Scores of farm workers & activists march on Ben & Jerry's

a reply to: Grambler

And large corps love regs. They can afford the newest what ever is now a must to raise what ever animal or plant. In fact I would not be surprised if the large corps lobby in favor of these ball busting regs.

It is monopolies that are quickly becoming more dangerous than a standing army.

I thought they sold the company or something for billions.

Mandela effect, I guess.

I'm a Dreyer's guy. Rocky road.

a reply to: Grambler

That's exactly what I'm saying. The Factory Corporate Massive Farms they have now. You're right about them replacing the regular farms as well. They do it in various ways and some are super shady and wrong too but are somehow not illegal because they buy the laws to allow it.

It's awful. I watched a cool Doc. once about it and it was made by a guy who'd been raising cattle and pigs and stuff his whole life and was a generational thing. He showed how messed up the Factory Farm model is not only brutal and wrong and really unhealthy for the animals but also the end product too. It also has way too much waste involved. But the way he was doing it he's able to make just as much profit without all that. The problem was that with Factory Farms it's being controlled by people who don't understand how to actually raise food.

They think they can run it like any other factory and it doesn't work like that. Raising living things isn't like mass producing pencils or something. Living things don't work that way and what happens is what we see with Factory Farms. They try and compensate for doing it wrong with bigger numbers and bad methods to reach profits but you get sick animals, poor quality food, disease, chemicals, etc.

It's sickening and so wrong. So I totally get what you're saying.

a reply to: Grambler

Good post. I've always found it ironic that those on the left gripe about big corporations driving the little guy out of business. Yet these same people also want to push more regulations on business, which just leads to the little guy going out of business (because they can't afford the increased cost of compliance), and the big corporations picking up more market share. They seem to be unaware that they are helping to create the situation that they despise.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Don't forget the corp subsidies. Or better known as corp welfare.

Oh and there are of course huge profitable corps that do not pay taxes. I can't say if Unilever is a huge corp welfare recipient though.

Sure is ironic,nothing squeal's louder then a liberal when he has to reach into his own pocket,they push one agenda,yet do the opposite

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

That's because when people talk about supporting Regulations they don't mean the kind of Regulations which cost small business owners more money simply to operate normally. What they're talking about is stuff like making it illegal to dump waste material into the rivers or air or in places where it damages nature and poisons places on the earth with living things living there.

It's not as simple as you're making it seem. "Leftists" aren't pro-Government in the way you're making it seem. It's not about making Government larger as if simply larger means better. Neither does Smaller mean better. This isn't a case where "Size is all that matters." Leftists want Governments to be efficient and accountable and effective. Unfortunately because of corruption this might end up just becoming Bigger Government. But that isn't what they're asking for.

What they're trying to do is have Government be effective in being a force of good against Private Business when they are doing wrong. What Rightists don't seem to get is that Private Business can also be bad and do things they shouldn't be doing for the sake of more Private Profit. Like Dumping waste into the river instead of disposing of it correctly because it saves them money. Rightists for some reason assume all Businesses are only doing good noble things and don't need to be stopped from doing bad things ever. So they let them run free and damage anything for the sake of making a profit.

a reply to: mOjOm

Well I for one know that leftists mean we'll.

I would like to think the majority of us want the best for everyone even if we disagree on how to get there.

So if I disagree with you, in no way am I saying our end goal isn't the same, I am just discussing how to get there.

Even well meaning regulations get twisted and hurts small business far more than large ones.

But businesses like these regs because they can deal with them, small farmers can not.

And I am not talking about don't dump in the river. This is how these regs start.

I would love to get my in laws and there friends on here.

They have to keep exact measurements on things like feetilizee, pesticides and many others things. They have to be ready for an open inspection from the epa at any time.

Milk farmer's have their tanks checked constantly, and the smallest infraction can costs millions.

Imagine you are a mom and pop, got two kids, and you are trying to run a farm. With all of you working 14 hours a day, you can just make it work.

And now you got 40 hours a week of regulations to deal with. You are no lawyer, you are just scraping by, what do you do.

Meanwhile factory farms laugh all the way to the bank, as they must pay the dinea, or have there army of lawyers deal with it. Meanwhile, when the small farmer has to sell the factory guys not only get a bigger market share, they but up the farm for pennies on the dollar.

Meanwhile, the regulation that was designed to help the environment and animals can now just be brushed aside by the factory farm, making that worse too.

Sometimes these good intentions lead to the opposite effect

a reply to: Grambler

See, I agree 100% with everything you just said. You're absolutely right that our end goals are indeed the same. The real 10 million dollar question then is how do we get there. Because that is what is actually important and for the most part if we reach that goal, I could care less if the method was from the Right or Left or any other direction for that matter.

The problem, as always, is that the reality is that neither the "Right Way" or the "Left Way" gets us anywhere. We know this simply by the fact that we've been trying them already and we're still not there yet. All we end up with is arguing over which one was more damaging, the left or right. But even that gets us no closer to our goal.

Like you said, good intentions can bring bad results. But that doesn't mean we drop those intentions. We need to keep those but change the ways we make them happen because that is what is failing. For example, if our goal is to stop organizations from poisoning our water, I think it's safe to say we'd both agree to reaching that goal. So how do we do it??

If the left says, "Use Government to Regulate such activities" and that doesn't work, what would the Right say???

If that example doesn't work for you, feel free to use a different one. I'm just throwing that out there.

Thought I would offer some input on this. Ben and Jerry's does not own the farms. The farms big and small supply milk to a co-op that supplies milk to Ben and Jerry's.
Migrant justice has a history of incidents that led to the milk with dignity program.
migrantjustice.net...
Read the history for yourself. The incidents happened on farms.
Here is a survey offered to farm workers by migrant justice. This was taken in 2014
migrantjustice.net...
As a fellow Vermonter, and one who has spent a fair amount of time on farms, it makes me cringe to think these people are experiencing this.
Ben and Jerry's seems to have been viewed as the "knight in shining armor" corporate giant that could straighten some of these issues out. They are hardly the ones allowing these conditions to exist.

I imagine, in order to get proper housing conditions the permits required are extensive and expensive. Vermont loves their permits and taxes...

a reply to: Aranor

Um the price of the ice cream is what 3 to 4 times as much as other brands.

This is a recognized problem and it is ignored or we are "negotiating" is a ploy. Every day they (unilever) puts off paying more is a day their share holders are not pissed and selling.

a reply to: seasonal

What if simply paying more isn't going to help because that money being paid never reaches the works because those farms owners don't allow it past themselves.

Ben and Jerry's may not be able to control the way other businesses that they buy milk from operate their own business. Other than not buying from them of course.

I'm sure the Farms are protected from some other business they sell to from telling them how to operate too.

If paying more money isn't going to change anything, then why do it???

a reply to: seasonal

I got off the Ben and Jerry's kick when I realized every flavor is essentially a variation on the same ingredients (chocolate pieces, caramel, cookie dough!) And also because they never got pistachio right!

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: c2oden

Hold it, they are pro social justice... How can you say that?

Ben and Jerrys as a company is very socially liberal. Like most businesses born out of hippy culture though, they tend to be fiscally moderate to conservative, much like Google and Microsoft are. The whole thing is basically striking a balance between what's good for the company and what's good for the employees.

It's a tough balance for companies like these to strike.

a reply to: mOjOm

Check out the Last Week Tonight episode on chicken farming. It's from season 1 or 2. It's really good, it's not actually about the treatment of animals in the whole process, instead it's about the people who raise the chickens. Tyson and all the others, seriously screw over the farmers. It could be what's going on in the Ben and Jerrys issue too.

originally posted by: Grambler
He claims there is an inherent shame in capitalism, because you feel like someone is being exploited.

Starbucks charges more for their product, but tells you that a portion of the money goes to helping poor farmers. Hence the price of the shame is added directly in to the purchase, allowing people to fund a huge corporation guilt free.

I've read the argument as well, but I don't really agree either. I think that a small segment of the population cares about that however people in general don't. Look at where big name fashion is made, or Nike shoes, or anything else. People have consistently shown that absent something that clearly adds disproporinate value they want the cheapest product.

I think that marketing phrases like "fair trade coffee", or "ethically sourced meat", or whatever isn't really meant to create guilt free consumption. Instead it's intended to make it sound like the products are of a higher quality, and therefore you're getting a product that's worth paying a little more for.

originally posted by: Tulpa
I was referring to those on the left and all their calls for resistance to Trump and how they want to make life unbearable for Americans in general until they can get their own way.

Strap in, you haven't seen anything yet. Remember the 16 years of non stop Hillary bashing? And it seems that's coming back in style. Fast and Furious hearings? Birther nonsense? That's just the past 8 years, before that was "Bush lied, people died" and "What did we know, and when did we know it?". Before that was issues with a President having an affair (and lying about it under oath).

If you think people are going to fall into line with Trump you're deluding yourself. His opposition is going to try to muck everything up, and grind the entire world to a halt until he's out of office. It's the #1 method of political resistance... I don't think it's very effective myself, but it's the go to strategy. Try to reveal everything as a giant CF and make it stop working.

a reply to: mOjOm


If B & J (Unilever) can't control the pay-what are they negotiating for over 2 years? The corp has zero motivation to get the higher wages out there to the immigrants.
The only way your scenario works is:
1. if the corp pays and the mean old farmer and the mean old farmer is taking all the money (possible).

2. B and J (unilever) are playing the system and really couldn't care less what the people who bring a main raw materiel to them get paid (likely). The only way it changes is when people stop buying the "premium" product and share holder get pissed and sell Unilever. And this is the only way the immigrants get a fair wage and no rats in their bed as they sleep.

a reply to: Aazadan


Seems pretty obvious that the $$$ is going to the top, and the pee ons are now serfs. Oh this is why you can't afford health care too.

Blue Bell, the ice cream preferred by patriotic extraterrestrials throughout the galaxy.