Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"cjt" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"notbob" wrote
Hey, when you've got more money than god. what's a few legal fees. I
doubt they give a flying crap about other nuisance suits. It's just a
simple exercise in power. They have more money than they can possible
use, so what else can they do for chuckles. Howzabout flex some muscle
and see who we can make flinch. Oooh... lookee!! The US government!
Jinkies.

nb

Evidently you do not own a business that has been sued.

I'm glad someone has the resources and courage to stop some of the
crap that goes on every day with illegitimate claims.

Who says it's an illegitimate claim? Or have you prejudged (as in
prejudice) it?

I'm not talking about any one particular claim, but I've seen many over
the years. I've been involved in defending them for companies I've
worked for and I know people that have made them. Sure, there are some
where a business really is negligent, but there are many more that are
not. Same with Workman's Comp, SS disability etc.

I think it's pretty hard to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that
has no merit, particularly for a percentage, and most people won't put
their own money into legal fees unless they think they have a real cause
of action.

Jim Yanik posted for all of us...

So,I find it humorous that a FedGov employee is complaining about getting
dragged into court.


I think of another word...

--
Tekkie Don't bother to thank me, I do this as a public service.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Larry" wrote:


Unfortunately, you're correct, common sense by management in the work
place
will never be a regulation. Geez, if you have thousands of people
waiting
for the doors to open, who needs any type of crowd control, when you
have a
minimum wage worker told to open the doors. Management should set the
example, and have the CEO open them, without any type of crowd control
support.

And how many WalMarts had been opened on Black Friday for how many
years with nary an injury, let alone a fatality? How many since?

Bet you'd feel differently if someone in your family was this person.

There's no excuse for their reckless, disregard for human life, no matter
how many stores they open.

"cjt" wrote
I think it's pretty hard to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that
has no merit, particularly for a percentage, and most people won't put
their own money into legal fees unless they think they have a real cause
of action.

The problem is, it is too easy to get a settlement from the company or their
insurance carrier. Write a few letters and get 40% of the settlement is
not hard to take. The lawyers judges, insurance adjusters are all part of
the same club. Then you have the guy with a modest claim and a sore toe
that wants $10,000 or disability for life.

Top that off with jurors that are typical working class that think every
business is out to screw every consumer. They award the really big
settlements.

"Larry" wrote in message
...

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Larry" wrote:


Unfortunately, you're correct, common sense by management in the work
place
will never be a regulation. Geez, if you have thousands of people
waiting
for the doors to open, who needs any type of crowd control, when you
have a
minimum wage worker told to open the doors. Management should set the
example, and have the CEO open them, without any type of crowd control
support.

And how many WalMarts had been opened on Black Friday for how many
years with nary an injury, let alone a fatality? How many since?

Bet you'd feel differently if someone in your family was this person.

There's no excuse for their reckless, disregard for human life, no matter
how many stores they open.

Of course their isn't, but do you think it was a reckless, disregard for
human life that caused this? The man was killed by a bunch of greedy
customers that wanted to be sure they grabbed the bargains. While it is
easy to look back and see ways to prevent this from happening, I'm sure the
store manager did not look at the situation and say "he may get killed, but
so what, we need the customers"

Just as the automobile was on the road for 60 or 70 years before someone
thought it would be a good idea to use set belts, store openings have been
happening for decades with no deaths so no one really though to take
excessive measures to prevent one. I'd hardly call it reckless disregard.

On Jul 22, 9:49*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"cjt" wrote

I think it's pretty hard to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that
has no merit, particularly for a percentage, and most people won't put
their own money into legal fees unless they think they have a real cause
of action.

The problem is, it is too easy to get a settlement from the company or their
insurance carrier. * Write a few letters and get 40% of the settlement is
not hard to take. The lawyers judges, insurance adjusters are all part of
the same club. *Then you have the guy with a modest claim and a sore toe
that wants $10,000 or disability for life.

Top that off with jurors that are typical working class that think every
business is out to screw every consumer. *They award the really big
settlements.

Or look at every plaintiff as someone who's just won the Magabux.

On 07/22/10 06:38 pm, notbob wrote:

I think it's pretty hard to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that
has no merit.....

Even harder to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that has no
assets!!

The rot set in when lawyers were allowed to

(a) advertise (time was when a lawyer who advertised was "struck off" by
the bar association);

(b) take cases on a contingency basis instead of telling potential
clients, "My fee will be $x, plus expenses, which could be as much as $y
-- and if you lose, you will have to pay the defendant's costs as well."

*and* when

unsuccessful plaintiffs were no longer held liable for a successful
defendant's costs; see (b) above.

Perce

On Jul 23, 6:54*am, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 07/22/10 06:38 pm, notbob wrote:

I think it's pretty hard to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that
has no merit.....
Even harder to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that has no
assets!! *

The rot set in when lawyers were allowed to

(a) advertise (time was when a lawyer who advertised was "struck off" by
the bar association);

(b) take cases on a contingency basis instead of telling potential
clients, "My fee will be $x, plus expenses, which could be as much as $y
-- and if you lose, you will have to pay the defendant's costs as well."

*and* when

unsuccessful plaintiffs were no longer held liable for a successful
defendant's costs; see (b) above.

Perce

Yep. 'contingency' is win/win for any lawyer. Lose and you are out
some time, win and you win big. Even in this sparsely populated area
the sleaze lawyers file cases that have no merit.

Example. Suicidal subject with PU on side of deserted road. Has
weapon. Cops surround him. Negotiations go on most of night.
Brother arrives trys to convince him to drop the weapon. Finally
subject points weapons at cop, Cops fire two shots and drop the guy.
Sleaze bag lawyer files 'wrongful death suit' the next day. Last I
heard the case is still open several years later. Whitman Co,
Washington state. Sorry, I don't recall the name anymore (used to be
a dispatcher).

Harry K

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Larry" wrote in message
...

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Larry" wrote:


Unfortunately, you're correct, common sense by management in the work
place
will never be a regulation. Geez, if you have thousands of people
waiting
for the doors to open, who needs any type of crowd control, when you
have a
minimum wage worker told to open the doors. Management should set the
example, and have the CEO open them, without any type of crowd control
support.

And how many WalMarts had been opened on Black Friday for how many
years with nary an injury, let alone a fatality? How many since?

Bet you'd feel differently if someone in your family was this person.

There's no excuse for their reckless, disregard for human life, no
matter how many stores they open.

Of course their isn't, but do you think it was a reckless, disregard for
human life that caused this? The man was killed by a bunch of greedy
customers that wanted to be sure they grabbed the bargains. While it is
easy to look back and see ways to prevent this from happening, I'm sure
the store manager did not look at the situation and say "he may get
killed, but so what, we need the customers"

Being it was a temporary worker, and WalMart did not have any training
sessions for crowd control. It's pretty much self-explanatory.



Just as the automobile was on the road for 60 or 70 years before someone
thought it would be a good idea to use set belts, store openings have
been happening for decades with no deaths so no one really though to take
excessive measures to prevent one. I'd hardly call it reckless
disregard.

Nonsense, crowd control has been around for a long time, their failure to
use it, is their fault.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Larry" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Larry" wrote:


Unfortunately, you're correct, common sense by management in the work
place
will never be a regulation. Geez, if you have thousands of people
waiting
for the doors to open, who needs any type of crowd control, when you
have a
minimum wage worker told to open the doors. Management should set the
example, and have the CEO open them, without any type of crowd
control
support.

And how many WalMarts had been opened on Black Friday for how many
years with nary an injury, let alone a fatality? How many since?

Bet you'd feel differently if someone in your family was this person.

There's no excuse for their reckless, disregard for human life, no
matter
how many stores they open.

My point being that until that happened no one foresaw the problem.
If you had such precognition and did not pass it along, then perhaps
they should sue YOU for negligence.

I wasn't there, I couldn't see how large the crowd was. Odd you believe I
could look in a crystal ball from here. You statement is really foolish. I
shouldn't even acknowledge your mind set, but didn't want to appear rude.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Larry wrote:

And how many WalMarts had been opened on Black Friday for how many
years with nary an injury, let alone a fatality? How many since?

Bet you'd feel differently if someone in your family was this person.

Yeah, but chances are he wasn't related to me or you. So, ask yourself
next time you're in line, "am I better off..."


There's no excuse for their reckless, disregard for human life, no
matter how many stores they open.

Nonsense. Walmart's motto is "Save money, live better"! They WANT their
customers to live better lives because, for no other reason, dead people
don't buy stuff.

Good God, an actual troll. Granted I should've taken others advice that
you're a troll. However, wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. They
were right, I was wrong.

"Larry" wrote Of course their isn't, but do you think it
was a reckless, disregard for
human life that caused this? The man was killed by a bunch of greedy
customers that wanted to be sure they grabbed the bargains. While it is
easy to look back and see ways to prevent this from happening, I'm sure
the store manager did not look at the situation and say "he may get
killed, but so what, we need the customers"

Being it was a temporary worker, and WalMart did not have any training
sessions for crowd control. It's pretty much self-explanatory.

I don't think we know enough about the situation yet to draw that
conclusion. If the store is partly liable, the animals that wre outside the
door are equally or more liable for their unruly behavior. There should be
arrests made.



Nonsense, crowd control has been around for a long time, their failure to
use it, is their fault.

Store openings have been around just as long. Whatever measures they've
used for decades has worked in the past so it was deemed adequate.
Obviously, something more was needed in this case, but to call it reckless
disregard is over the top.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Larry" wrote Of course their isn't, but do you think
it was a reckless, disregard for
human life that caused this? The man was killed by a bunch of greedy
customers that wanted to be sure they grabbed the bargains. While it
is easy to look back and see ways to prevent this from happening, I'm
sure the store manager did not look at the situation and say "he may
get killed, but so what, we need the customers"

Being it was a temporary worker, and WalMart did not have any training
sessions for crowd control. It's pretty much self-explanatory.

I don't think we know enough about the situation yet to draw that
conclusion. If the store is partly liable, the animals that wre outside
the door are equally or more liable for their unruly behavior. There
should be arrests made.

Actually Ed, we do know. There are several articles stating it was a
temporary seasonal worker. WalMart had this person open the doors, because
they were as big as a linebacker. WalMart did not provide any special
clothes/vests etc, so people would know these were WalMart employees.

Businesses have an obligation for employees to have safe working
conditions. If special training is needed, businesses should hire the
appropriate personnel, or provide training. You of all people should know
this.






Nonsense, crowd control has been around for a long time, their failure
to use it, is their fault.

Store openings have been around just as long. Whatever measures they've
used for decades has worked in the past so it was deemed adequate.
Obviously, something more was needed in this case, but to call it
reckless disregard is over the top.

Don't know about that. WalMart thought it was over the top, when they got
hit with $49 million for disposing of Hazardous Waste in a reckless manner.
They had to pay it.

WalMart has a history of thumbing it's nose at regulations, treating women
differently, and several other employment violations. It's no secret, look
it up.

"Larry" wrote in message
...



Businesses have an obligation for employees to have safe working
conditions. If special training is needed, businesses should hire the
appropriate personnel, or provide training. You of all people should know
this.

I do know that. What was not known or anticipated, however, was the amount
of training needed or danger the employee was in. What I do not understand
is that how you can call it "reckless disregard." In hindsight, of course
it is obvious more should have been done, but historically, it was not
needed in thousands of store openings around the country for many years.
Does Sear or Target offer special training for door openers? .

On 7/23/2010 7:00 PM, cjt wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"cjt" wrote
I think it's pretty hard to find a lawyer who will take on a suit that
has no merit, particularly for a percentage, and most people won't put
their own money into legal fees unless they think they have a real cause
of action.

The problem is, it is too easy to get a settlement from the company or
their insurance carrier. Write a few letters and get 40% of the
settlement is not hard to take. The lawyers judges, insurance
adjusters are all part of the same club. Then you have the guy with a
modest claim and a sore toe that wants $10,000 or disability for life.

Top that off with jurors that are typical working class that think
every business is out to screw every consumer. They award the really
big settlements.

Where do you suppose they get such ideas? Maybe from personal experience
with businesses that screwed them?


Sure, unfortunately in people's minds honest small to medium businesses
get mixed together with the pirates (and it doesn't help that the
pirates and folks in the government are holding hands) so the result is
lots of businesses are paying for the bad behavior of others when they
get tagged with phony lawsuits.

It's not a perfect system, but there are many vocal advocates for
swinging the pendulum way too far the other way, IMHO.

On 7/23/2010 10:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Larry" wrote Of course their isn't, but do you think
it was a reckless, disregard for
human life that caused this? The man was killed by a bunch of greedy
customers that wanted to be sure they grabbed the bargains. While it
is easy to look back and see ways to prevent this from happening, I'm
sure the store manager did not look at the situation and say "he may
get killed, but so what, we need the customers"

Being it was a temporary worker, and WalMart did not have any training
sessions for crowd control. It's pretty much self-explanatory.

I don't think we know enough about the situation yet to draw that
conclusion. If the store is partly liable, the animals that wre outside
the door are equally or more liable for their unruly behavior. There
should be arrests made.

But big box places know their customers and are also notorious about
being understaffed with minimally trained folks. They are clearly the
ones who set the stage. Its not like this was a surprise that there
could be a stampeding herd. Group behavior is a well know thing. Thats
why they put panic hardware on exit doors for example.




Nonsense, crowd control has been around for a long time, their failure
to use it, is their fault.

Store openings have been around just as long. Whatever measures they've
used for decades has worked in the past so it was deemed adequate.
Obviously, something more was needed in this case, but to call it
reckless disregard is over the top.

In article ,
"Larry" wrote:



Actually Ed, we do know. There are several articles stating it was a
temporary seasonal worker. WalMart had this person open the doors, because
they were as big as a linebacker. WalMart did not provide any special
clothes/vests etc, so people would know these were WalMart employees.
I was going to make some snide comment about these guys were inside
locked doors and the other people were outside which should have given
them a clue as to those inside being WalMart employees. But then I
realized we were talking WalMart.....

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

"George" wrote

Nonsense, crowd control has been around for a long time, their failure
to use it, is their fault.

Store openings have been around just as long. Whatever measures they've
used for decades has worked in the past so it was deemed adequate.
Obviously, something more was needed in this case, but to call it
reckless disregard is over the top.


Maybe your are correct. I'm sure you have statistics to bear this out. How
many store clerks have been trampled to death in the past five or ten years?

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2010-07-24, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Maybe your are correct. I'm sure you have statistics to bear this out.
How
many store clerks have been trampled to death in the past five or ten
years?

How many employees have been trampled to death while working for
Walmart on Black Friday while wearing normal street clothes after
driving a Ford Taurus, wearing glasses, between the age of 22 and 33,
and living within a 10 mile radius of the store? What horse crap

so, you don't know the answer.



People have been trampled to death by crowds for centuries.

Yes, crowds should be outlawed


Seems
like I've heard on the news of someone, somewhere, being trampled and
severely injured or killed at some store having an post holiday
discount sale almost every freakin' year since I was old enough to pay
attention. For Walmart, or anyone for that matter, to act like this
never even entered the realm of possiblity is not only just plain
ludicrous, but so unbelievable as to destroy all credibility.

Your opinion based on what you think has happened, but not backed up with
facts.


Black
Friday is notorious ...nay, legendary.... for its hostile crowds
beating the crap out of each other to get a stupid piece of junk.
It's not even the first time Walmart has been in the news over
stampede injuries sustained on its premises. You think they are not
aware of the danger? Nobody is that stupid. It's coldly calculated
hysteria, purposely planned for the exact crowd resonse they acheive.


You think Wal Mart is behind the crowds? No, the idiots form themselves,
although the stores probably do take some satisfaction in the publicity in
garners.

I dare you to argue otherwise.

I just did

On 2010-07-25, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I just did

A river in Egypt is da' Nile.

nb

"Evan" wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 2:46 pm, "Robert Green" wrote:


You must either have a judge or a lawyer in the family. The description is
spot on. The only quibble I have is that yes, you will get a free
attorney,
but like anything free, you get what you pay for. Apparently, the Supreme
Court considers even a sleeping legal aid attorney "adequate counsel"

Nope... No judge, no lawyer... Just four years of criminal justice
classes in college...

More than most.

You are quibbling over those 10% of cases that actually go to trial
then, as 90% of cases are either dropped/dismissed or plea bargained out...

Yes, but, consider who advises those people to plead out. PDs or Legal Aid.
Imagine this. You are arrested for a murder *you* know you didn't do (play
along all you "they wouldn't arrest them if they weren't guilty" adherents).
You know now the system is capable of pretty serious errors. You're in
shock.

First they tell you that you could get 20 to life for the crime and let that
sink in. Then, your PD says instead of 20 years, they are offering you 1
year that's really going to be only six months due to overcrowding (which
they explain in detail to you). You have no money for a good attorney and
your Legal Aid lawyer has no resources to mount a trial should you opt to
not take the deal. Now, you are told about the maximum risk you face should
you go to trial in the same detail they explained the minimum to you.
They'll tell you that doing hard time is nothing like the county lockup
you've seen so far. Now there will be plenty of rightfully guilty people
taking those pleas and it's rare that they get 1st degree murder arrests
wrong, but it's happened and will happen again. The Atlanta bomber and the
Anthrax mailer initial suspects turned out to be innocent. Pretty high
profile errors, indeed.

People that already have a record aren't much punished by re-arrests. It's
the first arrest and conviction that does damage and that's something Legal
Aid does not explain well to its clients overall. That won't change unless
lawyers, in exchange for their licenses to steal, have to do a mandatory 2
year stint as public defenders before they are granted their full license to
practice. Imagine, all lawyers having to deal with the salt of the earth
before moving on to Saville Row suits, Mercedes and $600 an hour billing
rates. Ha, imagine world peace. Just as likely.

Arrest is a binary system - once you have a rap sheet, you're tainted goods.
Not enough parents explain to their kids how important it is to avoid
getting arrested for any reason. No good comes of it, but much bad can.
When I studied crim, I believe the stats were 1/2 of all American males
would be arrested at least once by age 35. For minorities it soared to
something like 2/3s, but much of that is attributable to other factors,
especially poverty.

Anyway, the moments between when a friend or family member is "picked up"
and when they are legally placed under arrest are as important to your legal
health as is a good *nearby* ER is to your medical health when you're having
a stroke (time=brain). The first few hours is when it's time to have a
well-known, local heavyweight lawyer weigh in on your side. Getting
arrested for something you didn't do is a pretty traumatic experience. A
federal jury awarded that "person of interest" $5.8 mil in the anthrax case.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun...n/na-anthrax28

Even the FBI gets it wrong, sometimes.

Anyone out there who's been falsely arrested knows that it's a psychic
earthquake. All our family members carry cards with names of multiple,
locally recognizable attorneys and instructions to call them before any
questioning takes place and to physically hand the card to an investigator
during an attempt at questioning.

Some diehards will laugh but it's what you do first that determines the
outcome. Cops just don't like having defendant lawyers there at every step
in the process because they know the lawyers are looking for any tiny
infraction to try to impeach them should it go to trial. An expensive
attorney appearing early in the process assures that the case will very
likely go to trial. That can cause the police and or DA/SA to re-evaluate
their case. I am sure they would have arrested the mom in the Jon Benet
Ramsey case had the Ramseys had not wedged lawyers in that process as early
as humanly possible. Heck, a lot of people learned from that case that you
can absolutely refuse to answer or even see the police about almost
anything.

You get your free lawyer appointed for you at your arraignment if you do
not have your own counsel arranged at that point...

Sometimes that appointee is a regular old trial (hopefully) lawyer being
asked (well, told) to accept low state reimbursement rates. He then often
does a job commensurate with his sudden reduction in fees. It's only human
nature.

So my gut feeling is that people who can afford good lawyers get good
outcomes more often than the people who can't afford good counsel. As the
saying goes: "Justice may be blind, but she can sure smell money."

Right... In my area of the country some "mid level" lawyers with good
reputations even have "menus" meaning a certain type of case will
cost x-amount of money to take on plus billable hours...

We call them McLawyers. "Will you have fries with that uncontested
divorce?" In some ways, that's actually good for the clients. I know of
many, many people who didn't realize how fast billable hours stack up until
they got the huge bill.

Fortunately, every once in a while even the best lawyers money can buy
won't
be able to help if you're as weird and despicable as Phil Spector. It took
a second trial to nail him because he was so rich, but they got around to
eventually. Sadly, when someone like that fights the system as hard as he
did (like Walmart) we all pay because the government has to match the
defendant's experts and "papering" point by point or risk being
"outlawyered" and losing the case.

How is pushing the government to defend its position on some sort of
administrative law which was not written by anyone you elected to
office . . .

Most laws these days are written by lobbyists. That's how ex-Senator
Hollings got his name "Senator Disney" . . . by pushing for changes to the
copyright law written by them (actually a cabal of similar corporations)
that benefitted them. These multi-million dollar judgements awarded against
song-sharing grannies are showing just how much companies stacked the deck
in their favor with the DMCA.

. . . nor are the people who wrote such administrative law easily
influenced by anyone which you could realistically approach like a US
Representative or US Senator...

If you have anywhere near the clout with your reps that Disney or BP does,
then you are one powerful SOB, Evan! (-:

Making the government defend its positions on administrative law makes its
future application more
transparent and understandable by those outside of the agency involved just
like case law in the other courts makes civil or criminal laws easier for
some people to understand how the laws apply in the legal situations at bar
and what your responsibilities are in such a situation if you were to ever
find yourself in it...

*IF* that's what's happening. But I doubt it. Wal-Mart is more likely be
doing a variation of what for years has been known as a "strike suit"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_suit

with the purpose not really being to win or lose, but to drag the opponent
"over the hurdles" with so many motions, depositions, hearing, reviews,
appeals, etc. that they are literally "papered to death."

It makes sense, that Wal-mart, one of the country's largest employers, is
flexing its muscle because it is large enough to basically say "we can
absorb the costs of a protracted legal battle better than you can." As
someone else noted, IBM stalled for ten years, Exxon stalled for more than
twenty. Wal-mart is trying to make itself poisonous to regulators. "Dare
to fine us and we will fight you into the poor house." That's the part that
I think is bad for us because the Feds *have* to expend whatever it takes -
and more - to discourage that kind of challenge.

I would guess from what I read that this method was in play by BP to hold
off Federal regulators from enforcing any sanctions against them - they were
fighting regulation just like Wal-mart. Let's hope Wal-Mart doesn't explode
as a result, but stampedes can kill a lot more than one person.

From what I recall from reading about the original stampede, the issue
here's quite like the scalding hot McD's coffee. Wal-mart knew from past
experience that Black Friday sales crowds have stampeded before. A death
was a reasonable outcome of them offering incredibly low sale prices to a
unusually large-sized crowd without providing for an orderly means of
entrance to the store. Stadiums, theaters and other venues that frequently
deal with a crush of patrons have all developed standard means of crowd and
entry control (rope, barriers, numbered tickets, etc). Wal-mart was
experienced enough at the corporate level to have foreseen an issue with
crowd control but they failed to act responsibly.

It was a foreseeable event. For instance, shouting fire in a crowded
theater comes with a reasonable expectation of a stampede. If you yell it
out in a real fire, you could be saving lives. If there's no fire, you
could easily kill someone.

--
Bobby G.

On 7/24/2010 11:35 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"George" wrote

Nonsense, crowd control has been around for a long time, their failure
to use it, is their fault.

Store openings have been around just as long. Whatever measures they've
used for decades has worked in the past so it was deemed adequate.
Obviously, something more was needed in this case, but to call it
reckless disregard is over the top.


Maybe your are correct. I'm sure you have statistics to bear this out.
How many store clerks have been trampled to death in the past five or
ten years?

I see your point. Walmart was just fine tuning their process to minimize
employee cost and things happen. So an occasional death is really OK
because it is a good trade off vs having sufficient properly trained
employees.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



. . . nor are the people who wrote such administrative law easily
influenced by anyone which you could realistically approach like a US
Representative or US Senator...

If you have anywhere near the clout with your reps that Disney or BP does,
then you are one powerful SOB, Evan! (-:

Those who right the administrative law are often putting in time
until they can jump to those they administratively wrote laws effecting.
I wonder why nobody thinks that those who right the administratively law
are less easily influenced. Maybe less directly, but the thought of
employment at big bucks often wanders through the process.



Making the government defend its positions on administrative law makes its
future application more
transparent and understandable by those outside of the agency involved just
like case law in the other courts makes civil or criminal laws easier for
some people to understand how the laws apply in the legal situations at bar
and what your responsibilities are in such a situation if you were to ever
find yourself in it...

And administrative law types can get it wrong too. Courts have
often overturned administrative rules because they went past what was
written by Congress, it was unconstitutional, etc.



--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

"George" wrote

Maybe your are correct. I'm sure you have statistics to bear this out.
How many store clerks have been trampled to death in the past five or
ten years?

I see your point. Walmart was just fine tuning their process to minimize
employee cost and things happen. So an occasional death is really OK
because it is a good trade off vs having sufficient properly trained
employees.

So, you don't have numbers either. Making up "an occasional death" is
conjecture on your part, not fact. Let's deal with facts here.

On 7/25/2010 10:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"George" wrote

Maybe your are correct. I'm sure you have statistics to bear this out.
How many store clerks have been trampled to death in the past five or
ten years?

I see your point. Walmart was just fine tuning their process to
minimize employee cost and things happen. So an occasional death is
really OK because it is a good trade off vs having sufficient properly
trained employees.

So, you don't have numbers either. Making up "an occasional death" is
conjecture on your part, not fact. Let's deal with facts here.

I guess I didn't realize that you have decided this is a deposition or
some other legal proceeding and sworn testimony is required.

I just thought it was a discussion group where folks could make
reasonable observations and comments such as I did.

"George" wrote in message
...
On 7/25/2010 10:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"George" wrote

Maybe your are correct. I'm sure you have statistics to bear this out.
How many store clerks have been trampled to death in the past five or
ten years?

I see your point. Walmart was just fine tuning their process to
minimize employee cost and things happen. So an occasional death is
really OK because it is a good trade off vs having sufficient properly
trained employees.

So, you don't have numbers either. Making up "an occasional death" is
conjecture on your part, not fact. Let's deal with facts here.

I guess I didn't realize that you have decided this is a deposition or
some other legal proceeding and sworn testimony is required.

I just thought it was a discussion group where folks could make reasonable
observations and comments such as I did.

Opinions are welcome, but others have made statements as if they were fact
but had nothing to back it up. "Reckless disregard" was what I took issue
with. As a mature adult, do you think your comment about "an occasional
death is really OK" is true? Was it said in humor?

My point is, Wal Mart certainly did not anticipate the death of a store
employee and did not intentionally disregard it or lump it in with the cost
of doing business.

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"George" wrote in message
...
On 7/25/2010 10:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"George" wrote

Maybe your are correct. I'm sure you have statistics to bear this out.
How many store clerks have been trampled to death in the past five or
ten years?

I see your point. Walmart was just fine tuning their process to
minimize employee cost and things happen. So an occasional death is
really OK because it is a good trade off vs having sufficient properly
trained employees.

So, you don't have numbers either. Making up "an occasional death" is
conjecture on your part, not fact. Let's deal with facts here.

I guess I didn't realize that you have decided this is a deposition or
some other legal proceeding and sworn testimony is required.

I just thought it was a discussion group where folks could make reasonable
observations and comments such as I did.

Opinions are welcome, but others have made statements as if they were fact
but had nothing to back it up. "Reckless disregard" was what I took issue
with. As a mature adult, do you think your comment about "an occasional
death is really OK" is true? Was it said in humor?

My point is, Wal Mart certainly did not anticipate the death of a store
employee and did not intentionally disregard it or lump it in with the cost
of doing business.

Ah, hell, what's a person here or there? 19 people were just trampled to
death at a Love Parade, for christ's sake. Misanthropy wouldn't be so
rampant if it weren't so well founded.

On 7/25/2010 2:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"George" wrote in message
...
On 7/25/2010 10:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"George" wrote

Maybe your are correct. I'm sure you have statistics to bear this out.
How many store clerks have been trampled to death in the past five or
ten years?

I see your point. Walmart was just fine tuning their process to
minimize employee cost and things happen. So an occasional death is
really OK because it is a good trade off vs having sufficient properly
trained employees.

So, you don't have numbers either. Making up "an occasional death" is
conjecture on your part, not fact. Let's deal with facts here.

I guess I didn't realize that you have decided this is a deposition or
some other legal proceeding and sworn testimony is required.

I just thought it was a discussion group where folks could make
reasonable observations and comments such as I did.

Opinions are welcome, but others have made statements as if they were
fact but had nothing to back it up. "Reckless disregard" was what I took
issue with. As a mature adult, do you think your comment about "an
occasional death is really OK" is true? Was it said in humor?

No humor and not unheard of. One thing that comes to mind is the Ford
fuel tank shields. This is some time back but a more than usual number
of fatalities were happening in rear end accidents when fuel tanks
exploded. It turns out that Ford simply omitted the part as a calculated
risk. The backup was produced and it clearly showed that where they had
estimated how many deaths would occur and the cost for that vs the cost
of the fuel tank shield. It was cheaper to have people die so that's why
the tank shields were omitted in production.



My point is, Wal Mart certainly did not anticipate the death of a store
employee and did not intentionally disregard it or lump it in with the
cost of doing business.

You are interested in facts so how exactly do you know this?

And just so you understand my position. I am a pro business pro
capitalism person. One of the biggest influences on me was a guy I
worked for in my first really responsible job. He was smart, had a keen
sense of business and did well financially. I always remember his words
"the other guy has to eat". Simply put you don't give money away but you
don't duel to the death of the other party when in a position to do so.
Walmart doesn't represent any of that in any way shape or form.

In article ,
George wrote:

One thing that comes to mind is the Ford
fuel tank shields. This is some time back but a more than usual number
of fatalities were happening in rear end accidents when fuel tanks
exploded.

Must be your imagination. We just had a number of a.h.r. experts testify
that fuel tanks can't possibly explode.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
George wrote:

One thing that comes to mind is the Ford
fuel tank shields. This is some time back but a more than usual number
of fatalities were happening in rear end accidents when fuel tanks
exploded.

Must be your imagination. We just had a number of a.h.r. experts testify
that fuel tanks can't possibly explode.

I bet you can get a long string of replies on that too. Did the tank
explode, or did the gas burn after the tank was ruptured.

George wrote:

And just so you understand my position. I am a pro business pro
capitalism person. One of the biggest influences on me was a guy I
worked for in my first really responsible job. He was smart, had a
keen sense of business and did well financially. I always remember
his words "the other guy has to eat". Simply put you don't give money
away but you don't duel to the death of the other party when in a
position to do so. Walmart doesn't represent any of that in any way
shape or form.

If you're talking about Walmart going to the mattresses over a piddly fine,
they've evidently made a calculation that so doing will inoculate them
against future outrages by the government. Same as them never settling
unmerited nuisance suits just because the claim is minor. If they did
settle, they figure, they only incentivize other predators.

On 7/25/2010 11:10 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
George wrote:

One thing that comes to mind is the Ford
fuel tank shields. This is some time back but a more than usual number
of fatalities were happening in rear end accidents when fuel tanks
exploded.

Must be your imagination. We just had a number of a.h.r. experts testify
that fuel tanks can't possibly explode.

I bet you can get a long string of replies on that too. Did the tank
explode, or did the gas burn after the tank was ruptured.

And its a really great escape for a walmart defender...

"Larry" wrote in message
...

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Larry" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Larry" wrote:


Unfortunately, you're correct, common sense by management in the
work
place
will never be a regulation. Geez, if you have thousands of people
waiting
for the doors to open, who needs any type of crowd control, when you
have a
minimum wage worker told to open the doors. Management should set
the
example, and have the CEO open them, without any type of crowd
control
support.

And how many WalMarts had been opened on Black Friday for how many
years with nary an injury, let alone a fatality? How many since?

Bet you'd feel differently if someone in your family was this person.

There's no excuse for their reckless, disregard for human life, no
matter
how many stores they open.

My point being that until that happened no one foresaw the problem.
If you had such precognition and did not pass it along, then perhaps
they should sue YOU for negligence.

I wasn't there, I couldn't see how large the crowd was. Odd you believe I
could look in a crystal ball from here. You statement is really foolish. I
shouldn't even acknowledge your mind set, but didn't want to appear rude.

Larry, you're right on the mark. Wal-mart and MANY other retailers had
indeed seen these sort of stampedes before, especially with these kinds of
prices:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regiona...0Pzla9RuQzyduI (source)

-- $798 Samsung 50-inch Plasma HDTV, a
--- $28 Bissel Compact Upright Vaccum
--- $69 Samsung 10.2 megapixel digital camera
---- $9 for special, current DVDs such as "The Incredible Hulk"

This was the first time someone died but stampedes that cause serious
injuries are nothing new to retailers. They are the logical outcome of
creating first come, first served sales at cost or below that are designed
to create as large a waiting crowd as possible. That's the legal "heart" of
this issue: Crowd control at vendor created events. This stampede was one
of many. Who hasn't seen videos like these (this was a stampede in Grand
Rapids a while back) on the news for *years* now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeSgBL7gpAk

When you assemble a mass of people for whatever reason, you become
responsible for their actions. Riots are nothing new in the law. And the
issue in this particular case isn't really money, according to The New York
Times because Wal-mart's already paid out some big bucks over the death:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/bu...walmart&st=cse

The Times says that the store's already agreed to pay into a $400,000 fund
to compensate those injured and is donating $1.5 million to county programs.
They promise to use better crowd control measures in the nearly 100 stores
in New York state as well. This is all about the drawing of legal lines of
responsibility and what OSHA fines mean to civil litigants. They are trying
to avoid setting precedents. It's the business equivalent of a criminal
defendant refusing to plea bargain and demanding a trial. As someone
pointed out in this thread, the book is indeed "thrown at you" if you refuse
to enter a plea and demand a trial. It will be interesting to see where
Wal-mart's "hard line" attitude takes them.

There isn't much hard data I can find on the number of total stampede
injuries at Black Friday events but there's sure a lot of anecdotal evidence
that proves this is a well-known problem that is handled poorly by some
retailers at least some of the time:

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/0...stampede-fine/

Writer Tom Barlow asks why Wal-Mart would fight a measly $7,000 fine after
spending $2M on the case? He says: "Precedent. In imposing this fine, OSHA
is expanding the interpretation of its mandate. By defining crowd control as
an employee health and safety issue for which retailers have a legal
obligation, it puts a new burden on the shoulders of all Wal-Mart stores, as
well as other retailers. Should more stampedes occur, and they surely will,
the retailers could be fined by OSHA . Their defense in civil suits after
such stampedes could also be weakened."

He quotes a Wal-mart official as saying: "The citation has far reaching
implications for the retail industry that could subject retailers to
unfairly harsh penalties and restrictions on future sales promotions."

More importantly, he added that they've worked with "nationally recognized"
crowd management experts to create a new nationwide plan tailored to the
circumstances of a retail setting.

Here's a picture of the crowd just before the incident occurred:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-conten...t_stampede.jpg

Jdimytai Damour's death got the ball rolling and at least Wal-mart will be
implementing better crowd control measures for the masses of people they
assemble for their business purposes. This was a foreseeable event, not a
spontaneous assemblage of people meeting at the Wal-mart according to a
police investigator:

"Detective Lt. Michael Fleming, who is in charge of the investigation for
the Nassau police, said the store lacked adequate security. He called the
scene "utter chaos" and said the "crowd was out of control." As for those
who had run over the victim, criminal charges were possible, the lieutenant
said. "I've heard other people call this an accident, but it is not," he
said. "Certainly it was a foreseeable act."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/bu...walmart&st=cse

Wal-mart has experienced serious trouble before, but somehow, a contract
manager with no training (apparently) in company policy supervised the event
that got him killed. OSHA has a strong interest in dead workers and they
see a recurring problem in this area. Wal-mart, like all malefactors, would
like to handle it "their way" but when workers die, some decisions are then
taken out of their hands.

Barlow's piece goes on to warn that people should stay away from sales with
large crowds if they don't see "ample signage, designated lines, public
address announcements, tickets or wristbands, defined entry and exit sites,
and sale items dispersed through the store." If you don't, he advises to be
aware "it could get ugly."

That's the bottom line. If you are going to create potential panic
conditions, prepare ahead of time to insure the safety of people coming to
your event. Walmart's mistake has already cost them over $4M and the costs
are nowhere near fully tallied yet.

--
Bobby G.