Slashdot Mirror


Tech Firm Fined For Paying Imported Workers $1.21 Per Hour

An anonymous reader sends in news about a company that was fined for flying in "about eight employees" from India to work 120-hour weeks for $1.21 per hour. Electronics for Imaging paid several employees from India as little as $1.21 an hour to help install computer systems at the company's Fremont headquarters, federal labor officials said Wednesday. "We are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior from employers," said Susana Blanco, district director of the U.S. Labor Department's wage and hour division in San Francisco.... An anonymous tip prompted the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate the case, which resulted in more than $40,000 in back wages paid to the eight employees and a fine of $3,500 for Electronics for Imaging.

53 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. $3500 fine? by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's a joke. They should have been fined at least as much as the backwages were.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:$3500 fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes yes prices may go up, but as minimum wage advocates say, if you have to pay people more, they have more to spend.

      A more sensible argument in favour of minimum wage is that if there isn't one, government assistance to low income earners are in practice a subsidy to companies that then don't have to pay a living wage.

    2. Re:$3500 fine? by Macman408 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not clear to me that it was willful avoidance of paying minimum wage - they had a job to do, they got help from some of their existing employees from overseas, who continued to receive their regular wage (in their regular currency) during the time that they were here. So the company paid the back wages to the employees, and a small fine to the government. Doesn't seem unreasonable to give them a little slap on the wrist; save the big punishments for when there are repeated offenses, or more wanton abuse.

      I'm more curious what the legal requirement is for paying the local minimum wage instead of a worker's regular salary, when they are working away from their normal office. I certainly wouldn't want to be paid in rupees if I had to travel to an office in India. But if I were there under the same conditions as those workers were here, would there be any violation of US Labor Laws if they paid me the local wage while I was over there? On the other hand, if I go to a college recruiting event in San Francisco for an afternoon, am I entitled to an increased minimum wage of $10.74 for a few hours? What if I'm a driver, paid by the mile, going through different jurisdictions each with their own minimum wage law?

    3. Re:$3500 fine? by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They should have been fined 10x the "market wage" for the job, with half going to the workers, and half going to the local unemployment office.

    4. Re:$3500 fine? by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have to agree. If we have these laws, we need to enforce them.

      If that means that the costs of products go up because we aren't using illegal aliens as slave labor, then we need to see that cost and understand why that is the case.

      We think this is benefiting businesses primarily, but bear in mind, those who favor government programs and regulations to curry favor with progressives may be able to understate the economic effect of those items on the full economy by conveniently pointing to American productivity, but leaving out how much of that productivity is due to workers and businesses that evade those regulations.

      Remember, it is a win-win for regulation and business if you can pretend that you have laws you enforce for higher standard of living, but you collude with businesses to make sure that the economy is not harmed by actually applying OSHA rules, minimum wage and social security to *every worker*.

      I point this out, not to take the heat off of businesses. They are the ones who actually employ the illegal labor, and they are the primary people at fault. I'm trying to get to the heart of why the government is not enforcing these rules when it would be relatively simple for them to do so effectively. I think it is because no one wants to be up-front about why illegal workers are required to maintain our standard of living. No one wants to admit that we employ an underclass to maintain our citizens in comfort.

    5. Re:$3500 fine? by Noble713 · · Score: 2

      "Yes yes prices may go up, but as minimum wage advocates say, if you have to pay people more, they have more to spend." Or companies would increase their R&D/capital spending on robotics/automation, and make even more aggressive moves to eliminate their minimum wage positions than they are already doing..... Population growth + automation will eventually make the economic model of "everyone must work to earn their own way" unnecessary and obsolete. I think we are fast approaching the point where we need to essentially put 3-4 billion people on welfare, with the other 3 billion workers we actually need to support civilization collecting upper-middle class incomes. Then the existing crony-capitalists can stay as our feudal overlords, using some of their billions for something other than driving up the prices of NY real estate and rare Ferraris.

    6. Re:$3500 fine? by worldthinker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Automation of jobs even professional level jobs such as medical or legal is inevitable. The long term prospect is that humans will be superfluous to work. Therefore, our society needs to rethink the purpose of an economy and evolve.

      Perhaps ideas like a Universal Basic Income become relevant in a future society devoid of meaningful work.

      Perhaps automation makes economic scarcity of essential needs a thing of the past.

      Perhaps people become free to seek their own happiness instead of toiling for sustenance.

      But that would be monstrously scary to objectivist who might think that society must exploit and privatize everything.

    7. Re:$3500 fine? by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not clear to me that it was willful avoidance of paying minimum wage - they had a job to do, they got help from some of their existing employees from overseas, who continued to receive their regular wage (in their regular currency) during the time that they were here

      It's almost certainly a violation of immigration law. I assume that these people came to Fremont on visitor visas that don't allow the visa holder to "work". Even if the foreign workers were here on H1s or L1s (which I doubt), they would have been violating the salary requirements for that type of visa.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:$3500 fine? by c · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a joke. They should have been fined at least as much as the backwages were.

      That's still peanuts.

      If you really wanted to send a message, they should be required to pay for an external auditor of the governments choice to come in and perform a top-to-bottom audit on all employee and contractor compensation.

      And then get fined for anything fishy.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    9. Re: $3500 fine? by tysonedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      Further, the "wage" payments were just the differences between their dollar and change an hour rate and minimum wage for technical work that would require a skilled employee. So, even that is a slap on the wrist. And there was no concept of "time and a half" or whatever else for the mandatory 120hr week slave conditions for these employees. As such, the lesson taught was very much a "just don't get caught next time" one.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    10. Re:$3500 fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck the Objectivists. Their alleged philosophy is rejected by all but a tiny minority of serious academic thinkers as incomplete, idiotic, and unworkable in the real world.

      Hell, even Greenspan, who sat at the feet of the weird Ayn Rand, was forced to admit in front of congress that his philosophy doesn't work in the real world, and that was the end of any intellectual underpinnings for the whole anti-regulation, anti-humane, anti-altruism, tax-cuts-for-the-rich, trickle down crap.

      I repeat: Fuck the Objectivists and their amoral "Devil take the hindmost" attitudes.

    11. Re:$3500 fine? by Simply+Curious · · Score: 2

      Let's look at the expected gain/loss. Assume that x is the probability that the company gets caught. That means there is an x probability of being down by $3500, and a (1-x) probability of being up by $40k. The break-even point occurs when x=0.08. That means that if this behavior is repeated over and over, we need to catch them at it at least 92% of the time for it to not be financially viable, giving these penalties.

      This is the entire purpose of punitive damages. It is impossible to catch someone every single time. The punitive damages are to make it be so costly that one time that they are caught that the entire practice must stop. A $3500 fine is an absolute joke when the stolen wages are over ten times that amount.

    12. Re:$3500 fine? by fatwilbur · · Score: 2

      "We think this is benefiting businesses primarily" ... "I point this out, not to take the heat off of businesses."

      This is extra hilarious. Here we go again - just because we've created the construct of a corporation to make business activities easier, folks just can't seem to stop actually thinking of them as real people. They're not, and it's real people making the decisions to pay these wages, real people acting in the interest of the American consumer.

      Sorry, but the entire population of the USA is at fault. Businesses are simply social creations to help us conduct activities, and the people within them act in accordance to the pressure put on them by demand of their consumers. In this case, the carrot is dangling in the direction of more stuff and lower prices.

      South Park did an episode about this, in that example about the Middle East wars. It's wanting to have your cake and eat it to. Putting pressure on your own creations to constantly deliver more and newer stuff, but you want the loudest voices to make it seem like you *really* don't like the side effects caused by it.

      It's the rampant consumer culture in the US, and you know what, I'm not even making a moral argument against it. Heck, in the absence of any absolute morality it's beneficial for a country to exploit others as much as it can to its own benefit. What sickens me is when any US citizen complains about this. You don't want change.

    13. Re:$3500 fine? by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jeez, mods, way too much speculation (much of which is wrong) to be a "+5" post...

      First, it was in fact L1 visas for short term inter-company work.

      The real problem was that EFI paid their Indian employees their existing wages (plus boarding, per diem, and bonuses) while they were in the US. Since US employment law states otherwise, yes, they screwed up, and it's good that they were forced to pay them more. But it's bullshit to call this "slave labor", etc, because of the wage since these employees went back to India with the same wage they were already getting (and no food/lodging costs during that time).

      On the other hand, what *is* disturbing is the claims that they worked 120+ hours a week while in the US. I'm almost skeptical of that number as that is literally less than 7 hours a day off the job which isn't enough time for a good night's sleep - but even more or less forcing 100+ hours for an hourly employee, working in a foreign country with likely little say over their duties or conditions seems borderline criminal to me...

    14. Re:$3500 fine? by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      Here in San Diego they still catch people dropping off illegal construction workers at the border once they've had an injury that makes them unemployable. I love how all the caring businesses basically use people as chatel.

    15. Re: $3500 fine? by Wycliffe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      old school apprentices were rarely a "guaranteed job at the end" but more like "a shot at taking over the business at the end" if
      you paid your dues, learned well, and did a good job. IT has actually moved that direction a little bit. When I interned for HP
      while in college, they made it very clear that interns that they liked moved immediately to the top of the stack of resumes when
      applying for a full time position practically guaranteeing you a job if they liked you and your performance. It's alot less risk for
      them. Places like microsoft have also started using contractors and temp agencies for that purpose. They try you out for a
      while, if you do a good job then they bring you on, if you don't, they don't have to worry about all the steps to fire you. It also
      helps with company morale as then very few "official" employees ever need to be fired.

    16. Re:$3500 fine? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Considering the general working conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if they made the migrants sleep on pallets in the basement.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:$3500 fine? by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      You got things confused. Government is supposed to act in the interest of all citizens. Businesses act in the interest of their shareholders, not the typical consumer. Sometimes these interests align, and sometimes they don't.

  2. So it was worth it for the employer. by random+coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Assuming they get caught half the time this is a huge cost savings and they continue.

  3. What 3500$? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    3500$ per hour of stolen wages? per week? per employee? what the hell is wrong with our system? This is a slap in the wrist, and a clear permission to employers to violate all labor standards. They CEO's lunch tab could be more than this...

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:What 3500$? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      this doesn't even qualify as a slap on the wrist; more like a fart in their general direction

    2. Re:What 3500$? by Pinhedd · · Score: 2

      It's not entirely unusual. Many regions have exemptions in their labour laws to deal with workers that are only in the jurisdiction temporarily, usually to perform short-term contract work.

      Imagine if the roles were reversed. An American company sends a couple of technicians to India to fix some machinery and tries to pay them minimum wage in Indian Rupees rather than American Dollars.

      It's obvious that there was some sort of abusive employer-employee relationship (eight employees working up to 122 hours a week for over three months and they only helped install computers? Yeah, sure), but what's not clear from the article is how these employees were retained by the company in question and whom was ultimately responsible for negotiating and paying their wages (it's not clear if it's the same employer, but I assume that it is).

      While I'm sure that this particular instance is an example of straight up labour abuse, it's not always quite so simple.

    3. Re:What 3500$? by narcc · · Score: 2

      So you think that it's okay for a company to, for example, hire a number of people from an impoverished country with a lower cost of living at a rate acceptable to them while living in that country and bring them to another country with a dramatically higher cost of living while offering them the same (now clearly unlivable) wage while they're here?

      Let me guess "no one forced them!" Sure, they didn't have to come here to work for slave wages under horribly abusive conditions. They could have stayed in their home country and lost one of the few jobs available to them.

      If believing that people should not be unfairly exploited so that a socially irresponsible company can save a few bucks means that there's something wrong with me, then that's a label I'll proudly wear.

    4. Re:What 3500$? by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's wrong with our system is that corporate shills call anyone who suggests any restraint on corporate behavior a "socialist", and enough people are scared that only bloodless corporate tools can get elected.

      We vote like a bunch of pussies, and we get the government we deserve.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. See, they don't need H1-B visas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They can just do this and then they save millions in labor costs and healthcare...

  5. fwd.us! by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real reason tech companies want more H1B Visas is clear: So they can exploit foreign workers in a mix between the days of indentured servitude and the company towns of the Industrial Revolution. Too much education and culture has gone into making Americans averse to such exploitation; but companies manage to sponsor employees and get away with paying them a pittance under this system. It's the closest thing to chattel slavery still legally viable.

    Then, when it gets found out, the company pays a slap-on-the-wrist order a fine....almost nothing compared to fines for sexual harassment or other torts that might affect Americans.

  6. Maybe we should actually penalize companies by dirk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason companies keep doing this stuff is that they have deemed it cost effective. Let's assume they get caught 90% of the time. That means that would have to pay $31500 in fines for the 9 times they were caught and would save $40000 for the time they didn't. They are coming out ahead so the fine are just a cost of doing business. These tiny little fines are not going to stop things like this from happening. At minimum, the fine should be the same amount they would have "saved"(preferably more). At best, we should start putting people in jail for breaking the law just like we do regular people who break the law.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    1. Re:Maybe we should actually penalize companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the thing -- they WERE fined the amount they were "saved" -- if the imported workers were being paid minimum wage. Domestic workers doing the same job would have wanted considerably more for the job. Without any escalating penalty for repeat offenders or changes in the penalty structure, it's going to become a cottage industry to just continue to do this and eat the fines. Worst case, you're paying minimum wage for skilled labor.

  7. $3500 fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What do you expect, they have been doing this for over a decade with illegals.

    No one has the balls to go after the companies that make use of slave day labor.

    If you started fining companys every month a good chunk of money 5-10 grand, graduating 15,20,40 60 for frequent abusers things would change quick.

    Yes yes prices may go up, but as minimum wage advocates say, if you have to pay people more, they have more to spend.

  8. Pretty trivial penalty by nytes · · Score: 2

    So the company still got their computers installed by paying minimum wage, and also bought a nice laptop for some U.S government employee.

    Sounds like they got a bargain.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  9. Re:$3,500... really?? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    Want to teach employers not to break the law like this, the employees should have been paid 3x their original earnings.

    They were paid more than 3 times their original earnings. They were paid at $1.21 an hour originally and then at $8/hour as backpay. They also got a bonus for travel, and almost certainly got money for room and board.

  10. Increase fine and throw executives in jail by techdolphin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would make the fine at least triple the back wages owed, 120,000 plus the back wages. We should also throw the executives in jail. If anybody stole $40,000 they would face serious jail time. I do not see this as being different from stealing.

    1. Re:Increase fine and throw executives in jail by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jailing the executives would probably be the only effective strategy. Any fines just get passed along to customers - and the companies likely have ways to deduct the amount of the fines on their tax returns.

      (No doubt, however, if executives realistically faced jail time for the illegal behavior of the companies they manage, they would demand even higher pay - and probably "hazardous duty" pay for any time spent in jail.)

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
  11. IBM tries to do this too by magarity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I lived in China between '07-'09 I interviewed at the local IBM office to do data warehouse ETL. They wanted to pay me a local wage around $1000/month but send me to the US on an 'L' visa whereby they wouldn't be subject to US wage laws which the manager said "we do it all the time". When I pointed out they couldn't send me to the US on any kind of visa since I'm a citizen, they dropped all contact.

    1. Re:IBM tries to do this too by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should have just said yes, and see if you could get something in writing from them. Having that would have earned you more than the job would have paid, and made interesting reading for us.

  12. Who wants to bet by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There will be about 40,000 dollars in unpaid overtime being worked in India over the next few months to make this all back. At this point the workers are back in India where the US Department of Labor can't do anything about it...
    Outsourcing companies are almost the definition of evil.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  13. Seems ridiculous to me by amyckono · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's amazing that $1.21/hr is all that stands between an employment dispute and human slave trafficking. The company and involved employees should be punished much more severely, imho.

  14. LOL $3500 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I bet that company was glad they ripped off workers rather than the music labels.

    If it were the music labels they would have been up for 100 times the amount

  15. What would the company that had the work done say? by Bomarc · · Score: 2

    The company where the work was done... not much was said about them in the article. Did they pay top dollar -- and get $1.21; or did "Electronics for Imaging" lowball, and the company knew something was up and just didn't say anything?

  16. Re:$3,500... really?? by weilawei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you misunderstood. The concept is called Treble Damages. The GP worded it poorly, so I can see where confusion might have arisen. Essentially, they should have been paid 3x the difference between what they should have made and what they actually did make. So, $8.00-$1.21 = $6.79. Then, multiply that by 3. So, $6.79 * 3 = $20.37/hr for the first 40 hours. Additionally, this doesn't take into account overtime (remember those 120 hour weeks?) which (at least in MA, where I'm from--not CA!) is 1.5x the base rate. However, IIRC, certain states (not sure about CA) have exemptions which allow companies to get away with not paying programmers overtime wages. That figure should also have been tripled (as well as the fine against the company should have been tripled). What it boils down to is that they got screwed left, right, and sideways by both the company they worked for and the courts.

  17. As I think has already been pointed out by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in other parts of the thread, if you don't fine someone several times the profit made from the illegal activity and you don't put them in jail then they will continue to do the activity. I doubt they lost money on the deal, so why stop?

    Also, the damage wasn't limited to the employees. Everyone in tech (which is most of /.) lost wages when the prevailing wage for tech workers was depressed as a result of this behavior.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  18. Cheating Rampant, Reporting Not by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've personally worked in a shop where they paid the H1B visa workers once every 6 months. They also didn't pay overtime, just the strait hour rate. (But at least it was the right total amount, overtime aside.)

    The visa workers had no intention of complaining because they risked getting booted home if they did. (It was during a recession.)

    It was at a big company that contracted through a smaller company so that the big company didn't inherent any legal risk of cheating. From the big co's perspective, they are merely paying the contracting company for hours. Where and how the workers were actually paid was legally the small contracting firm's responsibility. Thus, the big co got the benefits of cheating but not the risk. (And the small co. was probably a reshuffle-able front of some larger outfit.)

  19. Re:tip? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because they would have been shipped backed to India and lost the pay they were given. Or are you really ignorant enough to think they had any power in the relationship?

  20. Tech labor by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So... if they can get away with doing this for tech labor, that means my company can bring 10-20 engineers from our China site to work in the U.S. We can pay them their current wage (no adjustments necessary) and only risk a trivial slap on the wrist if we get caught. This is a win-win. What a great precedent they've set here.

  21. Re:Really? by Zeek40 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I mean slaves were willing to work for free, so it' pretty damn obvious that paying employees at all is stupid.

  22. lesson from Milton Friedman by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Minimum wage exists because we don't currently have a free market. I'm assuming that people are too lazy to read the books, but highly recommend them.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  23. Re:Really? by narcc · · Score: 2

    You'd be willing to work for free too when the alternative is being beaten to death.

  24. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The USA was founded to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people - that is, ordinary people. At the time, Europe was governed by a small hereditary ruling class living out lives of frivolous luxury by exploiting everyone else. The founders of the USA wanted something different.

    Their goal was not to create a a country where ordinary people were fully employed producing luxury goods for the hereditary ruling class - spurred on by the faint hope that once in a blue moon an ordinary "Cinderella", with the right physical proportions, would be able to become a member of the hereditary ruling class. Their goal was a country where ordinary people could live secure comfortable lives free of exploitation and oppression by a hereditary ruling class.

    I've been to countries without an effective social safety net or minimum wage. And, yes, unemployment is lower: you'll see little a girl standing out in the middle of a busy intersection beating a broken drum hoping that a few drivers will pay her for her performance a coin or two so she won't have to go to bed hungry yet again. In a certain sense, a triumph of capitalism - even the young children are employed providing entertainment for the upper class.

    Full employment isn't the point. Yes, there's a lot of work that needs doing - and despite their claims of greatness the rich simply aren't capable of doing it all - ordinary people do need jobs. The point is that ordinary people need good jobs - jobs that pay enough to live securely and comfortably. And to the extent that such jobs are not available to everyone who needs one then there's needs to be a strong social safety net.

  25. How? by kenh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Where did they find housing in Fremont they could afford at $1.21/hr?

    How did they feed themselves?

    How did they afford the plane ticket to SF?

    Let me guess, the company paid for all the above, and subtracted it from their wages... That's about the only way you can approach $1.21/hr.

    Now, about that 121/hr work week - that has them working 5 days straight per week, with Saturday and Sunday off... Or about 17 hours a day, every day of the week.

    Let me guess, the folks filing the claim subtracted sleep time and founded every waking hour as a work hour because they are either in company housing or at work...

    Bottom line, I think their supporters are working too hard to make their case - like the homeless advocates who redefined homeless to include folks who would be homeless if they list their jobs and only have a few weeks savings to live on...

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:How? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Now, about that 121/hr work week

      I've done weeks like that during plant shutdowns but never for more than five weeks in a row. Possible, but stupid for a wide range of reasons. Medical interns put in those sort of hours too but get sleep here and there during that time when they are on duty. Not just possible, but widespread, and stupid for an even wider range of reasons.

  26. Re:Really? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Informative

    The USA was founded to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people

    Where people = well-off white men who own slaves.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  27. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The USA was founded to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people

    Where people = well-off white men who own slaves.

    The original implementation left a lot to be desired but the underlying ideal is something that Americans should rightly be proud of: government for ordinary people where a person is not artificially limited by the circumstances of their birth.

  28. Re:Really? by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Actually there were many founding fathers who thought slavery was a bad thing. It was at the time a difficult thing to fight. Slavery had been being done everywhere in the world since the dawn of man. The Jews were slaves to the Egyptians. The Romans built an empire from the efforts of millions of slaves. Even the tribes in Africa enslaved members of other tribes.

    But I am sure that when you speak of slavery you only think of the harm done to blacks in the US. Other kinds of slavery were different, Right? Try to remember for a second that those founding fathers created something that was much better than anything that came before it.

    They were well off. They had money and power. They risked it all. No one knew if the revolution could be won. The British were all powerful at the time. They risked their wealth, their power, their lives and the lives or their families by becoming Traitors. Had the revolution failed they would have been hung as traitors. Their families would have been lucky to get off with only having all of their lands and possessions taken.

    They were brave and they risked much more than you or I can imagine doing. You go ahead though and sit there with your awesome knowledge of all things and point out what pieces of crap they are and how you would have done it soo much better.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?