Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would you even consider hiring a refugee when many veterans are still out of work? Just because you met the 10,000 quota? Just an absolutely ridiculous way to try and justify not hiring a veteran.
Starbucks, unlike this rinky-dink outfit, can do both.
Why, is it bad to hire refugees? Isn't it a good thing when refugees make a living, stop being a burden, take steps to get integrated?
Or is this a case of "Damn refugees, coming here to live on welfare" co-existing in your head with "Damn refugees, coming here and taking our jobs!"?
Starbucks, unlike this rinky-dink outfit, can do both.
Why, is it bad to hire refugees? Isn't it a good thing when refugees make a living, stop being a burden, take steps to get integrated?
Or is this a case of "Damn refugees, coming here to live on welfare" co-existing in your head with "Damn refugees, coming here and taking our jobs!"?
Because America has an obligation to its veterans. It does not have an obligation to refugees. So to put refugees on a level playing field with veterans is an unAmerican move by Starbucks. That is what you come to expect from globalists. Sad, really sad and a slap in the face to veterans looking for work.
Because America has an obligation to its veterans. It does not have an obligation to refugees. So to put refugees on a level playing field with veterans is an unAmerican move by Starbucks. That is what you come to expect for globalists. Sad, really sad and a slap in the face to veterans looking for work.
The CEO was just on Fox News and is himself an ex military employee.
The CEO's name is Hafer.
Btw when Starbucks said they will hire 10,000 refugees that may be a discriminatory announcement as they hire based on origin which is against the law!
Did you miss or dismisd the part of the Starbuck's CEO's announcement that refugee hiring would occur over 5 years, across 75 international countries?
Did you miss / dismiss the Starbucks's CEO's 2013 commitment to hire 10,000 US veterans/ spouses by 2018?
Because America has an obligation to its veterans.
I see that by "America" you mean other people's companies. So - what's the cut-off point? Starbucks has decided to take on 10,000 vets. Not enough for you? Where are the other major companies stepping up? (Not the adept self-marketer in the headline, we both know he won't be hiring 1,000, much less 10,000, anytime soon.)
Or is it that nobody should get hired, ever, until every veteran is employed? (I take it you're a vet, then.)
Quote:
It does not have an obligation to refugees.
There's the entire "humanitarian" thing, but I know that doesn't get much traction with today's right - as long as it's brown kids getting killed off-screen, meh. Be that as it may, we'll take it you're fine with refugees on welfare then. I mean, those are your options: Refugees with jobs or refugees on public support.
Because America has an obligation to its veterans. It does not have an obligation to refugees. So to put refugees on a level playing field with veterans is an unAmerican move by Starbucks. That is what you come to expect from globalists. Sad, really sad and a slap in the face to veterans looking for work.
Starbuck's opened 700 new stores last year. Most were in India and China. Why would a company choose to limit their sales to just 5% of the world's population?
You and others seem to miss /dismiss Starbuck's hiring refugees was a global commitment, across 75 countries.
You and others seem to miss/ dismiss Starbuck's 2013 commitment to hire 10,000 US veterans / spouces by 2018 in US stores.
I see that by "America" you mean other people's companies. So - what's the cut-off point? Starbucks has decided to take on 10,000 vets. Not enough for you? Where are the other major companies stepping up? (Not the adept self-marketer in the headline, we both know he won't be hiring 1,000, much less 10,000, anytime soon.)
Or is it that nobody should get hired, ever, until every veteran is employed? (I take it you're a vet, then.)
There's the entire "humanitarian" thing, but I know that doesn't get much traction with today's right - as long as it's brown kids getting killed off-screen, meh. Be that as it may, we'll take it you're fine with refugees on welfare then. I mean, those are your options: Refugees with jobs or refugees on public support.
We live in a free country so companies can be as unAmerican as they like under the law. They can even burn our flag and refuse to stand for the national anthem. They also won't be getting a dime of my business.
You can try to rationalize it all you want. Are you really of the opinion that refugees and veterans should have equal preference?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
