The one who was interviewed on national TV about why she quit because the Wal-mart manager was trying to make her search for a bomb.
Excerpts from the CBC this afternoon: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/07/14/walmart-threat.html
“The occupational health and safety commission in Quebec is investigating complaints by Wal-Mart employees that they were forced to help police search for suspicious packages in their store after it received a bomb threat.”
. . .
“After the first bomb threat, workers said, a Wal-Mart manager forced them to help police search to see if there was a bomb, while shoppers were told to leave the building.”
. . .
"One employee, Mailie Fournier, chose to leave the store after watching her panicked co-workers comply with the request.
“I have a colleague who had a nervous breakdown, another who has heart problems … the beads of sweat were hitting the floor,” Mailie said, speaking French."
. . .
“Employees say they didn’t think they could refuse to help with the search.”
. . .
“Every employee needs to know she or he can refuse dangerous work without fear of reprisal, said Louis Bolduc of the United Food and Commercial Workers, a union that has been trying to organize Wal-Mart employees.” “That’s not what happened last week.”
All is right with the world. It’s been awhile since you’ve shown what a complete douchebag you really are. Thanks for reminding us all. Douchebag.
Cite? Quote?
They do talk about a “former employee” but it’s a he and the original OP link did not say he “quit so as not to be forced to search”. I read it that he quit in protest. However, I await your link and quote.
No, Maile is not male. Had you watched the news coverage on TV, you would be aware that Mailie is female, and that she complained (in translation) of being forced to search for a bomb.
You should also note that in the CBC article, that employees and workers complained of being forced, and that Wal-mart denied forcing.
No, you did not read that Maile quit in protest. What you concluded is that Maile quit in protest. What you read was “Fournier said she no longer feels safe working at Wal-Mart. She resigned last Friday.”
But then if you had read this, you would not be telling me that Maile is male.
You really should not insist on cites when you don’t bother reading the cites that have been provided to you.
I did not know that. Not that there are two official languages, but that some people might take offense at the needling.
Sorry.
I didn’t think you meant to offend on purpose; there’s probably no way you could know how much of a source of contention language issues are in Canada.
From the first cite of the Thread- the OP, theglobeandmail:" Some 40 nervous employees searched the store for an hour last Thursday, said Mailie Fournier, a former employee of the store. They were accompanied by six police officers.
Several employees, whose jobs don’t include security, found the experience traumatic, said Mr. Fournier." Thus I reasonably concluded a MR. Fournier was a male.
The second cite in this thread simply refers to “Mailie Fournier, a former employee of the store, told Radio-Canada on Monday that several employees found the experience traumatic.”
I hadn’t got to the third cite yet- yours but yes, in your cite they refer to the employee as female. However you cite said "One employee, Mailie Fournier, chose to leave the store after watching her panicked co-workers comply with the request.
…
Fournier said she no longer feels safe working at Wal-Mart. She resigned last Friday." which means that Fournier did** NOT** “quit in order to avoid it”- Fornier quit after the incident, in which she apparently opted out of taking part -nowhere do the cites say Fournier took part in the search, the cites say “chose to leave the store after watching her panicked co-workers comply with the request”. In other words Fournier took the option of NOT searching, then resigned anyway.m Where does it say that Fournier actually searched?
As to your line "No, you did not read that Maile quit in protest. " My wording was “I read it that he quit in protest”, where “read it” means “concluded that”. :rolleyes:
I’m so bad off, I thought the joke was about the way Canadians speak English, eh?
. . . and then demanded further cites from me, without reading the ones I had already provided.
Since you have trouble with reading, and enjoy making hasty conclusions, why don’t you simply watch the TV news clip in which she is interviewed in her home: http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2006/07/10/002-Wall-Mart-alerte-bombe.shtml
Then come on back and tell us all about what you have concluded.
What did I do? You’re the one who made the moronic comment. You don’t feel any shame about saying titanically stupid things, do you? Is that why you post the way you do?
‘Eh’? I find this even more insulting than that it is assumed everyone up here speaks French. Only sub-morons end their sentences with ‘eh’. We isolate them in places like Saskatchewan so that they don’t infect the rest of us. Yet, we all end up getting labeled that way regardless. :rolleyes: :mad:
Face it guy, all ya’ll talk funny.
I work at a hospital. Even those of us who are not security or medical people have training and specific responsibilities in a number of possible emergency situations – including searching for bombs. Perhaps that overstates it – we are supposed to check out our own work areas for unfamiliar or suspicious packages.
This is the first place I’ve ever worked where a fire alarm doesn’t mean an immediate evacuation. We are to stay in place unless there is an evacuation order, or unless the fire is actually in our area and we need to escape it.
There are other emergemcy drills – for instance, the disappearance of an infant from the nursery – when we are ecpected to perform even more police-like activities, such as stopping public traffic through certain corriders and preventing people from exiting through others.
I am not particularly comfortable about this. But I do it.
How potent is a bomb threat to a variety store, anyway? Not just Wal-Mart, but Target, K-Mart or Sam’s Club either? They don’t have strategic importance, like a hospital or a government building. They’re only one story high and spread out, so there’s a limit to how much physical damage could be done (unless the bomb was placed near flammable items) to the store itself. And there probably wouldn’t be that many people within range on an average day in July; shelves would probably absorb much of the impact.
A lot of people were injured in the Olympic Park bombing because there were so many of them milling around in one spot. And I remember a couple of bombings of Harrod’s in the '80s (one IRA, one eco-terrorists), but they took place during the Christmas season, when the stores were presumably crowded. But some random Wal-Mart? Sure, you don’t want even one person hurt, or even minor damage to the property, but it would hardly have been the Murrah Building.
It could be something like a former employee or an anti-corporation protester trying to get attention. Just sayin’.
Robin
My uncle did something similar during the 80s in Northern Ireland. Incendiary devices amongst rows of clothes were quite effective, so shop owners would sometimes look for them after police warnings.
Even during more pleasant times about four years ago all of us in the company I worked with on placement were given sheets of questions we were to ask anyone phoning us a bomb threat. They ranged from the obvious (where is the bomb) to the silly (so where are you right now anyway?)
I’ve always wished I’d used my “may I help you” voice and asked, “What was your name, Sir?”
It is rumored that sometimes they answer.
Whereas you never give us a chance to forget what a dumbass cumstain you are. Thanks, I guess.
I disagree. Hardly any time at all. 