Wal-Mart accused of consumer fraud

[Sinergy 3]

[quote name='erekose' post='684829' d

I'm sorry this thread took a nasty turn - it's too bad that people couldn't have just left it alone since the argument just became circular.

The fact that he began PM'ing many of us and then not only being nasty in the PM but belittleing us in the PM is where he began to push more buttons on us. He made it personal when he began PM'ing us and so that he wouldnt look bad on the thread stated more rude and hateful words in the PM. I guess he thought we would knell down and kiss his feet after his PM's. Im sorry, im never intimidated by PM's, forums, threads, heck people in general online or in person. So whatever Robor007 was trying to accomplish by his PM's of hatred not for our opinions but for US in general, he failed miserably.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I buy all my popcorn at Walmart. Hanging out on VJ requires lots of popcorn.

[Marilyn. 340]

Meh, I was going to continue this debate but it's pointless to argue with the WalMart shoppers who put low prices and convenience above values and morality. I'll leave with a few paragraphs from an article on Wal-Mart's business practices. Enjoy your low prices and convenience WalMart shoppers...

.. edited for length....

I still think it’s a strange argument to make about personal morality as it pertains to people’s shopping preferences at one store, regardless of its business practices when the free market economy thrives largely at the expense of ethics and morality – and is generally parasitic in nature.

Everyone participates in this to some degree. I mean, look at big tobacco and big oil. What about pharmaceuticals? None of these industries are spotless, but neither (except for tobacco) are they optional, and I really can’t see someone risking their health to take a “moral” stand on the ethics of pharmaceutical research by refusing to use for example, a specific heart medication because you don’t agree with the research and development practices of the company who owns the patent.

There are really no grounds for “moral” superiority. I guess I just don’t understand the argument

Good point and well said. However, I don't think Robert expressed a moral superiority, we all make consumer choices for varities of reasons. FOF (Focus On The Family) likes to boycott Ford and Disney for providing benefits for their gay employee's partners and thousands of Americans will join them. I've seen a lot of posts against PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals) - even calling it a terrorist organization. Prior to the elections, both parties were engaged in a game of which candidate/party is more moral over another. Numerous posts have been made which express one person's moral or ethical convictions (Dogs being chained to stake for example) - is it not the basis for most opinions here? We all are making personal choices everyday - are they always ego centric or are they not also influenced by our sense of right and wrong?

There's nothing wrong with taking a principled stand against a particular company whose business activities you disagree with. Still you're on shaky ground if you try to project that moral stand on everyone else and use it as a basis for impugning them for "putting price/convenience above morals". As I said, if you buy almost any mass produced consumer product you're participating in a corporate system that does precisely that.

So is it really justifiable to say that someone who refuses to buy or consume Coca Cola products (for the huge range of criticisms against that company) is any less moral than someone who refuses to shop at Walmart but has no problem buying Coca Cola?

Maybe I missed that part because I didn't get that Robert was implying that at all.

That statement he made could be about anything made by anyone here, IMO. For example, "I don't understand why someone would have the gall to chain their dog to a stake and leave it there for hours unattended to." Or, "People who scream at their kids and call them names makes me sick." Aren't we all making value judgments? Does it imply a sense of righteousness? I suppose there's always an element of that, but that's what having different views grounded in different sets of values is all about. I hate smoking and I'm not shy about saying I hate it. If I said to a smoker, "Smoking is disgusting and makes me sick," I'm moralizing in some way but I don't think a smoker would or should feel they are being attacked. It's just expressing an opinion.

I'm sorry this thread took a nasty turn - it's too bad that people couldn't have just left it alone since the argument just became circular.

I am still not sure of the connection between choosing where to shop and tying dogs to a fence or screaming at your kids or buying stuff made out of dog fur is.... could someone explain this to me??

I really don't base my decision on where to shop on my morals and values, I base it on where I can get the best deal....

I don't do a lot of my shopping at Walmart either... mainly toiletry stuff... I do most of my grocery shopping at Albertsons or Superior...

I really don't see where Walmart is doing anything horribly wrong... they are doing what most big businesses do, they like to make money.....

[Fandango 1,439]

but marilyn, if wal mart wasn't around, how would ppl like Steven and Robor get oaut their frustration by trying to tell strangers where to do their shopping, regardless of the impact it makes on the family.

And here's Steven....Mr 'let's designate guides for the newbs so they're not offended by ppl' sitting relatively quiet while good people in this thread are called amoral & having lower values. I find that most interesting!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[Fandango 1,439]

Hey! thx for the bump...you're right, we should keep this alive!

[Robor007 0]

but marilyn, if wal mart wasn't around, how would ppl like Steven and Robor get oaut their frustration by trying to tell strangers where to do their shopping, regardless of the impact it makes on the family.

And here's Steven....Mr 'let's designate guides for the newbs so they're not offended by ppl' sitting relatively quiet while good people in this thread are called amoral & having lower values. I find that most interesting!

How's this for a bump? You have added absolutely nothing constructive to this thread and what you have 'contributed' has been a broken record for several days. I think even those who don't agree with my opinion of Walmart and/or think I'm an arsehole are sick of your 'rally the troops' posts to defend your wounded morals and values. It's sad really. Especially when I don't give a $hit was you think or say about me and at this point don't care if you're offended. The fact that you continue to beat this 'issue' into the ground leads me to believe you need the affirmation of this online community to give your life some sort of value. Oh, I almost forgot... This newb thinks you're an insecure, immature, needy, dumbas$, attention wh0re.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

but marilyn, if wal mart wasn't around, how would ppl like Steven and Robor get oaut their frustration by trying to tell strangers where to do their shopping, regardless of the impact it makes on the family.

And here's Steven....Mr 'let's designate guides for the newbs so they're not offended by ppl' sitting relatively quiet while good people in this thread are called amoral & having lower values. I find that most interesting!

How's this for a bump? You have added absolutely nothing constructive to this thread and what you have 'contributed' has been a broken record for several days. I think even those who don't agree with my opinion of Walmart and/or think I'm an arsehole are sick of your 'rally the troops' posts to defend your wounded morals and values. It's sad really. Especially when I don't give a $hit was you think or say about me and at this point don't care if you're offended. The fact that you continue to beat this 'issue' into the ground leads me to believe you need the affirmation of this online community to give your life some sort of value. Oh, I almost forgot... This newb thinks you're an insecure, immature, needy, dumbas$, attention wh0re.

well now, that's gonna get you some negative attention for sure.

just ran across this one story

Wal-Mart to pay over $33M in OT case

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will pay more than $33 million in back wages to thousands of employees after turning itself in to the Labor Department for paying too little in overtime over the past five years, according to an agreement announced Thursday by the U.S. Labor Department.

Wal-Mart said the department's review of its overtime calculations also found it had overpaid about 215,000 hourly workers during the same five-year period. The company said it will not seek to recover any overpayments, which were at least $20 per worker.

link

[Robor007 0]

well now, that's gonna get you some negative attention for sure.

just ran across this one story

Wal-Mart to pay over $33M in OT case

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will pay more than $33 million in back wages to thousands of employees after turning itself in to the Labor Department for paying too little in overtime over the past five years, according to an agreement announced Thursday by the U.S. Labor Department.

Wal-Mart said the department's review of its overtime calculations also found it had overpaid about 215,000 hourly workers during the same five-year period. The company said it will not seek to recover any overpayments, which were at least $20 per worker.

link

Re: Negative attention -- Sorry... Just tired of listening to her ramble on and on about the grave wrong I've done to her. I don't care anymore, period.

As far as Walmart turning themselves in... Haven't they long been accused of not paying their employees OT pay? I don't know where I read it but I know I did read it from several sources. If so, I wouldn't call that turning themselves in. Just correcting an error. I think if they tried to get the over payments back it would only add fuel to the fire about their wage issues. Nice but also partly a PR move.

[Fandango 1,439]

but marilyn, if wal mart wasn't around, how would ppl like Steven and Robor get oaut their frustration by trying to tell strangers where to do their shopping, regardless of the impact it makes on the family.

And here's Steven....Mr 'let's designate guides for the newbs so they're not offended by ppl' sitting relatively quiet while good people in this thread are called amoral & having lower values. I find that most interesting!

How's this for a bump? You have added absolutely nothing constructive to this thread and what you have 'contributed' has been a broken record for several days. I think even those who don't agree with my opinion of Walmart and/or think I'm an arsehole are sick of your 'rally the troops' posts to defend your wounded morals and values. It's sad really. Especially when I don't give a $hit was you think or say about me and at this point don't care if you're offended. The fact that you continue to beat this 'issue' into the ground leads me to believe you need the affirmation of this online community to give your life some sort of value. Oh, I almost forgot... This newb thinks you're an insecure, immature, needy, dumbas$, attention wh0re.

Seriously, what is the matter with you? You say you don't give a shiznit what I think yet all you're doing is acting out, throwing a tantrum, and name calling because I disagree with you. That doesn't sound to me as if you don't give a ####### but then again, this is coming from the guy who's so 'done' with this topic that he started a PM campaign which included no less than two pms to me, let alone everyone else.

And SINCE this thread supposedly has 'nothing constructive' on it...why are you here?

As far as rallying, you haven't been here long enough to know that I'm not a rallyer and couldn't care less whether people agreed with me or not. Nor do I need a bandwagon posse behind me to validate my opinion. Nor do I attack others for not agreeing. And nor do I lash out in a fit of rage when someone voices a very strong opinion which disagrees with mine.

You have

You should seriously get some help. You'd benefit from it You'd also benefit from some reading comprehension courses since it's clear you have a problem with that as well.

well now, that's gonna get you some negative attention for sure.

Yep, and thank you charles for the pm telling me about it!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

just ran across this one story

Wal-Mart to pay over $33M in OT case

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will pay more than $33 million in back wages to thousands of employees after turning itself in to the Labor Department for paying too little in overtime over the past five years, according to an agreement announced Thursday by the U.S. Labor Department.

Wal-Mart said the department's review of its overtime calculations also found it had overpaid about 215,000 hourly workers during the same five-year period. The company said it will not seek to recover any overpayments, which were at least $20 per worker.

link

As far as Walmart turning themselves in... Haven't they long been accused of not paying their employees OT pay? I don't know where I read it but I know I did read it from several sources. If so, I wouldn't call that turning themselves in. Just correcting an error. I think if they tried to get the over payments back it would only add fuel to the fire about their wage issues. Nice but also partly a PR move.

There are many scenarios in which a company can get in trouble with bad time records. I've worked for one such company and while promoting a zero OT policy, making staff work OT and not compensating them for it was absolutely nothing that corporate ever condoned or demanded. In fact, managers that messed with time records were fired and staff underpaid was promptly compensated w/o questions asked.

I could imagine that many an overly eager manager at a giant like Wal-Mart thinks it's no big deal to cheat hourlies out of OT pay so their reports and numbers upstream look better. All Wal-Mart can do is take the manager out of the time record reporting and do it's due diligence to ensure that employees are compensated in accordance with the law.

Apparently an issue was detected (in whatever way) and the company acted on it to rectify the situation. While it may be good PR, it serves more to avoid costly litigation.

Edited January 26, 2007 by ET-US2004

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Meh, I was going to continue this debate but it's pointless to argue with the WalMart shoppers who put low prices and convenience above values and morality. I'll leave with a few paragraphs from an article on Wal-Mart's business practices. Enjoy your low prices and convenience WalMart shoppers...

.. edited for length....

I still think it’s a strange argument to make about personal morality as it pertains to people’s shopping preferences at one store, regardless of its business practices when the free market economy thrives largely at the expense of ethics and morality – and is generally parasitic in nature.

Everyone participates in this to some degree. I mean, look at big tobacco and big oil. What about pharmaceuticals? None of these industries are spotless, but neither (except for tobacco) are they optional, and I really can’t see someone risking their health to take a “moral” stand on the ethics of pharmaceutical research by refusing to use for example, a specific heart medication because you don’t agree with the research and development practices of the company who owns the patent.

There are really no grounds for “moral” superiority. I guess I just don’t understand the argument

Good point and well said. However, I don't think Robert expressed a moral superiority, we all make consumer choices for varities of reasons. FOF (Focus On The Family) likes to boycott Ford and Disney for providing benefits for their gay employee's partners and thousands of Americans will join them. I've seen a lot of posts against PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals) - even calling it a terrorist organization. Prior to the elections, both parties were engaged in a game of which candidate/party is more moral over another. Numerous posts have been made which express one person's moral or ethical convictions (Dogs being chained to stake for example) - is it not the basis for most opinions here? We all are making personal choices everyday - are they always ego centric or are they not also influenced by our sense of right and wrong?

There's nothing wrong with taking a principled stand against a particular company whose business activities you disagree with. Still you're on shaky ground if you try to project that moral stand on everyone else and use it as a basis for impugning them for "putting price/convenience above morals". As I said, if you buy almost any mass produced consumer product you're participating in a corporate system that does precisely that.

So is it really justifiable to say that someone who refuses to buy or consume Coca Cola products (for the huge range of criticisms against that company) is any less moral than someone who refuses to shop at Walmart but has no problem buying Coca Cola?

Maybe I missed that part because I didn't get that Robert was implying that at all.

That statement he made could be about anything made by anyone here, IMO. For example, "I don't understand why someone would have the gall to chain their dog to a stake and leave it there for hours unattended to." Or, "People who scream at their kids and call them names makes me sick." Aren't we all making value judgments? Does it imply a sense of righteousness? I suppose there's always an element of that, but that's what having different views grounded in different sets of values is all about. I hate smoking and I'm not shy about saying I hate it. If I said to a smoker, "Smoking is disgusting and makes me sick," I'm moralizing in some way but I don't think a smoker would or should feel they are being attacked. It's just expressing an opinion.

I'm sorry this thread took a nasty turn - it's too bad that people couldn't have just left it alone since the argument just became circular.

I am still not sure of the connection between choosing where to shop and tying dogs to a fence or screaming at your kids or buying stuff made out of dog fur is.... could someone explain this to me??

I really don't base my decision on where to shop on my morals and values, I base it on where I can get the best deal....

I don't do a lot of my shopping at Walmart either... mainly toiletry stuff... I do most of my grocery shopping at Albertsons or Superior...

I really don't see where Walmart is doing anything horribly wrong... they are doing what most big businesses do, they like to make money.....

Marilyn, you and I have NEVER gotten into a heated debate nor do I wish to - you've always been amicable and pleasant to everyone. Like you, I'm stating my opinion and based on what I read, at least to a point, Robert was expressing his opinion. Everyone has opinions about something and those opinions are often based on value judgments. You happen to not think that shopping can be impacted by ones value judgment and that's where we can agree to disagree. I tried to use the example of buying something made from the hide of a cat or dog - if you chose to buy that product it is your right but I don't think you'd be so keen as defending that right in that case because of the type of public scrutiny that it would bring about (most people would be outraged over that kind of product). I understand your point-of-view - you don't think that your choice of where you buy a product or what that product is should be influence by the unethical business practices of that company. So again, at this point we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Robor007 0]

Seriously, what is the matter with you? You say you don't give a shiznit what I think yet all you're doing is acting out, throwing a tantrum, and name calling because I disagree with you. That doesn't sound to me as if you don't give a ####### but then again, this is coming from the guy who's so 'done' with this topic that he started a PM campaign which included no less than two pms to me, let alone everyone else.

And SINCE this thread supposedly has 'nothing constructive' on it...why are you here?

As far as rallying, you haven't been here long enough to know that I'm not a rallyer and couldn't care less whether people agreed with me or not. Nor do I need a bandwagon posse behind me to validate my opinion. Nor do I attack others for not agreeing. And nor do I lash out in a fit of rage when someone voices a very strong opinion which disagrees with mine.

You have

You should seriously get some help. You'd benefit from it You'd also benefit from some reading comprehension courses since it's clear you have a problem with that as well.

I didn't post in this thread since yesterday afternoon. It was you that continued to beat the horse. The truth is I got several PM's from other members warning me about you and your sewing circle. Unlike you, I'm not here to win a popularity contest. Your act is tired and pathetic. Get off the stage.

RE: Reading comprehension: I said YOU have added nothing constructive. Try harder next time.

[Fandango 1,439]

Seriously, what is the matter with you? You say you don't give a shiznit what I think yet all you're doing is acting out, throwing a tantrum, and name calling because I disagree with you. That doesn't sound to me as if you don't give a ####### but then again, this is coming from the guy who's so 'done' with this topic that he started a PM campaign which included no less than two pms to me, let alone everyone else.

And SINCE this thread supposedly has 'nothing constructive' on it...why are you here?

As far as rallying, you haven't been here long enough to know that I'm not a rallyer and couldn't care less whether people agreed with me or not. Nor do I need a bandwagon posse behind me to validate my opinion. Nor do I attack others for not agreeing. And nor do I lash out in a fit of rage when someone voices a very strong opinion which disagrees with mine.

You have

You should seriously get some help. You'd benefit from it You'd also benefit from some reading comprehension courses since it's clear you have a problem with that as well.

I didn't post in this thread since yesterday afternoon. It was you that continued to beat the horse. The truth is I got several PM's from other members warning me about you and your sewing circle. Unlike you, I'm not here to win a popularity contest. Your act is tired and pathetic. Get off the stage.

RE: Reading comprehension: I said YOU have added nothing constructive. Try harder next time.

Why are you still here beating this supposed 'dead horse'? Why, if I add nothing constructive, do you spend your time replying to me?

[Fandango 1,439]

I think it's really funny when grown adults cannot disagree without casting aspersions on one's morality, character, etc...especially when it gets into the behaviour of a supposed adult male who talks so horribly to someone he doesn't know. It's quite a declasse way to govern one's self, but it's certainly shown everyone what you are all about.

'you don't agree with me, so lemme call you names, you tired, nasty, b!tch, blah blah blah'

Have fun with that! And thx for the entertainment!