Cashiers aren't allowed to count their tills anymore because.... WHAT?

The BBQ Pit
81

Dio, I think you’re edging close to the deep end. I agree with your position (to a point) but your unwillingness to even listen to an opposing viewpoint and willingness to jump right in with personal attacks isn’t doing much for your position.

On the other hand, I noticed that Monty and TaxGuy have convienently avoided addressing the numerous lawsuits filed against WallyWorld and instead are tenaciously hanging on to the one percieved weakness in your argument.

Wonder when mhendo’s calm, logical arguments are going to be addressed…

82

lezlers: From what I’ve learned on this board, anyone can file a lawsuit. How’sabout we wait until the courts decide them?

83

(1) Which lawsuits are these, now?

(2) Just cuz someone sued somebody don’t mean somebody did sumpthin’ wrong.

84

Actually, Monty, i’ve already addressed this point in my earlier post.

Firstly, i did say that the simple filing of a lawsuit is not evidence of guilt. But i also argued, from the point of view of atmosphere on the job, that the large number of Wal-Mart employees involved in these lawsuits suggests a working environment that may not be not quite as happy as some have been suggesting. For example, Tax Guy argued that if these people work for Wal-Mart, then they can’t be all that unhappy. I think that the number of lawsuits suggests otherwise.

Secondly, and more importantly, i also cited quite a few instances in which the courts have, in fact, found that Wal-Mart broke the law in their treatment of their employees, such as forcing some to work unpaid overtime.

Tax Guy made the specific claim that Wal-Mart had “isn’t doing anything illegal.” I just wanted to note that the number of pending lawsuits, and the ones already decided in which Wal-Mart was the loser, suggest that things aren’t quite as simple as he was making out.

And Tax Guy, either your questions are either completely disingenuous, or you just haven’t bothered to read the thread very closely, because i gave quite a list of pending and decided lawsuits involving Wal-Mart in my earlier post. By all means take issue with my argument if you disagree with it, but don’t just carry on pretending i never made it in the first place.

That’s very kind of you.

Actually, on the rare occasions when i make “calm, logical arguments,” i get used to the fact that they are often ignored. With all the bluster and name-calling that goes on in the Pit, sometimes people are too busy posturing to worry about making rational arguments.

This criticism isn’t aimed at anyone in particular; i’ve been guilty of the same thing myself.

85

No problem mhendo.

Monty and TaxGuy, I’m well aware that a lawsuit doesn’t automatically equate guilt. But you have to admit, however reluctantly, that the sheer number of lawsuits and money WallyWorld has had to pay out (as cited by mhendo, so TaxGuy, please read the post before pulling out the “what are you talking about? I didn’t see anything! whistle” song and dance) there’s got to be some truth to the allegations. It’s not like one or two lawsuits. WallyWorld is sued all the damn time. With some pretty serious allegations. You’ve got to be in serious denial to think they’ve never done any wrong in light on the numerous formal complaints and lawsuits.

It’s called common sense.

86

You wanna bet?

There is definitely a book with the plot described above. On the other hand, you may be right that Friar Ted originally made a Simpsons ref. I was just answering Monty’s question, though.

87

(1) I don’t care how many times someone is sued for something, it doesn’t mean somebody did something bad. If you don’t believe me then I shall file one lawsuit per day against you for the next year claiming all kinds of stuff, and then let’s see how your opinion changes.

(2) I don’t see how the fact that walmart has been sued a lot refutes any of my points. Yes, I did say walmart “isn’t doing anything illegal” but I think that if you read that part of my post in context with the rest of it you’ll see I meant “as long as walmart isn’t doing anything illegal” or something along those lines.

Also, (and I’ve already said this), I never said that the fact that people work at walmart shows that all walmart workers are happy. I merely said in response to DtC’s claim that walmart “dehumanized” its employees that (1) let’s leave it up to the employees to decide how bad it is being an employee and (2) people still choose to work there, so those people at least don’t feel that it’s so bad they’d rather not work there.

88

Kent Brockman said it. Only he was welcoming the alien overlords.

89

I think it’s increadibly ironic TaxGuy that you are so disgusted with Dio’s (I hope he doesn’t mind me calling him that, he’s got a long screenname) blind disgust at WalMart and the fact that he refuses to consider other people’s argument, when you’re essentially doing the same thing, you’re just on the other side.

It’s like watching an ultra-conservative right winger head butt with an ultra-liberal left winger. Wait a minute, that is what’s happening, you’re just arguing something other than politics.

Dio hates big corporations that run small, family owned businesses out of town. TaxGuy thinks big corporations can do no wrong (not a huge shocker, just look at the screenname). You’re both unwilling to compromise even the slightest bit and refuse to even consider the other’s argument and go straight for the ad hominem attacks.

Taxguy], you’re obviously an intelligent guy. Knowing that, I have no choice but to believe that you’re purposely dancing around Walmart’s well known and well documented history of bad labor practices. Your example of suing me every day is insulting to my intelligence, if you actually believe I’d take that seriously. The two scenerios are so mind bogglingly different one has to wonder how far up your ass you had to dig for that one. Being that you’re an intelligent poster and all, I expected a much better argument from you than "just because they’re sued mulitple times and they consistantly make headlines about their rotten business practices doesn’t mean they’ve ever done anything wrong.

You’re being silly now.

90

Well, despite your rather lame disclaimer offered previously, you still continue to maintain that humans are rational maximizers, and yet to also contend that if they work at Wal-Mart it can’t be that bad. Is it really so hard for you to understand that a rational maximizer might choose Wal-Mart over no job at all, yet still feel dehumanized by or angry about the work environment?

And your comment about reading your post “in context” is silly; you made the flat-out claim that Wal-Mart wasn’t doing anything illegal, and i showed that the company had in fact been found guilty of illegal practices directly related to employment conditions. Surely this shows, at the very least, that those filing actions the company might have some basis for their claims, and that plenty of Wal-Mart employees, despite being “rational maximizers,” are also extremely unhappy with the conditions under which they are employed.

91

Perhaps it’s common sense (if there actually is such a thing–debatable, after all) or perhaps it’s jumping on a bandwagon, coat-tails, etc.

92

Oh yeah, reading news articles and following cases is nothing but hopping on a bandwagon. The ones that continue to deny any wrongdoing in the face of guilty verdicts so that they may feel better about supporting a widely despised corporation are the real Free Thinkers.

Yeah, okay.

:rolleyes:

93

Oh yeah, reading news articles and following cases is nothing but hopping on a bandwagon. The ones that continue to deny any wrongdoing in the face of numerous settlements, fines and lawsuits so that they may feel better about supporting a widely despised corporation are the real Free Thinkers.

Yeah, okay.

:rolleyes:

94

Damn, caught my changed post. Figures, this is when the damn hamsters would start sprinting. Ignore the first, read the second, which I made upon re-read of mhendo’s origional post in order to avoid more petty semantics games.

95

lezlers: I wasn’t talking about people following that. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of logical inferences? If you are, then you would realize that I’m neither supporting nor condemning the corporation.

96

We’ve been over this and over this.

Is it really so hard for you to understand that a rational maximizer considers ALL of the advanatages and disadvantages when deciding whether to do something or not?

Say a person works at walmart and is thinking about how they like it. “Well, they pay me every two weeks, which is nice. I feel dehumanized and I’m angry at my work environment, but I think I’ll stick around because I like getting a paycheck and I don’t like having to look for another job.”

My whole point is that it doesn’t matter what DtC thinks of the working conditions at walmart, it matters what the walmart employees think of the working conditions at walmart. If people still work there, then they obviously don’t think that it’s so bad that they wouldn’t want to work there. If the conditions become worse to a certain degree, then walmart will have to pay more for people to work there, thus bringing the returns to the employees back to an acceptable level. If the conditions become so bad that walmart can’t afford to pay people enough to accept those conditions, then walmart will not be able to find anyone to work there and will have to make conditions better.

Since walmart is able to find people to work there NOW, then walmart hasn’t yet reached the point where it can’t afford to make people accept the conditions.

97

Also, I’m not doing the same thing as DtC only on the other side. Here’s what DtC originally said:

I’m not arguing that walmart is the freaking magic kingdom where everyone’s happy and life is peachy keen (it rains donuts every friday!), I’m just pointing out that DtC’s rant against walmart is really more of a blind flailing against capitalism, which is blatantly and self-evidently stupid.

98

I’m no apologist for ASDA, I’ve never even shopped there…

But it seems that, although they apply the same dodgy corporate policies towards the consumer, they look after thier staff.

I’m not sure if it’s the done thing for people with my limited amount of posts to say ‘Welcome to the board’, so…
Wlcme t* th* b**rd.

99

I was referencing The Simpsons, I was totally unaware of THE CITY story.

To answer the $800 check Q, when the check reader detects that a large amount has been written on that checking account over a few days, a prompt comes up so that the cashier gets a supervisor (CSM, which is what I am) to OK the check. At that time, the CSM should ask for ID & explain nicely to the customer that it’s just a precaution to make sure no one has taken their checks & gone on a spending spree. Only if I know the customer would I not ask for ID in that case.

ThatDuck, that system may not have been in place at the time the alleged event happened. Certainly, the cashier would have been coached but mainly,the responsibility would then fall on the owner of the checking account who would then have to resolve it with WM somehow. If the owner could demonstrate they were the victim of fraud, then I guess the legal authorities would be asked to investigate.

100

TaxGuy

** Thea Logica **

Well here we have what you were requesting ** TaxGuy **, the opinion of an actual Walmart employee
Seems to me that she believes that she works for a dishonest company, has an unethical supervisor but no possible means of addressing the situation without jeopardizing her job.