[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
So there were a lot of reasons people didn’t want to leave. But it did seem odd to be debating while supposedly a bomb was ticking away!
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry for laughing, but that’s a great story. I have this odd combination of 24 and The Life of Brian running through my head now.
Damnit, Reg! Ones of people will be crucified!
Oh, I can go one better than the bomb threat at the convention story. I once played a bridge tournament where there was an actual, confirmed. smallish fire in another part of the building. Screaming sirens, Firemen running around with hoses and turnout gear, even some smoke drifting into the hallway near the room where the session was in progress…yet play continued, and a couple of the players wanted the Tournament Director to shush the firemen. Duplicate Bridge is serious bidness.
[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
Wal-Mart has been hurt by the stupidity of individual managers before - hiring practices, not paying overtime, hiring illegal immigrants. At some point (and I don’t really have an opinion on whether Wal-Mart has or has not reached it) you look at the level of stupidity across management and start to say “Wal-Mart needs to have better store manager hiring practices and better training once managers are in place.” I know Wal-Mart is one of the biggest and most hated retailers, which means their screw ups are more common and over reported, but at the same time, the media isn’t reporting “Kohl’s fined for using illegal immigrants”
[/QUOTE]
Well, managers usually concentrate on the things that their bosses think are im;ortant.
Just the same, I doubt this story. Once a bomb threat is called and the police arrive, they are in charge. I won’t believe that the police would allow untrained people to blunder around in a bomb search endangering everyone, including the police.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
I won’t believe that the police would allow untrained people to blunder around in a bomb search endangering everyone, including the police.
[/QUOTE]
No, thats never the case.
But unless something suspicious is found, the building is only evacuated upon the decision of the manager…not the police.
Also, unless something suspicious is found, it’s not the bomb squad the responds to bomb threats, it’s ordinary patrol officers.
[QUOTE=Snooooopy]
Bombs are in Aisle 4.
[/QUOTE]
Are they on discounted special this week?
[QUOTE=kambuckta]
Are they on discounted special this week?
[/QUOTE]
Let me give you an application for one of our special swipe cards.
So are we mad at Wal-Mart, or Canadians? Doesn’t seem to be a corporate policy, unlike the proven policy to kill babies and kittens. This appears to be more an instance of the people running the store than anything coming out of Arkansas.
But I’ve been proven wrong in every other thread I’ve ever posted to concerning the Great Evil of Civilization[sup]TM[/sup]. I’m sure someone can correct me in my naive thinking this has more to do with the people, rather than the name on the building.
A long time ago, in a life far, far away, I was working security in a major office tower in downtown Calgary. The plan in case of bomb threat was to evacuate the building and have maintenance and security staff help check the building afterwards. The reasoning is that we would be more likely to know what was normal vs. what was unusual while the police wouldn’t. We joked about it that given how much they were paying us, we’d be watching from the other side of the street eating popcorn waiting for the ‘boom’.
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
Oh, I can go one better than the bomb threat at the convention story. I once played a bridge tournament where there was an actual, confirmed. smallish fire in another part of the building. Screaming sirens, Firemen running around with hoses and turnout gear, even some smoke drifting into the hallway near the room where the session was in progress…yet play continued, and a couple of the players wanted the Tournament Director to shush the firemen. Duplicate Bridge is serious bidness.
[/QUOTE]
Would you say they took umbrage at the fire alarm?
For my sins I’m an OHS representative for the company I work at, and the Incident Commander to boot. If there were to be a bomb threat to this company, my task is to measure its validity, and to locate, as accurately as possible, its whereabouts. Once I’ve confirmed that on the balance of probabilities the threat is real, and that the location requires an evacuation, I issue the instruction to evacuate, and at the same time I call the emergency services. We have a direct line to the bomb squad.
The point I want to make is that as a civilian I would probably be well within my rights to remove myself from harm’s way and let the cops find the bomb based on my directions. However, to me it makes more sense to assist the cops by accompanying them to the location of the bomb. It saves on a lot of ticking.
Let’s say their desire to play bridge trumped their need for safety. They didn’t have the heart to leave, and the fire department couldn’t come up with a trick that would make them want to go. But they’re almost Darwin Winner by displaying such disregard for their lives: they’re true dummies, and should be spayed.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Has WalMart made a statement?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=duffer]
But I’ve been proven wrong in every other thread I’ve ever posted to concerning the Great Evil of Civilization[sup]TM[/sup]. I’m sure someone can correct me in my naive thinking this has more to do with the people, rather than the name on the building.
[/QUOTE]
Swing battabatta swing! You’re wrong!
FTFA:
Implies that Wal-Mart, Inc., did indeed approve of the search.
FTF2ndA:
Yanik Deschenes is something called the “Directeur des communications” at Wal-Mart Canada. I don’t speak much Canadian, but I’m pretty sure that means “Director of Communications.”
In conclusion: I blame it on the French.
Heh. Reminds me of a story my mother likes to tell. During WWII, she was a nursing student at Massachusetts General Hospital. Whenever there was an air raid alert, a student nurse was ordered to go up on the roof with a bucket of sand and a bucket of water. They were instructed to watch for any falling bombs, and if any landed on the roof (!) they were to first dump the bucket of water on it, then the bucket of sand. Refusing this air raid duty was grounds for disciplinary action.
[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
Wal-Mart has been hurt by the stupidity of individual managers before - hiring practices, not paying overtime, hiring illegal immigrants. At some point (and I don’t really have an opinion on whether Wal-Mart has or has not reached it) you look at the level of stupidity across management and start to say “Wal-Mart needs to have better store manager hiring practices and better training once managers are in place.” I know Wal-Mart is one of the biggest and most hated retailers, which means their screw ups are more common and over reported, but at the same time, the media isn’t reporting “Kohl’s fined for using illegal immigrants”
[/QUOTE]
But is that because Kohls doesn’t hire illegal immigrants or because the Media knows that “Wal-Mart= Evil” stories sell papers?
[QUOTE=black rabbit]
Yes.
Yanik Deschenes is something called the “Directeur des communications” at Wal-Mart Canada. I don’t speak much Canadian, but I’m pretty sure that means “Director of Communications.”
In conclusion: I blame it on the French.
[/QUOTE]
However, no employee was “FORCED”:
"The manager of the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu outlet was alerted to a bomb threat last Thursday, said Yanik Deschenes, who confirmed that 40 sales clerks were asked to help find the device.
One young employee, who was apparently shaken by the incident, told her mother about it later. She complained to the store manager and the media.
Deschenes insisted *nobody was forced to search the store about 60 kilometres east of Montreal.
“We will never put in jeopardy the security of our employees,” he said in a telephone interview.
“Never, never, never (will) we force them to do such kinds of investigations. If this associate had said or all the associates had said `We don’t want to participate’, there would be no problem. They would have been able to leave the building without hesitation.”*
…
Police ordered customers out but then told employees to look for any suspicious packages. Police would take over if any devices were found.
Deschenes said the manager asked the police officer – one of five present – if he was sure he wanted employees to do the search.
“They thought this was the right procedure to do and we trust them,” Deschenes said. "Our procedure is very clear, to collaborate with the police officer all the time so that’s what we did.‘’
Nothing was found in the search."
Which is why the initial cite from the GlobeandMail is biased bullshit.
I can’t imagine any of our managers trying to make us do this. And if they did, I’d tell 'em what they could do with their job and go to the press.
Yes, I work at Wal-Mart. It’s actually okay, given that it’s retail. All I can conclude is aside from some of the fucked up things corporate has done (not denying those) the worst of the abuses you hear about are at individual stores. And that can happen in any big chain.
I don’t think that Wal-Mart is really all THAT much worse on the corporate level than any other big store. What they are is visible. People should take what they hear about them and look at what other businesses do as well if they’re really concerned about anything but taking down Wal-Mart.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
If this store was unionized, it wouldn’t have made a damn bit of difference to this incident (up till this point).
[/QUOTE]
Then you and I must have had very different union experiences. In the shops in which I have been a member (Steelworkers, Seafarers, and OPSEU), the employee simply stops when directed to perform an unsafe task, reports the problem, and does not carry out that task until the union and management resolve the matter, and if necessary call in a government inspector.
I can’t speak for Quebec law, but here in the next province over, Ontario, the law is quite clear, and I expect that the law in Quebec is somewhat similar: employees can refuse unsafe work, when they refuse unsafe work they must continue to be paid, and there must not be reprislas for refusing what they reasonably believed to be unsafe work: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90o01_e.htm
Somehow I doubt very much if the Wal-mart manager discussed this with the employees prior to directing them to search for a bomb; specifically, I very much doubt that the Wal-mart manager told the employees that they had a free choice, without the possibility of reprisals, of either hanging out in the parking lot and being paid, or going inside and searching for a bomb. I also very much expect that a union shop rep would be on this like a flash, explaining to the employees what their rights were before they were pressured into searching for a bomb, and that they had every right under the law to stay outside, get paid, and not worry about losing their jobs or their lives.
[QUOTE=kambuckta]
Are they on discounted special this week?
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Every WMT shopper knows they offer Everyday Low Prices™!
[QUOTE=duffer]
So are we mad at Wal-Mart, or Canadians? Doesn’t seem to be a corporate policy, unlike the proven policy to kill babies and kittens. This appears to be more an instance of the people running the store than anything coming out of Arkansas.
But I’ve been proven wrong in every other thread I’ve ever posted to concerning the Great Evil of Civilization[sup]TM[/sup]. I’m sure someone can correct me in my naive thinking this has more to do with the people, rather than the name on the building.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, duffer, does it bother you to make a point that has already been made and addressed more than once in this thread? I mean, do you feel like you’ve cleverly thought up something new when you bring up a point that was already one of the main topics of discussion?
Wal-Mart has had a lot of incidents of managers doing things that are, apparently, not sanctioned by Arkansas. At what point do we start holding them accountable for their managers’ actions, as they legally are, and at what does Wal-Mart decide to start hiring and training people appropriately?
Are you saying you have evidence that other large store chains engage in the same behavior as Wal-Mart and don’t get attention for it? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
That’s obviously false, as one employee quit rather than participating. The manager is trying to cover his own ass and make excuses for his outrageous behavior. Are you really so stupid that you believe him when all the evidence is to the contrary?
[QUOTE=duffer]
So are we mad at Wal-Mart, or Canadians? Doesn’t seem to be a corporate policy, unlike the proven policy to kill babies and kittens. This appears to be more an instance of the people running the store than anything coming out of Arkansas.
But I’ve been proven wrong in every other thread I’ve ever posted to concerning the Great Evil of Civilization[sup]TM[/sup]. I’m sure someone can correct me in my naive thinking this has more to do with the people, rather than the name on the building.
[/QUOTE]
They’re mad at Wal Mart. Hence the complete lack of concern about fellow posters being in the same situation for the same reason - their bosses, employers, whatever refused to let them leave and, in the case of one library employee, was actually “forced” to search for the dynamite. One poster even even specifically mentioned a policy that had janitorial staff look for bombs… and not a single bit of outrage.
Obviously, since they weren’t employed by Wal Mart, we’ll pass that off as bad judgement on the part of the boss or employees, not an indictment of the organization. 