Talk:Day labor/Archives/2016

This is an archive of past discussions about Day labor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Day labor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Day Labor - Nuisance or Right

"Day Laborers are becoming a source of trouble for towns where large numbers congregate near parks and residential areas. Towns, like Freehold, N.J., have tried to control the situation, but have run into opposition from the ACLU who defend the illegal aliens. Police departments cite problems with drugs, alcohol, and harassment of women. Day Laborers have become a huge nuisance to many communities." This entire paragraph seems slanted towards an anti-immigrant bias to me. The article in and of itself also seems to be strongly all day laborers are illegal immigrants. I think this paragraph, and probably the entire article, should be gone over for NPOV. Gorovich 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph is long gone. I softened the last paragraph, but it should really have a source for the criticism. I think it's reasonably NPOV now.--Chaser - T 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like illegal alien status is not a required precursor to drug use and harassment of men/women. Walk a scantly clad woman/man past any group of construction workers (male or female) and see what happens, drugs or no drugs. The fact drug screening is a common part of labor screening and post accident procedures indicates the observable drug use is just a result of the labor standing in public, not that it is day labor. Seems the problem is not day labor but the fact people are standing on the side of the street rather than working. If allowing actively unemployed people to stand on the street is a nuisance to the public then maybe it should have a paragraph or its own article. If the debate about defining illegal public loitering to specific segments of the population versus the right to stand on a sidewalk applies to labor then it also should have a paragraph or link to an article. Just my two cents. Granite07 (talk)

Etish Eah

Please learn to spell. LABOUR as per English language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.155.97 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please learn more than one language, LABOR per the more widely spoken English language :), notice that labour has the red underline for a misspelling. Granite07 (talk)