n.
1. A contract binding one party into the service of another for a specified term. Often used in the plural.
2.
a. A document in duplicate having indented edges.
b. A deed or legal contract executed between two or more parties.
c. An official or authenticated inventory, list, or voucher.
3. Indentation.
tr.v. in·den·tured, in·den·tur·ing, in·den·tures
1. To bind into the service of another by indenture.
2. Archaic To form a small depression in (a surface).
[Middle English endenture, a written agreement, from Anglo-Norman, from endenter, to indent (from the matching notches on multiple copies of the documents) ; see indent1.]
In colonial America, indentured servants worked for years to pay off their passage. Others served a bonded apprenticeship in exchange for learning a trade. Many worked side by side with slaves, those unfortunates indentured in perpetuity.
In these times the contract of indenture is often written in fear, extortion, ignorance and desperation. Carl Hiaasen discusses the indentured servitude of modern day agricultural workers in this recent article.
Usage: Young Larry Fine, Esquire, voluntarily indentured himself to the prestigious law firm of Howard, Howard and Howard, in hopes that the forthcoming years of servitude would be rewarded with a partnership.
The only thing worse than the conditions of these farmworkers is the obvious bias of the author of this article:
Crew bosses get away with ripping off laborers because they purposely select those who, for a variety of personal reasons, are reluctant to complain.
Criminals hiring criminals, although alcoholism is not in itself a crime, drug addicts and illegals are willing to put up with this sort of horror, because they fear the police more than these "labor barons." This is a terrible situation and everyone looks the other way, because the fruit gets picked:
Why? Because the system works fabulously. The crops get picked, the money rolls in and if anybody gets in trouble it’s the crew chief. The rich white guys running the farm are safe.
"The rich white guys," what does being white or rich have to do with it. Wouldn’t "the guys running the farm are safe" be enough?
I have a solution to this problem in two parts:
1. Legalize drugs, so addicts are not afraid to go to the police about abuses.
2. Get the guest worker program going, and prosecute any one that hires illegals enough to take out the profit margin.
A registered guest worker would be able to report abuses without fear of deportation.
I do think that the article makes a good point about how illegal acts feed on eachother. What a horrible and pitiable situation.
*insert pom-pom waving smiley for Sitran here* :)
You said much of what I was thinking when I read the article. (Adds Sitran to personal list of very cool people.)
One other thing:
1) Personally, I do not give a rat’s hindquarters about farmers’ jobs - I don’t believe that there’s anything inherent in the job that merits special protection and benefits from the government. Supply and demand ought to govern the industry like any other.
HOWEVER!
2) This does not mean that I think the government should allow these blatant abuses by large growers. Actually, allow doesn’t connote the moral responsibility that I desire to express. Protectionist laws are supposedly designed to help farmers - and when people hear farmers, they generally think of that romanticized simple family farm, not so far distanced that of our rugged pioneer forefathers, making a living off the land through persistance and hard work. But this is far from the reality of protectionist laws, which are generally engineered by large growers to benefit themselves. At the expense of small family farms, which can’t compete with the lower prices large growers can offer their goods at due to government subsidies and shady employment practices. The abolishment of protectionist laws and reform of labor laws could only benefit the little guys. And the big guys don’t need - and generally don’t deserve - our help.
Supply and demand ought to govern the industry like any other.
Here, Here!
Silver Han:
The abolishment of protectionist laws and reform of labor laws could only benefit the little guys. And the big guys don’t need - and generally don’t deserve - our help.
The just scraping by farmers are not the ones make the fat payoffs to the politicians.
[url=http://www.rense.com/general41/biggestgrowerspocket.htm]Biggest Growers Pocket
71% Of US Farm Subsidies
By Charles Abbott[/url]
the cash to out- bid their smaller neighbors for land and equipment. The result is higher operating costs but no improvement in farm income.
"The ability of the family farmer to survive and make a living is plummeting," said Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, Neb. "Farm programs are doing as much to subsidize large farmers as to drive smaller farmers out of business."
Before you all die with your hearts bleeding all over the place
Very interesting point, Katy.
Even here in nasty old Texas, my Mexican lawn guy (and his helpmeet, his uncle) get $35 for about 20 minutes work on my yard. I asked them how many yards they do, and they told me about 5 per day. That’s $85 per day each, or $500 per week if they work Saturdays, minus gas. They don’t pay taxes, needless to say. I don’t begrudge them the money at all; they work hard. I don’t feel sorry for them either; they each earn what equates to a taxed income of about $38,000 a year. Some teachers here would kill for that. Juan (said Mexican lawn guy) is saving up to get his own restaurant. He doesn’t take WIK and he doesn’t ask anybody for help, as far as I know. He’s a hard-working kid and good luck to him. All I know is, I’m too old and too lazy to take care of my own yard. Been there, done that. $35 a week is acceptable. It’s a free market.
DJ, thanks for the link to Carl Hiaasen’s article ! The fact that PW‘s two Mexican acquaintances divide USD35 for 20 minutes work is neither here nor there with respect to the conditions described by Hiaasen. The workers described in the article obviously need protection. Sitran, on his part, proposes a two part solution, viz, the legalisation of drugs and sufficient fines to make the employment of unregistered labourers unprofitable. I think that for other reasons both these measures are called for, but I doubt their effacacy in dealing with the conditions outlined in the Miami Herald. Be that as it may, Sitran doesn’t ask himself why these measures or others, some of which are on the books, are not enforced. Hiaasen does, and his answer is as uncomfortable as it is brief
Efforts to improve abominable working conditions are regularly thwarted by elected officials with family and financial ties to Big Agriculture.
Some may wish to call this bias ; I should rather refer to it as fact, something adumbrated by Silver
... At the expense of small family farms, which can’t compete with the lower prices large growers can offer their goods at due to government subsidies and shady employment practices
But when she goes on to say that
The abolishment of protectionist laws and reform of labor laws could only benefit the little guys.
I find her conclusion wide of the mark ; good labour laws, were they to be enforced (see above), would rather enable the small farmer to compete with the agribusinesses without depressing his or her family’s standard of living to the level of that of agricultural slaves. But since, as evinced by most of the responses to DJ‘s posting, the empathy quotient seems to be at rock bottom and the old adage that «Nous avons tous assez de force pour supporter les maux d’autrui» to obtain more than ever before (?), the likelihood of such an outcome is small. The only solution would seem to be, as Josef Hillström put it, not to mourn, but rather to
Organise !
The problem DJ takes up is not, of course, confined to the United States. Indeed, in the latest (September) issue of National Geographic, Andrew Cockburn has published an article entitled «21st Century Slaves, which one can find summarised here. After reading it, I thought of proposing manumission as WotD, to describe what I regard as an urgent task for us all. But DJ‘s «indenture» is more than sufficient to remind us of the sort of oppression that we all, IMHO, ought to oppose….
[quote author=Tim Ward link=board=wordsuggest;num=1063038499;start=0#11 date=09/10/03 at 12:01:53] ... All this and not one wise crack about a 75-year-old woman without her natural teeth!;D
Somehow, I suspect that the people described in Hiaasen’s article are not likely to have to wait until the age of 75 before they find themselves in need of artificial dentures—which they probably won’t be able to afford….
Not all migrant workers get free milk and etc. Often husbnds wives and children work from before dawn til after dark, in abysmal living conditions, with no time off or transportation to the various welfare offices.
$9.00 an hour is not a great wage anywhere in the US.
[quote author=KatyBr link=board=wordsuggest;num=1063038499;start=0#14 date=09/10/03 at 13:24:10]Ask Silver, she’ll tell you. She’s from Chicago…. they come here to par-tay!
Say what? No, born and raised in the South. Current residence: Sweet Home Alabama.
I agree with Henri that laws must be enforced for them to be any benefit to anyone; however, I do not believe that the current structure of the laws begins to approach ideal, and reform is slow, as large agricultural interests pay attention to what’s going on in legislatures. Agricultural lobbies are very powerful in the United States and it is difficult for bills that are against their interests to be passed.
In general I think simplicity is a great virtue in law-making, and it is one which my state’s code is sorely lacking.
good labour laws, were they to be enforced (see above), would rather enable the small farmer to compete with the agribusinesses
And:
Sitran doesn’t ask himself why these measures or others, some of which are on the books, are not enforced
Oh, but Sitran does ask himself! The labour laws in these case are not enforced, because farmers (agri-business included) are willing to share in the criminality by hiring illegals and drug addicts who are afraid of the "law."
Hiaasen:
Efforts to improve abominable working conditions are regularly thwarted by elected officials with family and financial ties to Big Agriculture.
Where is the evidence? Who are these elected officials? If he knows and does not tell, he is just as complicit in the conspiracy as the families with financial ties to Big Agriculture. Until he is ready to name names and produce evidence, this is inflammatory hearsay, and he is guilty of perpetuating these outrages.
Henri:
unregistered labourers
Undocumented worker, etc. Euphemize them all you want, Henri; they are illegal aliens and therefore criminals.
Most of the Mexicans I know here are very hardworking and cheerful people. That, however, does not give them the right to be here illegally, working under the table, not paying taxes, and demanding driver’s licenses, and health care.
Josef Hillström:
Organise !
Illegals have no right to organise labour unions or the like; they can jolly well organise themselves out of here, if they refuse to follow our guidelines for immigration.
Sitran
PS Josef Hillström, aka Joe Hill - Worker, songwriter, agitator. Born in 1879 in Gävle, Sweden (as Josef Hillström). Executed in Salt Lake City, Utah 1915, allegedly guilty of murder. The crime is wrapped in mystery, as are the intrigues behind the confused trial. Hill became a martyr for the cause of the workers, and his music and songs still live on.
Really, Katy, no one can survive in Scandinavia without paying taxes!
60% in Sweden, last time I looked!
Sitran
PS By the way, I believe that Sweden took out several loans under the Marshall plan. Is Sweden still owing on those Loans, or is Sweden still borrowing from US? Where is the Beef? Or, are we, the USA, still paying for your socialistic dream??
[quote author=KatyBr link=board=wordsuggest;num=1063038499;start=15#16 date=09/10/03 at 18:49:47]...anyway Michigan is very different, no consumer rotection laws here.
Consumer protection laws are not what I’m referring to; by protectionist laws, I mean laws that are designed to aid particular types of business through governmental intervention in the workings of the economy; for instance, tariffs on foreign goods, surplus purchase plans, lowered taxes on various types of domestic goods, and/or outright government subsidies. Tariffs are much less popular these days than they were in the past (they would benefit farmers by inflating the cost of foreign goods), but government subsidies greatly affect prices, so that those who receive them can undercut their competitors’ prices and stay in business even if their business practices are not as sound as they ought to be. There are often very unfair standards for qualification, such that huge agribusiness plantations are more likely to qualify than Joe Brown’s family farm. This is by design; the huge agribusiness leaders are far more able to make their voice heard by the government than small farmers, and naturally use that voice to give themselves as much of an advantage (and their competitors, both in and out of the country, as much of a disadvantage) as they possibly can get away with. The declining viability of the family farm as time passes would seem to indicate that that’s a lot.
To summarize my views on the subject (not stating these as facts, just my opinions, thank you!)
1) Most drug laws ought to be abolished, because they do not prevent drug use and give a ready source of income for criminals through the black market, encouraging the continued existance of both organized and individual crimes.
2) Immigration laws must be as fair as possible, and they must be enforced.
3) Labor laws must be effective in making it economically unviable for businesses to abuse workers.
4) The government should only regulate safety standards (worker, consumer, and environmental protection) and cease interfering with the economic workings of the agriculture industry, which should be every bit as subject to market forces as any other industry.
I think I might have been misunderstood a little due to my previous phrasing of #4 in other posts; while I don’t have any sentimentally in regards to the traditional family farm, some people do, and may mistakenly support legislation that promises to benefit farmers without reading the small print that reveals which farmers the laws benefit. Whether or not I care about family farms, I do believe that they are being unfairly discriminated against through government intervention, causing them to seem less economically viable than they actually are. Appropriate reform in labor laws, and subsequent enforcement thereof, are also crucial, since it is obviously easier for large companies to perpetrate such abuses on a large scale.
Believe it or not, a friend of mine got me a job at a dairy farm, when I was in the Higher Institute of Leisure. I worked weekends during the school year, but during the summer, it was not uncommon to work 18 hour days for 10 days in a row, then take 1 day off and work another 10 or 14 days, and I am not complaining. I actually enjoyed the work, except for unloading the hay and alfalfa bails. It was easy to save money, because you didn’t have time to spend it.
I think that Silver is right on with her 4 points!
1) Most drug laws ought to be abolished, because they do not prevent drug use and give a ready source of income for criminals through the black market, encouraging the continued existance of both organized and individual crimes.
2) Immigration laws must be as fair as possible, and they must be enforced.
3) Labor laws must be effective in making it economically unviable for businesses to abuse workers.
4) The government should only regulate safety standards (worker, consumer, and environmental protection) and cease interfering with the economic workings of the agriculture industry, which should be every bit as subject to market forces as any other industry.
*insert pom-pom waving smiley for Sitran here* :)
