# Officially Add Wal-Mart to my Do-Not-Patronize-Anymore List **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 21, 2001, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110 "2001-01-21T06:43:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kricket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f14d63/32.png) [@Kricket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kricket)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/21 "2001-01-22T05:45:20Z")
I have a quick question…what is preditory pricing? I did have a friend that worked for the Wal-Mart photo lab and she told me that if they come across pictures of question that they are not to develop them. Not even cute pics of babies in tubs. She was to turn them over to management so they could take care of it. ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/22 "2001-01-22T06:05:22Z")
OK, a baby with bruises crawling on a pile of pot and money. Sounds like an album cover to me. I posted on this the other night, but apparently it didn’t go through. I think Wal-Mart was right to fire this woman. Her invasion of the customer’s privacy could have gotten Wal-Mart sued. What if the photo WAS staged? What if the bruises on the child had nothing to do with abuse, just typical baby behavior? I’m not sure the management should have reported that, but it depends on the picture, and the employee definitely should have consulted their manager. I also think that the presence of marijuana is a more important issue in this case. There have been lawsuits won against photo developers who turned in picture of marijuana or other illegal drugs to the police, and I’m wondering if maybe the child abuse angle was just an attempt to justify this. It’s a shame the photograph will probably never be made public, because it would be an interesting intellectual exercise to see who would report the photo (or even notice it) had there not been money and drugs in the picture. ---
**Author:** ![broccoli](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@broccoli](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/broccoli)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/23 "2001-01-22T07:24:14Z")
[conspiracy theorist] I think the REALLY bad thing here is the US _supported_ the termination despite the fact that the Wal-Mart laws are conflicting with the local State (or was it Federal) law concerning turning in a criminal. WTF? Since when is Wal-Mart our judicial system? _puts hand on Wal-Mart employee handbook_ “I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as long as my manager says it’s o.k.” What the Hell is this shit? Are we turning into a ShadowRun game? Soon we get to disband the armed forces and sell them off to Corporations because THEY are more important than the law. Hell, corporations wright most of the laws nowadays anyways - they have their arms so far up the gov’ts ass. Watch out for big business, they will own you. Just see _Rocko’s Modern Life_ [/conspiracy theorist] punk snot dead, broccoli! ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/24 "2001-01-22T07:29:00Z")
The thing is, there was only circumstantial evidence that a crime had taken place. It’s not like the employee saw someone beating their child. Do you call the cops every time you see a kid with bruises on them? There are a number of possible explanations - even if the kid had been abused, maybe it had already been reported, and the photos were taken by whoever got custody of the child after it had been taken care of…there’s just no way of knowing. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/25 "2001-01-22T07:33:56Z")
> [@](#): > > I did have a friend that worked for the Wal-Mart photo lab and she told me that if they come across pictures of question that they are not to develop them. Not even cute pics of babies in tubs. > She was to turn them over to management so they could take care of it. Customer: “So, can I get my child-porn pictures or not?!?” Employee: “Uh… I’ll have to ask my manager.” That’s a Simpsons moment waiting to happen. ---
**Author:** ![evilbeth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/evilbeth/32/2268_2.png) [@evilbeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/evilbeth)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/26 "2001-01-22T07:34:21Z")
Strangely, my main problem with this is pretty much what **broccoli!** posted. How can a corporation get away with letting it’s managers decide when to follow the law? I realize that this policy is probably set up to protect Wal-Mart in our highly litigious society but I don’t undertstand how they get away with giving that kind of power to someone just because his/her nametag happens to say “Manager” on it. Again, I also have to ask, who expects that level of confidentiality in a retail store? Here in the hospital, patient confidentiality is very, very strict. But we can bend it in cases of possible abuse etc. Wal-Mart’s policy should not be anywhere close to as strict as a hospital’s policy on confidentiality. I don’t fault Wal-Mart for firing an employee who broke the rules. However, I also do not patronize the local gas station that fired an employee who fought back when a robber tried to drag her out to his car. (Their policy stated that you are not to fight back in _any_ way during a robbery attempt.) ---
**Author:** ![Commander\_Fortune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Commander\_Fortune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commander_Fortune)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/27 "2001-01-22T09:02:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Strangely, my main problem with this is pretty much what broccoli! posted. How can a corporation get away with letting it’s managers decide when to follow the law? The managers didn’t get to decide anything. That’s why she was fired. That they would ever “decide” not to follow the law is an assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/28 "2001-01-22T09:18:26Z")
You have the right to report your customers to the authorities, wherever you work. And your employers have the right to fire you for doing so. She was not reporting a crime, she was reporting a SUSPECTED crime. It’s not like she saw someone beat up their kid at Wal-Mart and her manager told her she couldn’t report it. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/29 "2001-01-22T11:19:43Z")
The right think would have been for the employee to tell her manager- but make it clear that she thought that the law made it clear that the authorities GAD to be contacted. Thus, if management did not tell her that the authorities had been contacted, she would be forced to do so. I once had someone I was “investigating” utter a very real & sincere threat vs the Prez. Our rules said that I could only report this (or any crime) “thru a Co-ordinator”. I said that my oath to “uphold & defend the Constitution” held priority- and thus, altho I did tell the Co-ord, I made it clear i was going to inform the Secret Service even if she did not give permission. She gave permission, and i told the SS- who already had a file on the nut- but was glad of another threat to add to it. ---
**Author:** ![broccoli](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@broccoli](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/broccoli)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/30 "2001-01-22T13:19:51Z")
You do not have the _right_ to turn in criminals, it is your _duty_ as an American Citizen. This is why it bugs me. What if said employee had found a corpse in the corner of the warehouse/loading dock area of Wal-Mart? Most people I know would run out and tell the first person they saw. And it is a Felony not to report dead bodies to the AUTHORITIES -not your manager on duty. You know that corporate office doesn’t want people finding out about dead bodies (wherever they be) - this is why they have those ‘company policies’ about tell your m.o.d. first, etc etc. They know that the managers are pretty much in their pocket. Managers have been fed the laced punch one too many times, and happy or not with their lives, they are little policy robots. Oh, and you can’t have policies without police. (I don’t know what that means 😉 ) punk snot dead, broccoli! ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/31 "2001-01-22T21:29:46Z")
> [@](#): > > And it is a Felony not to report dead bodies to the AUTHORITIES -not your manager on duty. [Devil’s Advocate again] From the Wal-Mart point of view, the “manager on duty” IS an authority. [/Devil’s Advocate] ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2001, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/32 "2001-01-22T22:49:04Z")
Another thing to consider is right along with our sue happy society. The Company having policies will probably know how to turn in this information to the police, and a clerk may not. I’m not a Lawyer, so I couldn’t possibly hope to come up with a specific example, but wouldn’t you feel bad if you found the picture, told the police, and some lawyer was able to get the picture remove from evidence because of something you didn’t do right? ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2001, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/33 "2001-01-23T00:38:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stofsky \* > \*\*It seems to me that there’s an assumption that the management would **not** have gone to the police. The woman wasn’t fired for obeying the law, just for circumventing the proper company channels in which to do so. She broke the rules, plain and simple, and deserved to be fired. […] > > But there doesn’t seem to be any indication that this would have happened and, as it seems, the company is in the right in terminating her for breaking company rules. \*\* Actually, if this was the only case of misbehavior on her part, I don’t think she should have been fired. However, if she had a sizeable history of misbehavior, and then violated company regulations, then perhaps she did deserve termination. It would depend on the severity of her previous offenses. What the woman did was honorable, but she should have done it through proper channels. These channels usually exist for a reason – to avoid frivolous lawsuits, for example, or to ensure that the steps taken have been documented. Unless there was a compelling reason to sidestep the channels, she should have played by the rules. ---
**Author:** ![Alphagene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Alphagene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alphagene)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2001, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/34 "2001-01-23T00:55:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > And it is a Felony not to report dead bodies to the AUTHORITIES -not your manager on duty. > > From the Wal-Mart point of view, the “manager on duty” IS an authority.\*\* Heh. I thought for sure you were gonna say “From the Wal-Mart point of view, the ‘manager on duty’ IS a dead body.” ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2001, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110/35 "2001-01-23T12:58:32Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not a Lawyer, so I couldn’t possibly hope to come up with a specific example, but wouldn’t you feel bad if you found the picture, told the police, and some lawyer was able to get the picture remove from evidence because of something you didn’t do right? The “fruit of the poisonous tree” exclusion applies only to cops, IIRC. For instance, if your landlord goes snooping through your apartment and finds a bag of coke, he can report you to the police. Now it was illegal for your landlord to search your apartment, but the police can still use his word as probable cause to seek a search warrant. Once the search warrant is granted, anything they find is free and clear of the unreasonable search and seizure exclusion. The landlord has opened himself to be sued by the tenant, yes, but the evidence he found is still good. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officially-add-wal-mart-to-my-do-not-patronize-anymore-list/51110.md?page=1)