Thread: WalMart redux
View Single Post
  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
Charles Self
 
Posts: n/a
Default WalMart redux


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On 3 Dec 2005 12:52:17 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Charlie
Self" quickly quoth:

I read a story in today's Roanoke paper that says a Tampa, FL WalMart
managed to stick its footsies in the fire again. The store staff
checked ID--driver's license, business card, a call to the company
accountant--for a human resources manager for GAF, but decided to hold
on to his $13,600 company check, and the 530+ WM gift cards he'd had
pre-printed for his employees, while they called the cops. When the
cops got there, one of them grabbed the guy, and told them, "We need to
see about that forged check you brought in here."

The HR manager is black. The check is good.

It was spent at Target, according to the story.

I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's legal
stove with this one, and sues the living **** out of the deputy and the
municipality for which acts as a paid thug.


A definite injustice was done, but hoping that a city and a
corporation get sued for something that an employee of each
did to the poor guy is simply NOT the way to fix it, Charlie.
The person who called the cops/got the guy arrested and, if
warranted, the cop, should be held responsible, not the companies
they work for. That's just downright idiotic.

You shouldn't be able to sue a gun manufacturer for something some
asshole might have done with a gun in Boston or 'Bama, either.

Shame on you for that type of thinking. Lawsuits hurt EVERYONE!
Well, except for the insurance companies and lawyers who all charge
their highest rates for the privilege.

Go wash your mind out with soap.


No chance. If the companies and towns didn't hire these assholes, they'd
have no power to make the messes they do. If it costs the companies and
towns enough money, they might actual spend more than 22K a year for a
manager.

Lawsuits do NOT hurt everyone unless the lawsuits are frivolous. I see no
frivolity here.