Al Franken votes against protections for American workers

[markiv]

The committee also voted down an amendment by Grassley that would require companies to attest that they made a good faith effort to hire American workers for an open position before looking for a foreign worker to fill the job.

"Some employers don't like this provision. They say they already make every effort to hire an American—well, then they shouldn't have a problem with this amendment," Grassley said.

"Why shouldn't we require companies to look at home for Americans before we import workers? It seems very commonsense," he added.When voicing opposition to the amendment, Schumer argued that "one regulator's good faith is another's bad faith" and the term could be "interpreted ten different ways" to prevent companies from filling a technical job position when they can't find an American worker for the role.

Some members said they voted against the amendment to preserve the deal struck by the Gang of Eight on the bill.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) voted against the amendment but said they were open to working with Grassley on tweaking it before the bill reaches the floor.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/299757-senate-judiciary-panel-wraps-up-debate-on-h-1b-visa-measures#ixzz2TNCbS3Hz
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/299757-senate-judiciary-panel-wraps-up-debate-on-h-1b-visa-measures

[markiv]

1. the 'smarmy comical good guy' just stabbed American workers in the back nt

[EOTE]

5. Reading helps. nt

[Marrah_G]

7. Reading comprehension........

.......fail!

[markiv]

13. care to elaborate, or is 'Fail' your entire arguement

that makes you hip and cool

[cali]

15. oh, I think it's been made clear to you that you failed to read the article

with even a modicum of comprehension. And how about you elaborate on your snarky little comment about Senator Franken?

Just why do call him "smarmy"? What's your beef with Franken's voting record? It's a lot better than Grassley's.

[markiv]

18. bottom line: you cant elaborate either nt

[jberryhill]

36. How unfortunate for you to have joined DU a few weeks ago

It really must be frustrating for you to have joined a site at which so many longstanding and respected members are so stupid.

Thank goodness you came along to straighten them out.

[Marrah_G]

19. Re-read the article

[markiv]

21. cite the element of what I said that was wrong

if you can

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. Here's the paragraph you didn't read...

When voicing opposition to the amendment, Schumer argued that "one regulator's good faith is another's bad faith" and the term could be "interpreted ten different ways" to prevent companies from filling a technical job position when they can't find an American worker for the role.

You're welcome...

[markiv]

47. that's actually a great arguement against ALL regulations

if you think a de-regulated world is a utopia

but regulations are the only thing between the average citizens and powerful sociopaths

(and yes, I did read Schumer's anti-worker protection arguement)

[demwing]

62. trollin?

Looking for an argument?

that didn't take long...

[baldguy]

67. No, it's not an argument between bad regulations and no regulations at all.

It's an argument against regulations that have no teeth. Regulations that require employers to act "in good faith" presuppose that the employers have the good faith to act on in the first place. If they don't, such regulations are literally worth less than the paper they're printed on.

But, you knew that. Didn't you?

[markiv]

72. that doesnt make NO regulations to protect workers better

had he proposed a superior alternative, then yes, you would have an arguement

but all he did, was shoot this proposal down, with NO protections, because his donors dont want any

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

86. And here's the other paragraph that you didn't read...

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) voted against the amendment but said they were open to working with Grassley on tweaking it before the bill reaches the floor. "You see me voting no, but Sen. Grassley, see me as someone who will be willing to work with you," Whitehouse said.

Once again, you're welcome...

[markiv]

88. don't worry, we'll consider it 'down the road'

ever heard that one before?

that was the time to discuss it

increases in H-1b cap NOW, protections for American workers 'maybe we'll talk about that down the road'

this visa has a disasterous record of abuse of American workers. It built the entire Indian outsourcing industry

protections for American workers should be FIRST, with 'maybe' increase in cap later (actually there shouldnt be any at all, it should be reduced)

that's what i'm going after him for, increase in cap first with vague non-commital comments about consiering it later, with the current vote being NO

this proposal of Grassly's, created with the input of Durbin, has been out there for at least 6 years - there's been PLENTY of time to give input before this panel.

but he just voted no, and whitehouse gave a vague comment about considering it later

[Ellipsis]

89. yap yap yap

http://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5440134656/hB45B1730/

[a kennedy]

48. d*mn this almost sounds like a billo statement.....ugh. eom

[baldguy]

68. Doesn't it just?

I wonder where the OP got this nonsensical, convoluted argument?

[MineralMan]

2. No, you know, Franken didn't. You didn't read the entire article,

apparently, and posted a misleading title. They voted against what Grassley wanted, which was to allow companies to count H1B workes as US workers if a green card had been applied for.

In reality, they're for protecting US workers. Grassley is not. I read the entire article at your link. Too bad you didn't.

Reading things carefully before posting is always a good idea, you know. You got this one 100% wrong. I'm sure it was just a mistake, though...

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Gee, if YOU say it it has to be true!

nt

[MineralMan]

9. All you have to do is read the article.

The title is incorrect. But, as always, thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. It's heartening to know that you read my posts.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. Heh heh heh

[markiv]

10. Grassley voted to STRIKE the green card count provision

"One of Grassley's amendments proposed to strike a provision that would allow tech companies to count an H-1B worker toward their U.S. workforce total if they have applied for a green card for the worker"

speaking of 'reading comprehension'

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/299757-senate-judiciary-panel-wraps-up-debate-on-h-1b-visa-measures#ixzz2TNH3F1rc
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

[madokie]

3. What else is in that bill?

coming from chuck grasley I'd say there is some sorry ass shit included. he doesn't do anything without a hidden agenda.
what is the wording of the whole bill. I admit I didn't go to the links as I doubt that information is included. If it is then its Mybad

[markiv]

12. whatever one might think of Grassley

NOBODY has been stronger in trying to end the abuse of H-1b, NOBODY

Durbin and Bernie Sanders are a close second, and have worked with Grassley

[madokie]

25. Thats not very reassuring

A lot of senators work together on a lot of bills but thats not saying these are working together on this bill. because of their past, Franken & Whitehouse, stances on issues I'm inclined to think there is some odorous shit in this bill.
Grasley is a snake in the grass and should not be trusted to do what is right on anything, on its surface that is. These two votes tells me there is something there that shouldn't be there

[CBGLuthier]

4. that amendment sounds like feel good vote getting crap that accomplishes nothing

Ooh, make them prove they really tried or else.......

[Marrah_G]

6. Perhaps they don't like the loose wording and want it stronger.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. No, he didn't. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing;

go back and read the damn article. He and the reliably liberal Sheldon Whitehouse voted against a weak amendment that the odious Chuck Grassley was pushing. And if Grassley is for something, you know it's something that favors the 1%. Franken is my Senator and I've never known him to favor legislation that hurts the 99%.

[markiv]

16. Grasley, for whatever reason, has been the strongest against H-1b abuse

and i noticed no citation of why or even that they said it was weak, only that they voted against it

if there is something more than 'donkey good elephant bad' in your post, i missed it

[MineralMan]

22. You know, the thing is that many DUers

actually read the links that are posted. When they do, they realize that your thread title completely distorts the factual information in the linked article. When that happens, it's only natural to wonder why the poster wrote a title that is incorrect. Al Franken was barely mentioned in that article, yet you chose to write a title that was not only incorrect, but also an attack on one of our most progressive Senators.

People wonder about things like that, and then they go have a look to see whether the title is accurate or not, and whether it reflects the information at the link. When it does not, they post replies saying so.

Often, it's better to just use the title from the article itself. That avoids distortion of what the article actually says.

[markiv]

26. the title was my own to highlight the point

and not one person here, NOT ONE, has disputed my point with specifics, only smears against me or my 'intentions'

the reason the middle and working classes are going down so hard for the benefit of the ultra rich, is that these little sellouts in the dark are met with 'hear no evil, see no evil' by the blind faithfull

[MineralMan]

29. You made no point about Franken.

The mention of Franken in the article was not pertinent to what your title says. The article was not about Franken. Your title said something that was not said in the article. It was a boldfaced slur against a Senator who has been faithfully progressive during his term of office.

Franken was just someone quoted briefly in the article. What he said was not the subject of the article, and does not in any way reflect your title. That's what happens when a poster attempts to write a title to influence readers.

[markiv]

32. the article was about actions of senators

on that panel, and yes, Franken was one of them citied in the article

'who has been faithfully progressive during his term of office'

he may have been, until that panel (in my opinion)

if you believe in forming opinions, then ignoring all new evidence, then yes, this article is not relevant to you

[MineralMan]

33. Your title was not relevant to the article.

It was just a slur against Senator Franken. There was not enough information about Franken's vote to warrant the sort of damning title you wrote. Not in any way.

With that, I'm done with this thread. I will note that your DU Rec of your own thread is the only recommendation it has received. Rightly so, I believe.

[sabrina 1]

58. What is Franken's position on this? I have read your posts but don't see much information on

the actual issue. You say you read the article, so maybe you would explain why Franken would vote against an amendment that would give first preference to American workers for available jobs before handing them over to non-Americans. I have not read the article yet, nor have I yet called Sen. Franken's office, which I intend to do so I have no idea why he voted against it. It would be helpful if you shared the information you got from the article.

[MineralMan]

59. It would have been a good idea if the OP had explained.

The article is there, and you can read it.

The article says nothing to warrant the title of this thread. I have no obligation to explain myself to you. The OP has that obligation. But thanks for stopping by to reply to my post. It's much appreciated.

[markiv]

69. ' I have no obligation to explain myself to you'

?w=640

[sabrina 1]

71. By your own logic then, the OP 'has no obligation to explain' him/herself to anyone either.

If you have no such obligation, which none of us do, including the OP, but most of us make a practice of backing up what we say regardless, then you might want to refrain from demanding from others what you clearly believe you have no obligation to do. Does that make sense to you? When someone lectures people on the right way to do things, it is generally expected that such a person is practicing what they preach.

It is obvious you do not know why Franken voted against the amendment. Considering his record, I would assume there is a good reason, but so far no one has provided it.

I WILL read the article and I will call Sen. Franken's office for an explanation. I will also try as always not to lecture others on something I am unwilling to do myself. And if I fail, I expect it will be pointed out to me even by my friends.

[MineralMan]

87. Thanks for your note, Sabrina.

When an OP posts here, there is an obligation to present a position truthfully. If a title is misleading and not representative of the source material, then that deserves a clear explanation, which has not been given. When I reply to an OP saying that his or her title is incorrect and misleading, I have no obligation to you to provide the details when you ask for them. None whatsoever. It is not my OP. Ask the original poster. Call Al Franken and ask him why he voted as he did, if it interests you. I have not asked him about this, since it's just something that's in committee.

Spare me your lecture about lecturing, OK?

Bye for now.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

66. There is no information in the article. That's the problem with this OP.

All the article says is "Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) voted against the amendment but said they were open to working with Grassley on tweaking it before the bill reaches the floor." The OP has assumed this means Franken opposes legislation that helps American workers, which would be totally out of character, but in fact it indicates only that there was something in this amendment that he and Whitehouse (another reliable progressive) did not agree with. Until we know exactly what the amendment said and what part of it they opposed, the article, and this OP, are both completely meaningless.

[sabrina 1]

73. Thank you, probably best to contact them at their offices so the record can be set straight. I can't

imagine Franken opposing such a proposal without a good reason, or without something better to offer.

[jberryhill]

34. "NOT ONE, has disputed my point"

But nobody seems to agree with your characterization of the facts.

I wonder why that is.

[markiv]

24. your entire arguement is predicated on prejudice

and is not supported by a single specific from the article

('prejudice' does not necessarely mean 'racism', only that one's mind is made up before seeing the evidence)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. No, it's based on reading the entire article.

The sole reference to Sen. Franken is this: "Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) voted against the amendment but said they were open to working with Grassley on tweaking it before the bill reaches the floor." The article does not say why Franken voted against the amendment. It does not say, or even imply, that Franken wanted looser H1B restrictions. It does not say that Franken wanted more H1B visas issued. It says only that he voted against Grassley's amendment as written and that he would be willing to "tweak" it before it reaches the floor.

Since we do not know exactly how Grassley's amendment was worded or which parts of it Franken and Whitehouse disagreed with, it is a far, far reach indeed to conclude from the mere fact that Franken voted against it that therefore he "voted against protections for the American worker." If you want to call my knowledge of Franken's record "prejudice" that makes me unlikely to believe he really would vote against protections for the American worker, feel free. But all this article tells us is that for some unstated reason he and Whitehouse voted against an amendment whose actual contents and wording are not provided, but that they are willing to work with Grassley to improve it.

[markiv]

38. well, at least you DID bother to read it, which puts

you at the head of this class.

but I still am very skeptical of voting against protections with no specific reasons, no counter proposals, only an offer to 'tweak it down the road'

in my experience, whether it's a car dealer, boss etc, a 'no' with an offer to help 'down the road' means nothing

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. The article means nothing without more information

as to the actual content of the amendment. And your slam against a good, progressive Senator was absolutely unwarranted.

[sigmasix]

17. your OP is calling you a liar

This is funny- you post a story that shows Franken as a brave fighter for American workers by shooting down a piece of right wing anti-labor legislation, and claim that it is proof that Franken is bad for American workers. Followers of Beck, Limbaugh and Fox "news" should be proud of you. You've got that whole "who needs facts?" attitude that the right wing loves so much.
Maybe you can go a-hunting on the interwebs for more of that fact-free proof that consumers of right wing media love so much. Your dishonorable attempt to slime this great senator has revealed your true right wing origins.

[markiv]

20. what's 'right wing' about worker protections'?

care to cite a single element of your smear against me?

[Brickbat]

23. What the fuck is this shit right here?

[riverbendviewgal]

27. LOL you are not a DUr

[markiv]

28. if that means party above average workers,l then yes nt

[SidDithers]

42. Au contraire. I think they've been a DUer a whole bunch of times...nt

Sid

[demwing]

64. True, he's markiv

marks 0,1,2, and 3 must have left a tombstone and an empty popcorn box around somewhere...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

30. If Whitehouse voted against it too, there must be a good reason

Stop trolling.

[riverbendviewgal]

35. he is a troll, isn't he

I agree with you ProudToBeBlueInRhody..


I am a union girl through and through...I got some nice pensions while working for a union....

Funny all my friends who never worked for a union have NO pension...just CPP or Social Security which is hardly anything

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

39. The bottom line is, we don't know what's tied into the amendment that they don't like

Could be some language that hurts the American worker. I wouldn't trust Grassley as far as I could throw him. He may be right on this issue as a whole, but that doesn't mean he won't take a chance to screw American workers and pay off his big business masters at the same time.

[markiv]

43. no, not a troll, just someone who got slaughtered by H-1b

and nice of you to rub my nose in the union pensions, I would have absolutely joined one had there been one in my field, H-1b is about busting labor with a baseball bat.

The tech field has been a texbook of what life would be like if there had never been unions

Every abuse unions were designed to stop, tech workers have lived via the H-1b visa

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

74. They see me trollin,' they hatin' ...

I don't know if the OP is a troll or a sock; doesn't matter. What I do know is that he has jumped to a conclusion that nobody with the reading comprehension of a 6th-grader could possibly arrive at. I also found it interesting that he has saved none of his scorn for Franken's alleged partner in alleged anti-worker malfeasance, Sen. Whitehouse. Why do you suppose that is?

[markiv]

76. because Franken is far more well known

from his past life


In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought (it's sought), by the tech billionaire complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

and it needs to be exposed

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

78. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[markiv]

83. yes, i do

followed this issue for a long time

the h-1b created in 1990, greatly expanded in the mid 1990s by the lobbying efforts of an employee of Bill Gate's father's firm named jack abramoff, for a client named microsoft

primary senate contact was republican spence abraham of michigan

while instigated by the republicans, the firestorm of sellout quickly spread through both parties, lured by the corrupt influence of seeminly endless tech titan dollar, who wanted to totally bust the American workers who made them rich

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

84. That's not what I meant, but you know that.

You clearly don't understand how procedural legislation works; you don't know anything about Sen. Franken or his record; you don't know how to read an article and extract accurate information from it without inserting tendentious bullshit; and you don't know how to respond to people who call you on your bullshit. And now I'm done. Buh-bye.

[ZombieHorde]

37. What is the difference between an Amercian worker and a non-Amercian worker?

In my mind, the only difference is rhetorical.

[DanTex]

41. Here's the problem.

You take a story which is seems to be mainly about political gaming and procedural votes, and you highlight a single sentence in order to accuse a well respected progressive senator of not standing up for American workers.

Without context, this whole article is useless. What is the deal struck by the Gang of Eight that Franken was apparently trying to preserve? Was this a poison-pill type amendment? Why does it mean for employers to make a "good faith effort" and why is that important? And so on.

It really does look like you are just trying to find an excuse to attack Democrats. If not, maybe explain the whole issue, and where Democrats and Republicans stand, you know, the big picture.

[cyberswede]

44. Grassley is an asshat

and Whitehouse and Franken care much more about workers than Grassley ever will.

[Vinnie From Indy]

45. Dude, you are way out of your league here!

I find it mildly amusing that folks like you take a moment from jerking off to Rush Limbaugh's daily indoctrination and come here thinking that you actually have a chance at debating the very smart people that post here. You are bringing not even a knife to this gunfight. In short, you are a quintessential example of the idiocy that defines the right wing in America today.

Enjoy your pizza when it gets delivered!

Cheers!

[11 Bravo]

49. Well, that wasn't quite as easy as you thought it would be, was it, Sparky?

I will give you credit for a degree of sublety lacking in most trolls, but you're still WAY out of your depth. You see, we actually read links and even entire articles. Your headline was misleading at best, and RW troll bullshit at second best.

Enjoy your stay.

[markiv]

50. it's about what i expected

[HangOnKids]

52. Please You Should Stop Lying To Yourself

You expected something quite different and your antagonistic replies in this thread show that. But carry on, it is amusing until it won't be.

[lumpy]

63. markiv, it would benefit you if you would learn the inner workings of proposed legislation.

Every proposal has to be emamined with a fine toothed comb.

[Iggo]

51. Except that's not what happened.

[ms liberty]

53. Read the article; your concern is noted...

Enjoy your stay.

[markiv]

56. thank you nt

[SidDithers]

54. One lonely rec on this turd of a thread..

Oh! It's the OP!

Sid

[Ellipsis]

70. Hahahaha. n/t

[H2O Man]

79. "

[ananda]

55. That's a bad title. It needs editing.

..

[markiv]

57. that's actually a legit response

i did it to highlight my point

were i to change it now, it would put responses out of context

but i'll note it for other threads

[Ellipsis]

60. There is no point.

[markiv]

61. uh, that response wasnt directed to you

but feel free to yap away, anyway

[Ellipsis]

65. .

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5440134656/hB45B1730/

[winter is coming]

75. Thanks for dropping by at feeding time.

Everything on TV is reruns.

[0rganism]

77. Looks like they also voted down Cruz's amendment to increase the H1B count 400%

"The committee also voted down an amendment by Cruz that proposed to increase the annual H-1B visa cap to 325,000 from the existing cap of 65,000."

As someone very concerned for the welfare of American workers, this should bring you some relief, correct?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

80. But everybody knows Al Franken is the enemy of the American worker!

So why didn't he vote in favor of Cruz' amendment? This is so confusing!

[markiv]

85. it didnt say which members voted against the cruz amendment

but since they shot it down, it's at least 50-50 that franken did not vote in support of it

and i never said that franken is the enemy of American workers, only that he had a vote against protections of same

[markiv]

81. absolutely - Cruz's amendment would have been a DISASTER

but it doesnt say which members voted against cruz's amendment, only that the panel shot it down

[Peregrine Took]

82. You made the classic mistake - making a post taking down one of the moderate darlings.

You're in for it now!! I've learned my lesson.

[markiv]

90. well, the bill passed the committee, with all worker protections GONE

"Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) voted against the amendment but said they were open to working with Grassley on tweaking it before the bill reaches the floor. "

wonder how that 'tweaking' is going?

havent heard any more about it - only that worker protections havbe been stripped from the bill - EXACTLY what i expected to happen