On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:14:44 GMT, Han wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in news:1133643137.529629.98290
:

[sorry episode snipped]

I agree with your wish of bewns for the HR manager, but I have a thought:
With a $10K limit above which monetary transactions have to be reported
to thwe Feds somewhere somehow, would it not have been wise to call ahead
and see whether a check would be acceptable payment?

This requirement applies only to -cash- transactions. And it doesn't
prohibt the transaction, it only requires that it be reported.

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 20:18:31 -0800, "TeamCasa"
wrote:


"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
That $10,000 limit you refer to applies only to cash deposited or
withdrawn
from a bank. It's an interesting way to try and stop obvious money
laundering.

Doesn't apply to checks, certainly doesn't apply when someone is making a
purchase at a retail store.

John E


Wrong, A form 8300 has to be filed on ALL transactions over $10,000. Cash,
check or combinations of each. If fact, a retailer or banker can not (under
huge penalty) even advise or even hint that a 8300 for will be filed on the
transaction.

Suggest you read this:

http://www.yale.edu/tax/docs/rules_def_8300.pdf

Look at example 2.

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:34:50 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Morris Dovey" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques (in ) said:

| On 3 Dec 2005 12:52:17 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Charlie
| Self" quickly quoth:
|
|| 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.

Not so idiotic as you might think - a manager 'speaks with the voice
of the corporation' (that's how he can hire and fire and direct the
conduct of those reporting to him/her). If that manager makes a legal
faux pas, the organization that granted him the authority to do so is
responsible for his actions.

Although that may be the exact legal definition, there is no such
tight communication in a large corporation such as Wally World.
And unless the corporation approves of and encourages this kind of
stunt, no action should be taken against them. The responsibility
should lie with the perps, not the companies.


| 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.

Unless the shooter was an employee of that manufacturer and encouraged
by them to shoot customers as a part of conducting the company's
business. :-)

Rightio!


| 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.

Except for the "shame on you" part, I agree.

What, you feel that encouraging bad lawsuits should be praised?
Encouraging a change in corporate policy may be in order, though.


Still, Wal-Mart
management issued a false felony accusation (is that libel?) and the
Tampa PD fielded an inadequately trained/screened officer who
preempted judicial powers by assuming guilt without evidence and spoke
falsely of that guilt in a public setting (as an official
representative of the City of Tampa).

?


--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:39:26 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Lew
Hodgett quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques wrote:

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.


A comment like the above reminds me of a story about Paul Brown, the
football coach.

Seems Brown was having a service preformed and the guy screwed up doing
the job.

The guy tried to apologize to Brown;, however, rejected it saying, "It's
not your fault, it's the idiot who hired you."

I couldn't agree more.

Did Brown mean himself or was he referring to the contractor who hired
the guy who screwed up? There's a BIG difference.


--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:38:17 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

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.

Oh, so you're mad at Wally World for low pay rather than potential
bigotry? Interesting.


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

A monetary suit would be frivolous in this case. If there is any
lawsuit, let's hope it forces a corporate/metro policy change so the
idiots don't pull the stunt again.


--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

Hmmmm.......the story could fit the perfromance profile of our
erstwhile FEMA director, good 'ole "Brownie" .........

Mutt

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

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.


A comment like the above reminds me of a story about Paul Brown, the
football coach.

Seems Brown was having a service preformed and the guy screwed up doing
the job.

The guy tried to apologize to Brown;, however, rejected it saying, "It's
not your fault, it's the idiot who hired you."

I couldn't agree more.

Lew

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:15:51 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Fly-by-Night CC quickly quoth:

Note the guy's not some drone off the manufacturing floor, he's an HR
manager. Those people usually dress pretty business-like; at least they
do in my wife's HR office. They're also pretty well versed in
business-like behavior and have decent educations.

But he was on vacation and may have been less well dressed than he
might have been for work. The reports didn't say and there were no
photos that I saw.


It's certainly difficult to tell what really took place from reading an
article but it certainly sounds as though the guy had the ID, supporting
information and a company history with the practice.

Right, picture ID and a business card with his name on it is usually
good enough for all places except banks. The clerk/mgr really hosed it
this time.


What's criminal in all of this is making him stand around in a Walmart
for 2 hours! See? The slippery-slope of making torture acceptable has
trickled down to Wallyworld.

Hey, since torture isn't legal, what say we export some Hormel plants
to Iraq. Unused space on the processing floor could be used to house
rebels.

--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
Although that may be the exact legal definition, there is no such
tight communication in a large corporation such as Wally World.
And unless the corporation approves of and encourages this kind of
stunt, no action should be taken against them. The responsibility
should lie with the perps, not the companies.


WW has been accused of racism often. If it has ever been proven, it would
make a case easy. I'm sure many lawyers will want to take a snipe at them
just for fun though.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:38:17 +0000, Charles Self wrote:

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.

Agreed.

Larry Jaques (in ) said:

| What, you feel that encouraging bad lawsuits should be praised?
| Encouraging a change in corporate policy may be in order, though.

Not at all what I said. I recognize that there are people in this
world for whom "because I can" is sufficient justification for
anything they might want to do. As authority figures in a business
setting (managers), these are the people who demand limitless unpaid
overtime and sexual favors, they're the gropers, the defective
merchandise recyclers, the bait and switch merchants, and the customer
abusers. In a less legalistic society, they'd probably end up beaten
by one of their victims or the victim's family. In our society the
only recourse that minimizes further victimization is through the
courts.

I'm not sure that fairness and justice are always best served by our
courts; but that's what we have to work with. If all you have is a
hammer, then that's how you drive screws. :-(

When one of these low-life types is made an authority figure
(manager), it is the result of a decision made by someone within the
organization who already carries more authority (a higher level
manager, an officer, or a director). In our society we associate
freedom to choose (and especially to make the choices that constitute
the exercise of authority) and responsibility very tightly - as if
they were two sides of a single coin. We have also granted
"personhood" to commercial entities, in order to encompass them within
a legal framework originally designed and evolved for individual
persons.

When a manager commits a misdeed in the corporate context, it is as if
the corporation comitted the misdeed. Any attempt to separate the
manager's responsibility from the corporate responsibility would be
like telling a traffic cop: "Honest, officer, I wasn't speeding - it
was my right foot's fault. I was just along for the ride." To finish
the analogy, a corporation is a person with many feet.

|| Still, Wal-Mart
|| management issued a false felony accusation (is that libel?) and
|| the Tampa PD fielded an inadequately trained/screened officer who
|| preempted judicial powers by assuming guilt without evidence and
|| spoke falsely of that guilt in a public setting (as an official
|| representative of the City of Tampa).
|
| ?

"?" what? The felony allegation on the part of the W-M manager - or
the official status of the cop who presumed (and vocalized his
presumptions) that an innocent man was guilty?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Han wrote:

With a $10K limit above which monetary transactions have to be reported
to thwe Feds somewhere somehow, would it not have been wise to call ahead
and see whether a check would be acceptable payment?

Retailers don't do that reporting. It's a banking function.

Mark & Juanita wrote:


It's probably a bit pre-mature to assume that race was the motivating
factor here. How was the guy dressed? If he was dressed down, is it
possible this was a trigger of suspicion? If a similarly dressed-down
white person had attempted the same thing would the same paranoia have
reigned at Walmart?



I have to agree. I don't think the article gives the entire story.

As a small business owner, for an order of this size, I would have
required that everything related to the purchase was prearranged and
approved, including who the authorized person would be that would be
picking up the order. It looks like many previous orders were
transacted and in this instance the HR manager was a new face. I
suspect this had a major impact on what transpired.


--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:38:17 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

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.

Oh, so you're mad at Wally World for low pay rather than potential
bigotry? Interesting.

Oh, bull****, Larry. It's quite possible to understand that their low pay
draws people who are more likely to be bigoted, or so one would expect. I
sure as hell do, anyway.


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

A monetary suit would be frivolous in this case. If there is any
lawsuit, let's hope it forces a corporate/metro policy change so the
idiots don't pull the stunt again.

And how would you force that? Companies are totally amoral, especially at
that size, so forcing bucks out of their pockets is the ONLY way to do it.
One change would help: make the costs of such lawsuits, including awards,
non-deductible at tax time.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:30:04 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
.. .
On 3 Dec 2005 17:57:02 -0800, "A.M. Wood"
wrote:

"In most cases, transactions this large are handled via purchase
orders, so the fact
someone had shown up with a check that large may have pegged the
suspicion
meter."

Payment is still made by check.

While that is true, it is also true that the checks issued through
purchase orders are issued by the appropriate financial departments of the
company issuing the purchase order and generally sent via mail to the
financial receiving department of the company with whom the purchase order
was placed. In my experience, it would be very unusual for a person to
deliver a check in person.

Say what? This is a frigging Wal-Mart, not a machine shop. It's a low to
lower quality retail store, not some office supplies outfit. I would assume
that the check was issued by GAF's appropriate department. You do NOT mail
checks to a retail store unless it's a mail order store. No mention was made
of a PO, so I have no idea if one was involved. Delivering a check in person
is how we buy at retail stores. It is how probably 50% of Wal-Mart customers
buy. The only discordant note here was the size of the check. The product
had been ordered and printed for the particular employees.



You're missing my point here Charles. While it is true that most Walmart
customers buy via check, it is highly unusual for a *corporation* to issue
a check to an individual to go purchase something. Corporations just don't
work that way. When I buy something for work, I do it in one of three
ways, 1) Tell the admin what I want and she handles all the appropriate
orders and paperwork. :-) That's my preferred method, but sometimes
circumstances like time or other issues don't let me use that method. 2) Go
through one of our buyers who will issue a purchase order and obtain the
item or 3) Use a company-issued AMEX card, purchase the item then turn in a
receipt for reimbursement. There are no cases of which I am aware that
people have actually gotten company checks prior to making a purchase for
the purpose of that purchase.






You mentioned dress: I do not know how the HR manager was dressed, but in
IME, HR types tend to dress up a bit more than other corporate employees,
some of them being almost as natty as Don Guillard at Woodcraft.


I'm not [by any stretch] trying to make excuses for Walmart here. They
bungled this pretty badly. However, I do believe that the circumstances
indicated were certainly unusual enough that it is not strange that this
situation caused the manager to be suspicious. Especially since it would
have been his backside in a sling if he had taken such a large amount and
had it truly be a fraudulent transaction. Obviously none of us can see
into his thoughts or heart, but I certainly wouldn't go crying racism
because of this incident -- the same kind of action could have been taken
toward a company employee of any race. Where the manager bungled this was
by being so quick to call in the police, it almost smacks of
overzealousness with the idea of helping the police capture some notorious
criminal rather than insisting that the HR manager return with appropriate
company ID.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:28:46 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:38:17 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

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.

Oh, so you're mad at Wally World for low pay rather than potential
bigotry? Interesting.

Oh, bull****, Larry. It's quite possible to understand that their low pay
draws people who are more likely to be bigoted, or so one would expect. I
sure as hell do, anyway.


So you buy into the notion that a person's economic class also indicates
that person's tendency toward racism and bigotry? Thus, by that
indication, someone of wealth and standing (such as say a Robert Byrd)
could not possibly be bigoted?





... snip


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:30:04 GMT, "Charles Self"
wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
. ..
On 3 Dec 2005 17:57:02 -0800, "A.M. Wood"

wrote:

"In most cases, transactions this large are handled via purchase
orders, so the fact
someone had shown up with a check that large may have pegged the
suspicion
meter."

Payment is still made by check.

While that is true, it is also true that the checks issued through
purchase orders are issued by the appropriate financial departments of
the
company issuing the purchase order and generally sent via mail to the
financial receiving department of the company with whom the purchase
order
was placed. In my experience, it would be very unusual for a person to
deliver a check in person.

Say what? This is a frigging Wal-Mart, not a machine shop. It's a low to
lower quality retail store, not some office supplies outfit. I would
assume
that the check was issued by GAF's appropriate department. You do NOT mail
checks to a retail store unless it's a mail order store. No mention was
made
of a PO, so I have no idea if one was involved. Delivering a check in
person
is how we buy at retail stores. It is how probably 50% of Wal-Mart
customers
buy. The only discordant note here was the size of the check. The product
had been ordered and printed for the particular employees.



You're missing my point here Charles. While it is true that most Walmart
customers buy via check, it is highly unusual for a *corporation* to issue
a check to an individual to go purchase something. Corporations just
don't
work that way. When I buy something for work, I do it in one of three
ways, 1) Tell the admin what I want and she handles all the appropriate
orders and paperwork. :-) That's my preferred method, but sometimes
circumstances like time or other issues don't let me use that method. 2)
Go
through one of our buyers who will issue a purchase order and obtain the
item or 3) Use a company-issued AMEX card, purchase the item then turn in
a
receipt for reimbursement. There are no cases of which I am aware that
people have actually gotten company checks prior to making a purchase for
the purpose of that purchase.






You mentioned dress: I do not know how the HR manager was dressed, but in
IME, HR types tend to dress up a bit more than other corporate employees,
some of them being almost as natty as Don Guillard at Woodcraft.


I'm not [by any stretch] trying to make excuses for Walmart here. They
bungled this pretty badly. However, I do believe that the circumstances
indicated were certainly unusual enough that it is not strange that this
situation caused the manager to be suspicious. Especially since it would
have been his backside in a sling if he had taken such a large amount and
had it truly be a fraudulent transaction. Obviously none of us can see
into his thoughts or heart, but I certainly wouldn't go crying racism
because of this incident -- the same kind of action could have been taken
toward a company employee of any race. Where the manager bungled this was
by being so quick to call in the police, it almost smacks of
overzealousness with the idea of helping the police capture some notorious
criminal rather than insisting that the HR manager return with appropriate
company ID.

Well, if you get a more complete view of the story, it turns out the woman
who normally does this particular type of errand, in exactly the same
manner, was elsewhere that day. In other words, your idea of who EVERY
corporation MUST do something doesn't hold water.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:41:59 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

So you buy into the notion that a person's economic class also indicates
that person's tendency toward racism and bigotry? Thus, by that
indication, someone of wealth and standing (such as say a Robert Byrd)
could not possibly be bigoted?

In general, hell yes! Of course there are bigoted people in all classes.
But having grown up in the south and then lived in Chicago and in L.A., I
can assure you that the percentage of bigoted individuals goes up as their
income and education goes down.

Has anyone ever considered the morons at wal-mart WILL NOT allow a store
to accept a PO. Means the store has to mail to corp office , notice that
it was not in the normal deposit order. The brains in bentonvill are the
ones who screwed this up. They want cash or check. And for the local
store not to know who their good loyal customers are is un excusable.
And I don't mean the $100 customer. I mean the people who spend 4-5
figure amounts. Are these not the customer you want to protect. Hell
they may even want to kiss their ass.
Also if the mgr was a thinking man he would maybe have sent someone over
to gaf and checked the story out themselves. Hell he had two hrs to
screw this up and he took all two hrs. Also do you think a thief would
stand there for two hrs. Hell he would grab what was on the counter and
took off.But this guy wanted the COMPANY check back or the gift cards.
Sounds like you people defending wal-mart would rather have the manager
for an employee instead of the gaf employee. Also guess the employees
are happy now that they do not have to go to wal-mart. Now how much did
wally and the gang loose? I am sure those of you supporting wal-mart
will spend a few extra dollars to help the bottom line.

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:02:58 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Morris Dovey" quickly quoth:

When a manager commits a misdeed in the corporate context, it is as if
the corporation comitted the misdeed. Any attempt to separate the
manager's responsibility from the corporate responsibility would be
like telling a traffic cop: "Honest, officer, I wasn't speeding - it
was my right foot's fault. I was just along for the ride." To finish
the analogy, a corporation is a person with many feet.

So is it better to sue for many of the funds the corporation owns
or is it better to force the corporation to rid itself of these
idiots? The former increases costs paid by you and me.


"?" what? The felony allegation on the part of the W-M manager - or
the official status of the cop who presumed (and vocalized his
presumptions) that an innocent man was guilty?

OK, I see what you're saying. (Are you a lawyer, perchance?) I thought
you meant that the management made a public statement regarding the
guy. So, do you want to see a high-digit lawsuit against Tampa for
some potentially bigoted/idiot cop's antics? Or would you rather see
him (and his fellow officers) better trained and/or in another line of
work?


--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:28:46 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Oh, so you're mad at Wally World for low pay rather than potential
bigotry? Interesting.

Oh, bull****, Larry. It's quite possible to understand that their low pay
draws people who are more likely to be bigoted, or so one would expect. I
sure as hell do, anyway.

So US Senators (like Byrd) are/were low-paid, eh? Bigotry has no
boundaries when it comes to pay. I know lots of poor non-bigots and
have read about bigoted billionaires. P.S: Your statement there might
be construed to have a bit of bias, too. Careful.


A monetary suit would be frivolous in this case. If there is any
lawsuit, let's hope it forces a corporate/metro policy change so the
idiots don't pull the stunt again.

And how would you force that? Companies are totally amoral, especially at
that size, so forcing bucks out of their pockets is the ONLY way to do it.

Oh, bull****, Morris. A few million $ here and there doesn't
necessarily change a thing in a large company. A court settlement
llowing them to offer classes for their employees in lieu of large
fines might, though. It would probably affect the employees more than
the upper managerial structure.


One change would help: make the costs of such lawsuits, including awards,
non-deductible at tax time.

Agreed.


================================================== ======
TANSTAAFL: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
http://diversify.com Gourmet Web Applications
==========================

Larry Jaques (in ) said:

| On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:02:58 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
| "Morris Dovey" quickly quoth:
|
|| When a manager commits a misdeed in the corporate context, it is
|| as if the corporation comitted the misdeed. Any attempt to
|| separate the manager's responsibility from the corporate
|| responsibility would be like telling a traffic cop: "Honest,
|| officer, I wasn't speeding - it was my right foot's fault. I was
|| just along for the ride." To finish the analogy, a corporation is
|| a person with many feet.
|
| So is it better to sue for many of the funds the corporation owns
| or is it better to force the corporation to rid itself of these
| idiots? The former increases costs paid by you and me.

This is a question each of us needs to consider. For myself alone: I
am willing to pay a share of the cost for those I care about to live
in a free, fair, and just society - and you might be a bit surprised
at the number of people I care about - and by just how much I happen
to care.

|| "?" what? The felony allegation on the part of the W-M manager - or
|| the official status of the cop who presumed (and vocalized his
|| presumptions) that an innocent man was guilty?
|
| OK, I see what you're saying. (Are you a lawyer, perchance?) I
| thought you meant that the management made a public statement
| regarding the guy. So, do you want to see a high-digit lawsuit
| against Tampa for some potentially bigoted/idiot cop's antics? Or
| would you rather see him (and his fellow officers) better trained
| and/or in another line of work?

IANAL. I'm a mathematician/(hardware/software)geek/full-time
woodworker. If you visit the link below you can learn more about me
than you ever wanted to know.

What would /I/ like? Assuming that the newspaper account was accurate:

I'd like Wal-Mart to put their money where their mouth is: I'd like
for them to initiate what IBMers call "charm school" for managers -
where, in addition to the mechanics of running a department or a whole
store, managers are trained in how to be polite and diplomatic with
even the most difficult of customers. I'd like to see Wal-Mart demote
managers who can't "get it" to jobs on the loading dock, where their
opportunity to abuse customers is minimized. I'd like to see one of
Wal-Mart's top execs, together with the errant manager visit Mr Pitts
at his GAF office and offer their apologies in person, and explain to
him the steps that are being taken to prevent similar mistreatment of
customers ever again at any Wal-Mart store.

I'd like for the cop in question to spend an hour with the top person
in the Tampa PD, and then an hour with the Mayor - getting an earful
of the damage that can be done by just the _perception_ of ethnic
discrimination. Then I'd like him to go on unpaid leave long enough to
visit the GAF offices and apologize to Mr Pitts in the presence of Mr
Pitts' boss and co-workers. Then I'd like him returned to duty on
probation with a refresher course in community relations at the police
academy and a public service requirement to spend a minimum of an hour
at each of the Tampa schools working with students/teachers to
eliminate/reduce ethnic tensions (and Tampa does have 'em!). After
these requirements have been satisfactorily completed, I'd like to see
him fully reinstated.

There are significant costs involved. My take is that positive
corrective action is more valuable than monetary penalties. I'm not
interested in seeing Mr Pitts become wealthy at the expense of his
friends and neighbors, and no amount of money can undo what he was put
through. I'd rather that he, his associates at GAF, and his community
see him as a catalyst for positive change in their world.

I have reason to believe that the folks who run Wal-Mart have become
so enraptured by financial success that they've lost sight of the need
for their enterprise to be a good corporate citizen and to participate
constructively in the broader community. Perhaps putting a time limit
on getting all management employees through "charm school" might help
them to re-focus a bit.

I know this isn't terribly well considered and organized, but it's the
best I could do off the top of my head.

Now - aren't you glad you asked? :-)

--
Morris Dovey
http://www.iedu.com/

Larry Jaques (in ) said:

| Oh, bull****, Morris. A few million $ here and there doesn't

*HEY!* That's not me you're responding to...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:42:50 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:28:46 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Oh, so you're mad at Wally World for low pay rather than potential
bigotry? Interesting.

Oh, bull****, Larry. It's quite possible to understand that their low pay
draws people who are more likely to be bigoted, or so one would expect. I
sure as hell do, anyway.

So US Senators (like Byrd) are/were low-paid, eh? Bigotry has no
boundaries when it comes to pay. I know lots of poor non-bigots and
have read about bigoted billionaires. P.S: Your statement there might
be construed to have a bit of bias, too. Careful.



Gee Larry, seems like you and I are both guilty of the same horse@#$%
reasoning. :-) Suspect we'd have gotten whole-hearted buy-in had either
of us used the name Trent Lott. :-)



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

Note the guy's not some drone off the manufacturing floor, he's an HR
manager. Those people usually dress pretty business-like; at least they
do in my wife's HR office. They're also pretty well versed in
business-like behavior and have decent educations.

But he was on vacation and may have been less well dressed than he
might have been for work. The reports didn't say and there were no
photos that I saw.

Are you yankin' my chain, Larry-w/o-C? Just in case you're not and you
were out the day Evelyn Wood covered comprehension...
It wasn't he who was on vacation, it was the white lady who normally
picked up the gift cards who was sunning in Barbados:

"The company, which had $1.6 billion in revenue last year, had been
spending about $50,000 a year on Wal-Mart gift cards and never had a
problem when it sent another employee -- a white, female administrator
who according to The St. Petersburg Times was on vacation that day -- to
pick them up."
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

someone of wealth and standing (such as say a Robert Byrd)
could not possibly be bigoted?

Oh yeah!?! Strom Thurman. So there.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

In article ,
"Morris Dovey" wrote:

What would /I/ like? Assuming that the newspaper account was accurate:
SNIP
I'd like to see one of
Wal-Mart's top execs, together with the errant manager visit Mr Pitts
at his GAF office and offer their apologies in person, and explain to
him the steps that are being taken to prevent similar mistreatment of
customers ever again at any Wal-Mart store.
SNIP
Then I'd like him to go on unpaid leave long enough to
visit the GAF offices and apologize to Mr Pitts in the presence of Mr
Pitts' boss and co-workers.
SNIP
I know this isn't terribly well considered and organized, but it's the
best I could do off the top of my head.

Morris, it certainly sounds like a good solution to me. Isn't this the
"taking personal responsibility" we've been hearing so much about?

In my personal life, I make it a point to personally apologize for
actions with no excuses diluting the apology. My wife and I make our
daughter do the same. If she wrongs someone, she needs to feel some
discomfort while making it right. Own up to the behavior and let the
other person know they are respected with a *no excuses* apology.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05

In article . net,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote:

snip

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.


Some things to remember:

Tampa is headquarters for GAF, or was, last time we did business.

If this event happened during business hours, a simple telephone call by
the appropriate WalMart employee to GAF accounting, would have verified
the validity of the check.

did you _read_ the original posting? They *DID* make a call to GAF's
accounting department. The validity of the check and the person presenting
it *was* verified.

They called the cops _anyway_.

D'oh!


Of course the person placing the telephone call needs to be able to
communicate and understand conversation that has advanced a level or two
beyond Neanderthal.

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Morris Dovey" wrote:

What would /I/ like? Assuming that the newspaper account was accurate:
SNIP
I'd like to see one of
Wal-Mart's top execs, together with the errant manager visit Mr Pitts
at his GAF office and offer their apologies in person, and explain to
him the steps that are being taken to prevent similar mistreatment of
customers ever again at any Wal-Mart store.
SNIP
Then I'd like him to go on unpaid leave long enough to
visit the GAF offices and apologize to Mr Pitts in the presence of Mr
Pitts' boss and co-workers.
SNIP
I know this isn't terribly well considered and organized, but it's the
best I could do off the top of my head.

Morris, it certainly sounds like a good solution to me. Isn't this the
"taking personal responsibility" we've been hearing so much about?

In my personal life, I make it a point to personally apologize for
actions with no excuses diluting the apology. My wife and I make our
daughter do the same. If she wrongs someone, she needs to feel some
discomfort while making it right. Own up to the behavior and let the
other person know they are respected with a *no excuses* apology.
--

I like Morris's concept. It might just have enough corporate and personal
discomfort in it to work. In today's context, though, hurting the pocketbook
is the only thing that comes close to working. And with a company the size
of WalMart, that takes a huge, at least to me, lump of money.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote:

snip

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.


Some things to remember:

Tampa is headquarters for GAF, or was, last time we did business.

If this event happened during business hours, a simple telephone call by
the appropriate WalMart employee to GAF accounting, would have verified
the validity of the check.

did you _read_ the original posting? They *DID* make a call to GAF's
accounting department. The validity of the check and the person
presenting
it *was* verified.

They called the cops _anyway_.

D'oh!


Of course the person placing the telephone call needs to be able to
communicate and understand conversation that has advanced a level or two
beyond Neanderthal.

And, evidently, that manager wasn't. Story continuation has him still
refusing to apologize, even AFTER Bentonville apologized.

Do you think he's looking for a job this morning? He should be. "Would you
like fries with that" is probably a bit above his intellectual capability.

In article ,
SPAM)vasys" "no(SPAM wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:


It's probably a bit pre-mature to assume that race was the motivating
factor here. How was the guy dressed? If he was dressed down, is it
possible this was a trigger of suspicion? If a similarly dressed-down
white person had attempted the same thing would the same paranoia have
reigned at Walmart?



I have to agree. I don't think the article gives the entire story.

As a small business owner, for an order of this size, I would have
required that everything related to the purchase was prearranged and
approved, including who the authorized person would be that would be
picking up the order. It looks like many previous orders were
transacted and in this instance the HR manager was a new face. I
suspect this had a major impact on what transpired.

That _possibly_ justifies calling the corporate offices to confirm.

There is *NO* excuse for what happened -after- the corporate offices
were called, and the check's validity and the bearer's identity were
confirmed by corporate.

When the store refused to either produce the ordered gift cards _or_
to return the check, _I_ would have been on the phone to the police,
and swearing out a complaint for 'grand theft' against the store manager.

As it is, I hope they nail that manager for 'making a false police report',
since said manager *knew* the check was valid/good, having confirmed that
with GAF's accounting department by phone. I suspect that his actions
meet the legal qualifications for 'actual malice', and he is in *deep*
doo-doo, legally. HD, _corporately_, *may* be off the hook for precisely
that reason -- that it was the manager's malice, not corporate policy that
provoked the incident.

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:36:50 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Morris Dovey" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques (in ) said:

| So is it better to sue for many of the funds the corporation owns
| or is it better to force the corporation to rid itself of these
| idiots? The former increases costs paid by you and me.

This is a question each of us needs to consider. For myself alone: I
am willing to pay a share of the cost for those I care about to live
in a free, fair, and just society - and you might be a bit surprised
at the number of people I care about - and by just how much I happen
to care.

Oy, another bleedin' Liberal, are ya? You guys are expensive.
(Not that "Conservative" Shrub has done any better on the other side
of the aisle.) very big sigh Just remember what ol' Ben said before
they stuck his profile on a big bill.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security is neither free nor secure.“
-- Benjamin Franklin


IANAL. I'm a mathematician/(hardware/software)geek/full-time
woodworker. If you visit the link below you can learn more about me
than you ever wanted to know.

Ayup. chortle


What would /I/ like? Assuming that the newspaper account was accurate:

I'd like Wal-Mart to put their money where their mouth is: I'd like
for them to initiate what IBMers call "charm school" for managers -
where, in addition to the mechanics of running a department or a whole
store, managers are trained in how to be polite and diplomatic with
even the most difficult of customers. I'd like to see Wal-Mart demote
managers who can't "get it" to jobs on the loading dock, where their
opportunity to abuse customers is minimized. I'd like to see one of
Wal-Mart's top execs, together with the errant manager visit Mr Pitts
at his GAF office and offer their apologies in person, and explain to
him the steps that are being taken to prevent similar mistreatment of
customers ever again at any Wal-Mart store.

Hear, hear!


I'd like for the cop in question to spend an hour with the top person
in the Tampa PD, and then an hour with the Mayor - getting an earful
of the damage that can be done by just the _perception_ of ethnic
discrimination. Then I'd like him to go on unpaid leave long enough to
visit the GAF offices and apologize to Mr Pitts in the presence of Mr
Pitts' boss and co-workers. Then I'd like him returned to duty on
probation with a refresher course in community relations at the police
academy and a public service requirement to spend a minimum of an hour
at each of the Tampa schools working with students/teachers to
eliminate/reduce ethnic tensions (and Tampa does have 'em!). After
these requirements have been satisfactorily completed, I'd like to see
him fully reinstated.

Agreed. I wish all people would understand that there is only one race
on this planet: the human race. We're all shades of one color.


There are significant costs involved. My take is that positive
corrective action is more valuable than monetary penalties. I'm not
interested in seeing Mr Pitts become wealthy at the expense of his
friends and neighbors, and no amount of money can undo what he was put
through. I'd rather that he, his associates at GAF, and his community
see him as a catalyst for positive change in their world.

I totally agree.


I have reason to believe that the folks who run Wal-Mart have become
so enraptured by financial success that they've lost sight of the need
for their enterprise to be a good corporate citizen and to participate
constructively in the broader community. Perhaps putting a time limit
on getting all management employees through "charm school" might help
them to re-focus a bit.

I think you might be surprised at how many hundreds of millions of
dollars of philanthropy comes out of Bentonville, Morris. Ditto that
from Mr. & Mrs. Microsoft. I've attended several technical conferences
for Windows since 1991, all free.

But, of course, you're right. Large corporations
are largely out of touch with the communities in which they reside,
allowing the speaking weasels (Oops, I didn't mean to give an attorney
an inferiority complex. Substitute "lawyer" there for "speaking
weasels." We must be vigilant of their self esteem, right?) to take
over and go by the word of the charter, to make as much money for the
stockholders as possible.


I know this isn't terribly well considered and organized, but it's the
best I could do off the top of my head.

Now - aren't you glad you asked? :-)

'Cept for the top part, yeah. titter

"Be the change you want to see in the world." --Mahatma Gandhi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:26:38 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Morris Dovey" quickly quoth:

Larry Jaques (in ) said:

| Oh, bull****, Morris. A few million $ here and there doesn't

*HEY!* That's not me you're responding to...

Sorry, Charlie. (I've been wanting to say that ever since the Starkist
commercials went off the air.) Sorry to you, too, Morris.

"Be the change you want to see in the world." --Mahatma Gandhi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:26:25 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" quickly quoth:

I like Morris's concept. It might just have enough corporate and personal
discomfort in it to work. In today's context, though, hurting the pocketbook
is the only thing that comes close to working. And with a company the size
of WalMart, that takes a huge, at least to me, lump of money.

Charlie, you forget that all payouts affect the cost we pay for every
item coming out of that corporation. Whatever raises THEIR cost-of-
doing-business raises the price WE pay. And remember all the small
companies/corporations who were run out of business with large
lawsuits, leaving no competition to keep the prices down at their
competition and leaving us paying more for the services we were trying
to limit. Are you happy with the outcome of our gov't breaking up Ma
Bell? (Neither am I.)

Lawsuits are bull****.
Please focus on real change, not an assumed solution.

"Be the change you want to see in the world." --Mahatma Gandhi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:27:36 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Fly-by-Night CC quickly quoth:

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

Note the guy's not some drone off the manufacturing floor, he's an HR
manager. Those people usually dress pretty business-like; at least they
do in my wife's HR office. They're also pretty well versed in
business-like behavior and have decent educations.

But he was on vacation and may have been less well dressed than he
might have been for work. The reports didn't say and there were no
photos that I saw.

Are you yankin' my chain, Larry-w/o-C? Just in case you're not and you
were out the day Evelyn Wood covered comprehension...
It wasn't he who was on vacation, it was the white lady who normally
picked up the gift cards who was sunning in Barbados:

Oops, I knew I'd rue the day Evelyn and I broke up.


"The company, which had $1.6 billion in revenue last year, had been
spending about $50,000 a year on Wal-Mart gift cards and never had a
problem when it sent another employee -- a white, female administrator
who according to The St. Petersburg Times was on vacation that day -- to
pick them up."

Still, we don't know whether he was a tee-and-jeans or a suit-'n-tie
kinda guy and it could have made the difference to the bozo(ette?) at
Wally World that day.

"Be the change you want to see in the world." --Mahatma Gandhi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:26:25 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" quickly quoth:

I like Morris's concept. It might just have enough corporate and personal
discomfort in it to work. In today's context, though, hurting the
pocketbook
is the only thing that comes close to working. And with a company the size
of WalMart, that takes a huge, at least to me, lump of money.

Charlie, you forget that all payouts affect the cost we pay for every
item coming out of that corporation. Whatever raises THEIR cost-of-
doing-business raises the price WE pay. And remember all the small
companies/corporations who were run out of business with large
lawsuits, leaving no competition to keep the prices down at their
competition and leaving us paying more for the services we were trying
to limit. Are you happy with the outcome of our gov't breaking up Ma
Bell? (Neither am I.)

Lawsuits are bull****.
Please focus on real change, not an assumed solution.


And you would induce that change exactly--or even approximately--how?

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:29:50 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" quickly quoth:

And, evidently, that manager wasn't. Story continuation has him still
refusing to apologize, even AFTER Bentonville apologized.

Oy vay!


Do you think he's looking for a job this morning? He should be. "Would you
like fries with that" is probably a bit above his intellectual capability.

Let's hope he's out of a job. Notice how your "worker's statement"
consists of single-syllable words. He just might be able to pull that
one off, though I doubt he'd recognize what he was saying. Did you
know that, to help cope with the bozos on that bus, Mickey D's put in
new cash registers with pictures of their items on the keys? I just
about sh*t when I saw that first one eons ago. Taco Bell followed
suit, though I always found their employees a bit brighter than McD's.
I guess they'd have to, as "enchirito" is a 4-syllable word. bseg

"Be the change you want to see in the world." --Mahatma Gandhi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:27:36 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Fly-by-Night CC quickly quoth:

In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

Note the guy's not some drone off the manufacturing floor, he's an HR
manager. Those people usually dress pretty business-like; at least they
do in my wife's HR office. They're also pretty well versed in
business-like behavior and have decent educations.

But he was on vacation and may have been less well dressed than he
might have been for work. The reports didn't say and there were no
photos that I saw.

Are you yankin' my chain, Larry-w/o-C? Just in case you're not and you
were out the day Evelyn Wood covered comprehension...
It wasn't he who was on vacation, it was the white lady who normally
picked up the gift cards who was sunning in Barbados:

Oops, I knew I'd rue the day Evelyn and I broke up.


"The company, which had $1.6 billion in revenue last year, had been
spending about $50,000 a year on Wal-Mart gift cards and never had a
problem when it sent another employee -- a white, female administrator
who according to The St. Petersburg Times was on vacation that day -- to
pick them up."

Still, we don't know whether he was a tee-and-jeans or a suit-'n-tie
kinda guy and it could have made the difference to the bozo(ette?) at
Wally World that day.

Why should it make a difference? He could roll in wearing a jockstrap and a
light coat of oil on his way to a bodybuilding contest. He had ID, he was
vouched for. So a subhuman clerk (if there is anything below human) and a
subhuman manager and a "Planet of the Apes" cop manage to do everything
possible to spoil his view of the world because he MIGHT have been in jeans,
a supposition that isn't supported in any way by the little we do know.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:36:24 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC
wrote:

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

someone of wealth and standing (such as say a Robert Byrd)
could not possibly be bigoted?

Oh yeah!?! Strom Thurman. So there.

Strom's dead, Jim.

Certainly there are examples on both sides of the aisle. It just seems
that one side has tried to claim the moral high ground for the past couple
of decades when a significant number of them actually opposed some of the
originating legislation passed in the 60's. Somehow they get a pass while
any small thing that could be misinterpreted when spoken by the other side
gets screaming headlines until blood flows. Hence "Sheets Byrd" can use
the "N" word with nary a whisper, while an off-hand comment with no
invective by Lott at a birthday party for a 99 year-old man results in a
media storm that could only be calmed by his resignation.

Point is, racism is not limited by social or economic status. Some of
the more affluent or well-cultured may hide their racism by avoiding
various vernacular, but that's only window dressing.

Fact is, people are people and we need to treat each other accordingly.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
ups.com...
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."


Well. while I do not doubt that the incident did indeed happen, you did read
it in the news paper, right? Chances are there was a bit of sensationalism
in the mix. I wonder why there was not a customer and Wal-Mart point of
view used in the story. There very well may be a bit of politics being
used. Imagine that. LOL. I

"Charles Self" wrote in message
news:MYXkf.124632$qk4.24126@bgtnsc05-

Still, we don't know whether he was a tee-and-jeans or a suit-'n-tie
kinda guy and it could have made the difference to the bozo(ette?) at
Wally World that day.

Why should it make a difference? He could roll in wearing a jockstrap and
a
light coat of oil on his way to a bodybuilding contest. He had ID, he was
vouched for. So a subhuman clerk (if there is anything below human) and a
subhuman manager and a "Planet of the Apes" cop manage to do everything
possible to spoil his view of the world because he MIGHT have been in
jeans,
a supposition that isn't supported in any way by the little we do know.

According to the story, the GAF employee was "Dressed in khaki pants and a
blue button-down-collar dress shirt". I'm not one to cry "racism" easily,
but operating on the assumption that the news story is accurate, I don't
know what else to conclude.

todd