others like Kennedy and Shumar add strength to their resolve.


And they continue to hold out knowing that eventually, whether under a Republican or Democrat we WILL leave. Leaving earlier than later will only save us heartache and force the Iraqis to compromise and form a working and useful government.



> I ask for one person to show me how the US will be safer if we withdraw now. Will the terrorists stop once we leave?


There are aproximately 1000 foreign terrorists in Iraq currently. The majority of those whom we are fighting are insurgents. They will not leave Iraq once we do. Those 1000 foreign terrorists existed before we invaded Iraq and most will exist after we leave Iraq, if not more. If we chose to fight them where they reside rather than in a country such as Iraq with loose or no ties to terror we may have done something about the foreign threat to our country.



> I guess winning back control of the Senate or Pres is more important to a lot of people than our obligations we have.


Cleaning up this mess comes first. If it can be done through the presidency, onward to the presidency.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> Quote:
> Then to learn later on that North Vietnam was ready to sign a peace treaty had it not been for the protesters in the U.S. and all the lives that where lost as a result!
> 
> That is absurd.


This just shows how little of history you really know, MT! Check it out! It will surprise you! The war was almost over in 60's but instead ran into the 70's!!!!!!!!!!!

[/quote]


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I looked into it. Do you have a source?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

In the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photo taken in 1993 of John Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Comrade Do Muoi, hangs in a room dedicated to American anti-war activists. Bui Tin, the North Vietnamese officer who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975, described the American anti-war movement as "essential to our strategy." America lost the war, Tin explained, because "through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

I will have to find the book with the statements from him in regards to N Vietnam's leaders planning on accepting the agreement to withdraw from S Vietnam and end hostilities. This was shortly after the TET offensive which was a major victory for the US forces, but when it started being reported as a major defeat, the military advisor's suggested waiting. The book was from a British author that had done a number of interviews after the fall of Saigon in 1975! I do believe that it has been referenced in some news articles during the campaign in 04! You may find it if you look up anti Kerry articles as it would have been relevant to him.

It is all relevant to what is going on today in Iraq. Like I said before it does not matter if we should or should not have entered into either conflict, the fact remains we are. So the point is mute one way or the other.

So once again MT look to history especially Vietnam, because once we moved from a position of winning to one of withdrawing things went south and went bad for all involved on our side of the fence! There is a ton of information available that points this out. From declassified Pres memo's to interviews with retired generals etc. etc.....

In all the polls the one thing that has remained constant is the American people wanting us to exit with a win, even though many now think it was a mistake to enter into the conflict. Do not confuse the issue of thinking it was a mistake for wanting us out at any cost! That position of the American people has not changed!!!!!!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I must say I can't find a single credible source that lists Comrade Do Muoi as having said such things.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron the book I think was written by Stephen Young. Anyway during the interview with former North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, Tin said

"It was essential to our strategy. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement. Those people represented the conscience of America.
The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor.
America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

Didn't Bin Lauden mention this very thing just a few months ago in one of his tapes to his fellow terrorists?


----------

