Thank you for replying but my rant about the’“five-page debate about semantics” was in response to jacobsta811, who was quibbling over the meaning of “locked in.” Didn’t you notice my earlier post, and running coach’s later one, refuting your suggestion that people were “making stuff up” about Walmart employees being locked in? Do you now admit that no one was “making stuff up”?
I think I covered it in the last post. So the question is whethre you are going to be a stickler for semantics, and only interpret ‘making up’ as from whole cloth, something which absolutely never happened, as opposed to citing one case of people being locked in a store, ten years ago, and a big company settling routine
overtime claims to avoid litigation, as being of any real substance for a company that size.
But again it gets back to the point I’ve made twice. If you don’t want to shop someplace because of one particular incident years ago, or because a labor relations lawyer thought they could get a settlement out of a company over some claim (do you have any idea how common that is, for all kinds of stuff?), go ahead. If it’s going to be presented as a reason for a government coercion solution, then I’ll repeat, I’ll stick with ‘made up’, as far as being substantive in that context.