I read a story in today's Roanoke paper that says a Tampa, FL WalMart
managed to stick its footsies in the fire again. The store staff
checked ID--driver's license, business card, a call to the company
accountant--for a human resources manager for GAF, but decided to hold
on to his $13,600 company check, and the 530+ WM gift cards he'd had
pre-printed for his employees, while they called the cops. When the
cops got there, one of them grabbed the guy, and told them, "We need to
see about that forged check you brought in here."
The HR manager is black. The check is good.
It was spent at Target, according to the story.
I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's legal
stove with this one, and sues the living shit out of the deputy and the
municipality for which acts as a paid thug.
Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
I've been in two. Both had the same rancid popcorn smell as K-Mart.
Standing at the service desk in one for 2 hours is certainly Cruel and
Unusual!
Charlie Self wrote:
> I read a story in today's Roanoke paper that says a Tampa, FL WalMart
> managed to stick its footsies in the fire again. The store staff
> checked ID--driver's license, business card, a call to the company
> accountant--for a human resources manager for GAF, but decided to hold
> on to his $13,600 company check, and the 530+ WM gift cards he'd had
> pre-printed for his employees, while they called the cops. When the
> cops got there, one of them grabbed the guy, and told them, "We need to
> see about that forged check you brought in here."
>
> The HR manager is black. The check is good.
>
> It was spent at Target, according to the story.
>
> I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's legal
> stove with this one, and sues the living shit out of the deputy and the
> municipality for which acts as a paid thug.
The story also says the HR manager was stalled for about 2 hours -
which is about 1 hour and 55 minutes longer than I would wait for
someone to accept my $13,600!
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13316814.htm
> >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?
> >
> ... snip
>
> My understanding is the $10k reporting requirement is for bank
> transactions, not all financial transactions. The purpose is to catch
> money laundering.
>
Technically $10,000 in _any_ transaction can be reported. However, it
mainly refers to cash or combination of cash and checks. If you take
cash for $5000 a week early, then take another $6000 in a few more
days, you have to report it. If you get $5000 in cash and a Cashiers
check for the balance, it's not required. If you get $9900 and then a
check you are supposed to report that. This the feds feel is an
attempt to circumvent the rules.
This reminds me I need to file a form at work first thing on MONDAY!
Alan
"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
Dave
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
TeamCasa wrote:
> "John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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.
>
> Dave
irrelevant, unless you have information that this was not done.
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com
"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. "
The check was issued by the company.
Sure, for the average "widgets" a company will send a check. However,
when cash or near cash items are involved it is the always the case
that a real live human being will deliver payment in person when the
transaction involves purchasing items such as this. (Gift cards are
like cash) That person will be either a trusted company employee or a
bonded messenger. In my 20+ years as a professional financial manager
this has ALWAYS been the case. Though I've only seen messengers
trusted with securities. Cash or near cash items are always handled by
employees. If I were GAF's CFO I would have been damn glad that it was
another member of senior management was the one running around with 10k
of cash rather than just anyone.
"Ba r r y"
> At work, I buy test sets that cost $30,000 each. Occasionally, I buy
> as many as ten at a time. They get paid for with a corporate check
> from our AP dept. There is no extra paperwork.
>
> I bought a new Toyota pickup in March with a personal check. There
> was no extra paperwork.
>
> The down payment on my home was a certified check from my account, the
> rest was a check from the mortgage holder. The only extra paperwork I
> had to file was to certify to the lender that I didn't borrow the down
> payment.
>
> Seeing a pattern? <G>
>
> The check IS the paper trail. The IRS paperwork is used in cash
> transactions.
>
> Barry
The 8300 IRS form is not a form the buyer ever sees. I am a car dealer,
believe me we file the forms. We are not allowed by law to even tell you we
are filing it. Not to mention we have to keep it on file for five years!
Dave
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
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
In article <[email protected]>,
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> 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.
In article <[email protected]>,
SPAM)vasys" <"no(SPAM <"no(SPAM)vasys"@adelphia.net> 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, 04 Dec 2005 22:36:24 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> 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
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:30:04 GMT, "Charles Self"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 3 Dec 2005 17:57:02 -0800, "A.M. Wood" <[email protected]>
>> 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
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
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.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:38:17 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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, bullshit, 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 05:20:19 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Don't think so. Do you realize how many check transactions of that
>magnitude are made by businesses every minute of the day? I've never seen
>it in my 40 years in industry.
At work, I buy test sets that cost $30,000 each. Occasionally, I buy
as many as ten at a time. They get paid for with a corporate check
from our AP dept. There is no extra paperwork.
I bought a new Toyota pickup in March with a personal check. There
was no extra paperwork.
The down payment on my home was a certified check from my account, the
rest was a check from the mortgage holder. The only extra paperwork I
had to file was to certify to the lender that I didn't borrow the down
payment.
Seeing a pattern? <G>
The check IS the paper trail. The IRS paperwork is used in cash
transactions.
Barry
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> 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.
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:14:44 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1133643137.529629.98290
>@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
[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 Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:36:50 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>Larry Jaques (in [email protected]) 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
Charlie Self (in [email protected])
said:
<pathetic story snipped>
The author of one of my favorite business books opined that there were
two classes of business, based on their top management norms.
He said that first-raters hired only first-raters who, in turn, used
similar standards to hire the remainder of the business' management.
In the other class of businesses, there were second-raters at the top
who hired third raters, who then used similar standards to hire the
remainder of the business' management.
The really bad news is that it's nearly impossible to upgrade an
"other" class business to a "first" class business - and all too easy
for a wormy board of directors and/or heir to spoil a top-notch
company.
Wal-Mart's problems are unlikely to be limited to the Tampa operation.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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?
>
The $10 limit has to do with bank deposits/withdraws not with commercial or
even private transactions. No, it would not really have been any more
prudent to call ahead. Corporations issue checks in the mega buck range on
an hourly basis. Though... I'll admit that my first thought when reading
Charlie's post was - why didn't GAF cut a PO? That's more the normal
process.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Larry Jaques (in [email protected]) said:
| On 3 Dec 2005 12:52:17 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Charlie
| Self" <[email protected]> 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 shit 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.
| 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. :-)
| 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. 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).
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:02:58 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> 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
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>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
I believe that one of the major story's had a customer point of view. A
later story had WalMart apologizing from headquarters. What other POV do you
need?
Oh. Right. It was all made up to make the newspapers look good and WalMart
look bad.
Guys like you would hear, "The deck's tilting" on a sinking boat as an
example of bias.
"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.
I think you may be confusing that for Cash transactions. I saw no such from
when I bought my last 2 cars and wrote checks for the whole amount. I do
recall my days working at a car dealership though. The sales staff and new
car finance did not take cold cash for the purchase of a car. I witnessed a
brief case full of cash being opened up in New Car Finance and the money
being turned down. I often took checks for payment by insurance companies
well in excess of $10,000.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Consider that this Walmart has received roughly $35,000 this year from
>> GAF prior to this sale. Had this Walmart valued the GAF business
>> (upwards of $50k/yr total) they would have taken the initiative to
>> deliver the finished $13,600 gift cards to the responsible party or
>> department at GAF and collected payment at that time.
>>
>
> If they knew in the first place that some one was coming over to buy a
> load of gift cards. Perhaps they might have had some one called.
>
>> Really, Walmart is treating the GAF business just like they do most
>> other customers and employees.
>
> No doubt. I personally try to avoid Wal-Mart but also believe that there
> are 2 sides to every story.
Sure are. But the need to kiss a retail store's butt, at least
metaphorically, to spend chunks of money in said store is never one side of
the story.
And, speaking of sides to the story, no one has yet explained why the
manager never called the cops on the white lady picking up the cards using
the exact same procedure. In fact, no one seems to have thought of that
question as a part of the story.
Regardless of WalMart's preferences or practices, it seems to be a certainty
that the manager (former manager?) is a racist and an adamant one at that.
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
[email protected]
(Remove -SPAM- to send email)
Larry Jaques (in [email protected]) 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
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
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1133643137.529629.98290
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.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."
> >
> > The HR manager is black. The check is good.
> >
> > It was spent at Target, according to the story.
> >
> > I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's legal
> > stove with this one, and sues the living shit out of the deputy and the
> > municipality for which acts as a paid thug.
> >
> 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?
>
> By the way, it brings to mind The first chekc I ever presented to Sears,
> not long after opening our first checking account in Cambridge, MA in
> 1969. I was asked for my driver's license, and produced it. Guess they
> had never seen a Dutch license at Sears on Mass Ave (since gone). I
> didn't yet have a Mass license, and they were a bit taken aback by this
> sheet of hot pink, measuring about 4 x 11" (wide). We still have some of
> the pans from that first household purchase in the US.
>
> For a current application for a Dutch license, see
> <http://www.rdw.nl/NR/rdonlyres/ACED28C9-8A1D-458C-B9B5-
> D7F06E68DF8B/0/3E0660m.pdf>. It would help if you understand Dutch.
> --
> Best regards
> Han
> email address is invalid
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>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.
>
Did they call the cops because they thought a black person couldn't have
access to those resources? Does the story say that? Or has it gotten to
the point that as long as you are black, everything that happens to you is
automatically racially motivated?
According to the St Pete times the gaf employee waited for over two hrs
for wal-mart to give him the gift cards but would not. He even asked for
the company check back wal-mart refused. cops called that there was a
forged check. A felon. So cops grabbed the felon. Cops went on info that
the check was forged and man was trying to pass it. Wal-mart mgr would
not even say he was sorry. Bentonvill(?) had to call his company and say
we sorry. Oh and the employee even called his company to tell them the
problem but the
wal-mart mgr knew better.
To the average reader I think you have to assume, this wal-mart mgr did
not trust the black guy. Hey wally mart lost $13,500 sale , lost a
future company sale from Gaf, and should loose a local store mgr. Anyone
interested in applying for his
$22,000 / yr. position. It is also 10 hr a day 6 days a week .
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Though... I'll admit that my first thought when reading
> Charlie's post was - why didn't GAF cut a PO? That's more the normal
> process.
>
Wal Mart would not know what to do with a PO. The are just not set up to do
business that way, at least on the local store level.
All of our normal business transactions are by PO but if we have a lunch
catered, order pizza, or the local snow plow guy, we cut a check as the
local stores do not have billing procedures and the cost associated with
them.
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I believe that one of the major story's had a customer point of view. A
> later story had WalMart apologizing from headquarters. What other POV do
> you need?
Humm now we hear all of the story. LOL That was not previousely mentioned.
> Oh. Right. It was all made up to make the newspapers look good and WalMart
> look bad.
Not all made up but sensationalized to get readers to take the bait. I
believe that newspapers tend to "troll" a lot.
>
> Guys like you would hear, "The deck's tilting" on a sinking boat as an
> example of bias.
I still think that Wal-Mart is probably to blame but like a car accident I
also believe that 95% of the time the incident is preventable by the one
that was acting stupid, not being stupid, and by the one that always seems
to be a victim, thinking ahead to stay out of that type situation to start
with. Defensive driving can work for everyday situations. Had I been going
in for gift cards with a company check that large I would have called ahead
and told a manager who to expect and with what size check to expect and
asked to whom I should speak to. I am quite certain that Wal-mart would
appreciate this advance warning also. Yesterday I saw a customer in line at
Wal-mart ahead of me buying $20 gift cards, with cash and $2500 worth. It
took the cashier quit a bit of time to register each card for the correct
amount along additionally with the person at the exit going through all
those cards. I was thinking that the customer could have saved every one
some time including himself had he called in the purchase and picked the
cards up later at the courtesy booth.
Ever think the guy ahead of you with the $2500 for $20 gift cards may
have read the story also and did not have the two hours to waist?
Maybe all lawsuits should be reduced from management bonus pool. Imagine
the poor schmuck ceo of colgate who got $143,000,000 compensation last
year. Almost $3,000,000 (million ) a week. So you pay the fellow from
gaf 1-2 mil and the ceo would lose a little money. Helps the stockholder
and the customer. Co. is going to pay out this much , let them pay.
O D wrote:
> Ever think the guy ahead of you with the $2500 for $20 gift cards may
> have read the story also and did not have the two hours to waist?
> Maybe all lawsuits should be reduced from management bonus pool. Imagine
> the poor schmuck ceo of colgate who got $143,000,000 compensation last
> year. Almost $3,000,000 (million ) a week. So you pay the fellow from
> gaf 1-2 mil and the ceo would lose a little money. Helps the stockholder
> and the customer. Co. is going to pay out this much , let them pay.
>
Reminds me of a sign an associate had hanging on the wall of his office:
"When ya got'em by the ball, their hearts and minds will follow".
Control the CEO's bonus money pot, you control the CEO.
Lew
"O D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ever think the guy ahead of you with the $2500 for $20 gift cards may
> have read the story also and did not have the two hours to waist?
I seriously doubt it. He was wearing a bright plaid suit, a purple furry
hat, and lots of bling. He is probably not very busy during the day.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
MUCH SNIPPED
>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.
Prove that statement. Identify one small company / corporation "run out of
business with large lawsuits leaving no competition to keep the prices down
at their
competition ".
Cite one.
We're waiting.
You made the statement.
Back it up.
--
Jim McLaughlin
Reply address is deliberately munged.
If you really need to reply directly, try:
jimdotmclaughlinatcomcastdotcom
And you know it is a dotnet not a dotcom
address.
Are you happy with the outcome of our gov't breaking up Ma
> Bell? (Neither am I.)
>
> Lawsuits are bullshit.
> 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
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1133643137.529629.98290
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.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."
>>
>> The HR manager is black. The check is good.
>>
>> It was spent at Target, according to the story.
>>
>> I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's legal
>> stove with this one, and sues the living shit out of the deputy and the
>> municipality for which acts as a paid thug.
>>
> 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?
>
> By the way, it brings to mind The first chekc I ever presented to Sears,
> not long after opening our first checking account in Cambridge, MA in
> 1969. I was asked for my driver's license, and produced it. Guess they
> had never seen a Dutch license at Sears on Mass Ave (since gone). I
> didn't yet have a Mass license, and they were a bit taken aback by this
> sheet of hot pink, measuring about 4 x 11" (wide). We still have some of
> the pans from that first household purchase in the US.
>
The order was placed earlier...it didn't say how much earlier. Regardless of
what the Feds want, Wal-Mart is not an enforcement arm, and GAF is a major
company, so you'd think that their check, assurances of the guy's business
card and ID and a call to the company accountant would suffice. This was NOT
a personal check.
Obviously not.
Maybe not bias.
I recently read in the WSJ where a union(s) have an very active campaign to
unionize the Wal-Mart folks. They are attacking in the courts, in the press
and in the stores.
Wal-Mart, Home Depot, etc., are very popular 'bitch' targets. Just don't
let the facts get in the way.
Jack
--
I've never learned anything from someone who agreed with me.
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>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
>
> I believe that one of the major story's had a customer point of view. A
> later story had WalMart apologizing from headquarters. What other POV do
you
> need?
>
> Oh. Right. It was all made up to make the newspapers look good and WalMart
> look bad.
>
> Guys like you would hear, "The deck's tilting" on a sinking boat as an
> example of bias.
>
>
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 21:59:02 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Did they call the cops because they thought a black person couldn't have
>>access to those resources? Does the story say that? Or has it gotten to
>>the point that as long as you are black, everything that happens to you is
>>automatically racially motivated?
>
> It's been that way for a long time. I firmly believe from personal
> experience that a large majority of "racial" difficulties allegedly
> experienced by blacks are exactly the same sort of experiences all of
> us have. But if you've been raised to be black, that is, to be
> offended and oppressed, you can apply no other interpretation to the
> act.
>
> I'd like to know how the transaction escalated to the level of police
> involvement. I wonder if there was a little "attitude" expressed
> somewhere in it.
>
>
>
Attitude? I hope there was attitude. If they'd done that to me, they'd have
needed the frigging cops and an ER squad to get the manager's balls down
from around his neck where I'd punt them for his treating me like that.
Attitude doesn't always come with being black. It comes with being screwed
over.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:27:36 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
> Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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.
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
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:30:04 GMT, "Charles Self"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On 3 Dec 2005 17:57:02 -0800, "A.M. Wood"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> 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.
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> 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
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1133643137.529629.98290
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.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."
>
> The HR manager is black. The check is good.
>
> It was spent at Target, according to the story.
>
> I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's legal
> stove with this one, and sues the living shit out of the deputy and the
> municipality for which acts as a paid thug.
>
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?
By the way, it brings to mind The first chekc I ever presented to Sears,
not long after opening our first checking account in Cambridge, MA in
1969. I was asked for my driver's license, and produced it. Guess they
had never seen a Dutch license at Sears on Mass Ave (since gone). I
didn't yet have a Mass license, and they were a bit taken aback by this
sheet of hot pink, measuring about 4 x 11" (wide). We still have some of
the pans from that first household purchase in the US.
For a current application for a Dutch license, see
<http://www.rdw.nl/NR/rdonlyres/ACED28C9-8A1D-458C-B9B5-
D7F06E68DF8B/0/3E0660m.pdf>. It would help if you understand Dutch.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Ba r r y"
>> At work, I buy test sets that cost $30,000 each. Occasionally, I buy
>> as many as ten at a time. They get paid for with a corporate check
>> from our AP dept. There is no extra paperwork.
>>
>> I bought a new Toyota pickup in March with a personal check. There
>> was no extra paperwork.
>>
>> The down payment on my home was a certified check from my account,
>> the rest was a check from the mortgage holder. The only extra
>> paperwork I had to file was to certify to the lender that I didn't
>> borrow the down payment.
>>
>> Seeing a pattern? <G>
>>
>> The check IS the paper trail. The IRS paperwork is used in cash
>> transactions.
>>
>> Barry
>
> The 8300 IRS form is not a form the buyer ever sees. I am a car
> dealer, believe me we file the forms. We are not allowed by law to
> even tell you we are filing it. Not to mention we have to keep it on
> file for five years!
>
> Dave
>
Form 8300; All parts must be filed for all Cash transactions over $10,000.
the term Cash means the following; U.S. and Foreign coin and currency
received in any transaction. A cashiers check, money order, bank draft, or
travellers check having a face value of $10,000 or less that is received in
the cash transaction that collectively exceeds $10,000. Cash does not
include a check drawn on the payers own account, such as a personal check
or business check, regardles of the amount, nor an inter bank transfer.
Cash does not include coin, cashiers check, money order, bank draft or
travellers check if it constitutes the proceeds of a US sourced bank loan.
The receipient of the payment received in trade or business must file the
form 8300.
"B a r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Y0_kf.3901$Y%[email protected]...
> Charles Self wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I need a roll of paper towels and some 409 to clean the Diet Coke off my
> computer...
Whoops. And that's an old one, one I heard about a week after getting out of
Parris Island, during ITR, when someone asked what the uniform of the day
was. Jesus. ITR would have been mostly in May, 1958. Warm enough for the
uniform at LeJeune. Long, long time ago. No wonder I creak.
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cNpkf.119439$qk4.101316@bgtnsc05->>>
> was stalled, grabbed and screwed over because he was...what?
I was just asking if the story says this or if it your interpretation.
Relax.
Larry Jaques (in [email protected]) said:
| Oh, bullshit, 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
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>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
"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>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.
>>
>
> Did they call the cops because they thought a black person couldn't have
> access to those resources? Does the story say that? Or has it gotten to
> the point that as long as you are black, everything that happens to you is
> automatically racially motivated?
And you think that a guy who comes in with payment for a pre-order, in the
form of a company check--and GAF is a sizable company--with a business card
(admittedly not much for ID), a driver's license, and the assurance of a
phone call to the company's accountant was stalled, grabbed and screwed over
because he was...what? Possibly if this had been a personal check, there
might have been some hesitation for such a sizable sale, but ID was proper,
the order was waiting for him, and so was trouble in the persona of the kind
of jerk-off that companies like Wal-Mart too often hire. Then add a
delightful cop to the mix, and they picked on the guy cause he hadn't wiped
his nose.
You figure it out.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3 Dec 2005 12:52:17 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Charlie
> Self" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>
>>I read a story in today's Roanoke paper that says a Tampa, FL WalMart
>>managed to stick its footsies in the fire again. The store staff
>>checked ID--driver's license, business card, a call to the company
>>accountant--for a human resources manager for GAF, but decided to hold
>>on to his $13,600 company check, and the 530+ WM gift cards he'd had
>>pre-printed for his employees, while they called the cops. When the
>>cops got there, one of them grabbed the guy, and told them, "We need to
>>see about that forged check you brought in here."
>>
>>The HR manager is black. The check is good.
>>
>>It was spent at Target, according to the story.
>>
>>I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's legal
>>stove with this one, and sues the living shit out of the deputy and the
>>municipality for which acts as a paid thug.
>
> A definite injustice was done, but hoping that a city and a
> corporation get sued for something that an employee of each
> did to the poor guy is simply NOT the way to fix it, Charlie.
> The person who called the cops/got the guy arrested and, if
> warranted, the cop, should be held responsible, not the companies
> they work for. That's just downright idiotic.
>
> You shouldn't be able to sue a gun manufacturer for something some
> asshole might have done with a gun in Boston or 'Bama, either.
>
> Shame on you for that type of thinking. Lawsuits hurt EVERYONE!
> Well, except for the insurance companies and lawyers who all charge
> their highest rates for the privilege.
>
> Go wash your mind out with soap.
No chance. If the companies and towns didn't hire these assholes, they'd
have no power to make the messes they do. If it costs the companies and
towns enough money, they might actual spend more than 22K a year for a
manager.
Lawsuits do NOT hurt everyone unless the lawsuits are frivolous. I see no
frivolity here.
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:42:50 -0800, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:28:46 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
>"Charles Self" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Oh, so you're mad at Wally World for low pay rather than potential
>>> bigotry? Interesting. ;)
>>
>>Oh, bullshit, 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
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> The $10 limit has to do with bank deposits/withdraws not with commercial
> or
> even private transactions. No, it would not really have been any more
> prudent to call ahead. Corporations issue checks in the mega buck range
> on
> an hourly basis. Though... I'll admit that my first thought when reading
> Charlie's post was - why didn't GAF cut a PO? That's more the normal
> process.
>
These things were ordered earlier--pre-printed, remember? It may well be
that a PO was issued then.
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:26:25 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> 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 bullshit.
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 Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:34:50 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>Larry Jaques (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| On 3 Dec 2005 12:52:17 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Charlie
>| Self" <[email protected]> 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 shit 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 20:28:46 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> Oh, so you're mad at Wally World for low pay rather than potential
>> bigotry? Interesting. ;)
>
>Oh, bullshit, 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, bullshit, 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
==========================
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:27:36 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 20:18:31 -0800, "TeamCasa" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:26:25 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> 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 bullshit.
> Please focus on real change, not an assumed solution.
>
And you would induce that change exactly--or even approximately--how?
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 21:59:02 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>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.
>>
>
>Did they call the cops because they thought a black person couldn't have
>access to those resources? Does the story say that? Or has it gotten to
>the point that as long as you are black, everything that happens to you is
>automatically racially motivated?
It's been that way for a long time. I firmly believe from personal
experience that a large majority of "racial" difficulties allegedly
experienced by blacks are exactly the same sort of experiences all of
us have. But if you've been raised to be black, that is, to be
offended and oppressed, you can apply no other interpretation to the
act.
I'd like to know how the transaction escalated to the level of police
involvement. I wonder if there was a little "attitude" expressed
somewhere in it.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> 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.
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:39:26 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Lew
Hodgett <[email protected]> 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
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Consider that this Walmart has received roughly $35,000 this year from
> GAF prior to this sale. Had this Walmart valued the GAF business
> (upwards of $50k/yr total) they would have taken the initiative to
> deliver the finished $13,600 gift cards to the responsible party or
> department at GAF and collected payment at that time.
>
If they knew in the first place that some one was coming over to buy a load
of gift cards. Perhaps they might have had some one called.
> Really, Walmart is treating the GAF business just like they do most
> other customers and employees.
No doubt. I personally try to avoid Wal-Mart but also believe that there
are 2 sides to every story.
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:28:46 GMT, "Charles Self"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:38:17 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
>> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>>
>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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, bullshit, 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
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>
> 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.
>
> Dave
Don't think so. Do you realize how many check transactions of that
magnitude are made by businesses every minute of the day? I've never seen
it in my 40 years in industry.
Larry Jaques (in [email protected]) said:
| On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:36:50 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
|
|| Larry Jaques (in [email protected]) 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
Hmmm. If "giving a damn" makes me "another bleeding liberal" than I
guess that's what I am. I believe that in even (perhaps /especially/)
in the most free of societies, one can choose to contribute in ways
that seem appropriate and desirable to oneself.
If "bleeding liberal" is an epithet to you or you have misgivings
about my willingness to "pay my share of the cost", a few of the
"payments" are listed at the bottom of www.iedu.com/mrd/mrd_pers.html.
I don't think Ben would object much to any of my choices.
In spite of all of his carefully preserved wise words, I'm not certain
that Franklin understood the true essence of freedom in all its
fullness - I /am/ certain, beyond any shadow of doubt, that both
Nathan Hale and Mahatma Gandhi /did/.
My reading is that the Shrub hasn't a clue; and that if somehow he
arrived at that understanding in some epiphany, he'd find the
implications truly terrifying.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:14:44 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1133643137.529629.98290
>@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.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."
>>
>> The HR manager is black. The check is good.
>>
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?
>> It was spent at Target, according to the story.
>>
A fitting twist
>> I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's legal
>> stove with this one, and sues the living shit out of the deputy and the
>> municipality for which acts as a paid thug.
>>
Yep. There had to have been a better way to have handled that situation.
I've been caught in cases in the past where the only company ID I had was
an insurance card when attempting to get a company discount from a
particular retailer (purchase was for items for work). The retailer in
this case did right and I learned a valuable lesson -- make sure that you
take a company badge with you for these kinds of things.
Several things may have led to the WM manager's suspicions. 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. Anybody can have business cards for anything printed up and I
suspect that had the manager accepted the check and it turned out to be
fraudulent, it would have been his backside on the line, so he was in a bad
situation.
>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?
>
... snip
My understanding is the $10k reporting requirement is for bank
transactions, not all financial transactions. The purpose is to catch
money laundering.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 21:59:02 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, "Frank
Ketchum" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>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.
>>
>
>Did they call the cops because they thought a black person couldn't have
>access to those resources? Does the story say that? Or has it gotten to
>the point that as long as you are black, everything that happens to you is
>automatically racially motivated?
Perhaps fewer than half the folks who walk into Wally World to cash a
check do so for checks with sums smaller than $13.6k.
Questions: Was the employee/exec, or the cop, or the writer black?
The story is far from complete enough as it stands here.
--
Instant Gratification Takes Too Long!
-----------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com Non-Instant Web Development
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Strom's dead, Jim.
You sure, Mary?
Seeing Strom slumping in that Senate chamber chair the last 15 years,
I'da sworn he passed on back in '90.
:)
--
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 <[email protected]>,
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The order was placed earlier...it didn't say how much earlier. Regardless of
> what the Feds want, Wal-Mart is not an enforcement arm, and GAF is a major
> company, so you'd think that their check, assurances of the guy's business
> card and ID and a call to the company accountant would suffice. This was NOT
> a personal check.
And the Miami Herald says, in part
<http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13316814.htm>:
> Employees of a Wal-Mart Supercenter called deputies last week to apprehend
> Reginald Pitts after he handed over a $13,600 check to pay for 520 gift cards
> that were to be given to employees at GAF Materials Corp., a roofing
> materials manufacturer where Pitts is a human resources manager.
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.
> 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.
> ''I keep going over and over the incident in my mind,'' Pitts told The St.
> Petersburg Times. ``I cannot come up with any possible reason why I was
> treated like this except that I am black.''
SNIP
> Pitts said that when he went to the store last week to pick up the cards,
> store managers stalled for about two hours while he stood waiting by the
> customer service desk. He had handed over his GAF business card, his driver's
> license and the toll-free numbers to GAF's bank. His accounting supervisor
> assured them over the phone that the check was good.
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.
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.
--
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 <[email protected]>,
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Well, from the rumors I've heard whispered, with respect to those of the
darker persuasion's tooling, the clerk mighta thought he had a concealed
weapon down 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 <[email protected]>,
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Had I been going
> in for gift cards with a company check that large I would have called ahead
> and told a manager who to expect and with what size check to expect and
> asked to whom I should speak to. I am quite certain that Wal-mart would
> appreciate this advance warning also.
Consider that this Walmart has received roughly $35,000 this year from
GAF prior to this sale. Had this Walmart valued the GAF business
(upwards of $50k/yr total) they would have taken the initiative to
deliver the finished $13,600 gift cards to the responsible party or
department at GAF and collected payment at that time.
Really, Walmart is treating the GAF business just like they do most
other customers and employees.
--
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 <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>,
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>,
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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 <[email protected]>,
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> If they knew in the first place that some one was coming over to buy a load
> of gift cards. Perhaps they might have had some one called.
Leon, as I recall from the article, the 500 cards were ordered with
names printed on them. Given that they were pre-printed, one has to
assume there was communication between the Walmart and GAF confirming
the order was ready to be picked up.
Here's a paragraph from the St. Pete Times with a bit more detail:
<http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/02/Tampabay/Racial_profiling_fear.shtml>
"GAF has been spending about $50,000 a year on gift cards at the
Wal-Mart Supercenter at 11110 Causeway Blvd. in Brandon. For years GAF
sent a white, female administrator to buy them without incident. This
time, when she was on vacation the day before Thanksgiving, Pitts did
the job himself. He phoned in the order for 520 cards, got the
accounting department to issue Wal-Mart a $13,600 check and then
encountered a royal hassle trying to exchange it for gift cards at the
store."
--
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
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.
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.
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 17:33:41 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> 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?
I'd like to believe that an incident like this, minus the realistic threat
of a lawsuit, would be enough to wake up the Tampa cops department. But I
don't do drugs.
Nope, the only thing that is going to have the LEAST BIT of impact on the
Tampa police and on Walmart management is the credible threat of a
monetary suit with a realistic probability of significant financial losses.
Those entities don't care about the humiliation and intimidation inflicted
on some black guy in a tie. But they DO have to answer for their bottom
line.
And that is the bottom line.
Lawsuits enforce the social contract in ways that nothing else can.
Bill
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:38:17 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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
On 3 Dec 2005 17:57:02 -0800, "A.M. Wood" <[email protected]>
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.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
You are of course assuming the dumb ass mgr would know what a purchase
order LOOKED like. Ever consider that the local store can only accept
cash check or credit card. ? It might be easier to log on to the St,
petersburg times and read the story as the paper reported it.
Someone mentioned attitude in the debate here. Now tell me what your
attitude would be if you company comptroller gave you a company check
for $13,500 told you to go to such and such wal-mart and pick up the 520
gift cards, You had Id and this
dumb ass mgr hold up the transaction for two hrs and you even try to get
the check back and you even call your company and tell them what is
going on. Now what would you do. You honest has been challenged. Your
integrity too.
"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
The instructions for form 8300 specify more than $10,000 in _cash_.
It specifically states "Note. Cash does not include a check drawn
on the payer's own account, such as a
personal check, regardless of the amount.".
However, if a retailer or banker _believes it to be a fraudulent
or otherwise illegal_ transaction, they then must file form 8300.
scott
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 00:15:51 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> 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
On 3 Dec 2005 12:52:17 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Charlie
Self" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>I read a story in today's Roanoke paper that says a Tampa, FL WalMart
>managed to stick its footsies in the fire again. The store staff
>checked ID--driver's license, business card, a call to the company
>accountant--for a human resources manager for GAF, but decided to hold
>on to his $13,600 company check, and the 530+ WM gift cards he'd had
>pre-printed for his employees, while they called the cops. When the
>cops got there, one of them grabbed the guy, and told them, "We need to
>see about that forged check you brought in here."
>
>The HR manager is black. The check is good.
>
>It was spent at Target, according to the story.
>
>I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's legal
>stove with this one, and sues the living shit out of the deputy and the
>municipality for which acts as a paid thug.
A definite injustice was done, but hoping that a city and a
corporation get sued for something that an employee of each
did to the poor guy is simply NOT the way to fix it, Charlie.
The person who called the cops/got the guy arrested and, if
warranted, the cop, should be held responsible, not the companies
they work for. That's just downright idiotic.
You shouldn't be able to sue a gun manufacturer for something some
asshole might have done with a gun in Boston or 'Bama, either.
Shame on you for that type of thinking. Lawsuits hurt EVERYONE!
Well, except for the insurance companies and lawyers who all charge
their highest rates for the privilege.
Go wash your mind out with soap.
--
Instant Gratification Takes Too Long!
-----------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com Non-Instant Web Development
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:13:33 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:26:25 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
>> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> 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 bullshit.
>> Please focus on real change, not an assumed solution.
>>
>
>And you would induce that change exactly--or even approximately--how?
As I stated in other posts on this thread, by having the victims or
their attorneys suggest to the court that it require the perps to
repent their evil ways. <g>
Scenario 1:
Victim tells his attorney to tell Perp's attorney that they can
either:
1) Pay the victim the sum of $170,000,000.00
OR, rather hopefully,
2) Mandate some sensitivity training (and whatever else they see as
good steps toward community) for all existing and all future
employees, and pay his minimal (at this point) attorney costs.
Which do you suppose the perp will opt for?
A third (maybe best) option is for everyone to
_just_develop_a_thicker_skin_!
----------------------------------------------------
Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications
====================================================
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:13:33 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:26:25 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
>>> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> 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 bullshit.
>>> Please focus on real change, not an assumed solution.
>>>
>>
>>And you would induce that change exactly--or even approximately--how?
>
> As I stated in other posts on this thread, by having the victims or
> their attorneys suggest to the court that it require the perps to
> repent their evil ways. <g>
>
> Scenario 1:
> Victim tells his attorney to tell Perp's attorney that they can
> either:
>
> 1) Pay the victim the sum of $170,000,000.00
>
> OR, rather hopefully,
>
> 2) Mandate some sensitivity training (and whatever else they see as
> good steps toward community) for all existing and all future
> employees, and pay his minimal (at this point) attorney costs.
>
> Which do you suppose the perp will opt for?
>
>
> A third (maybe best) option is for everyone to
> _just_develop_a_thicker_skin_!
How thick a skin is necessary? Now, let's talk real life..."shame,shame,
next time I might slap your wrists" is nonsense especially in the corporate
world. About like our vaunted leader's followers all being required to take
ethics training, I'd say. At their ages, it's far too late to do any good.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote:
SNIPS
> 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?
You don't know what you are talking about.
There is no requirement to report anything to do with a $ 13,500, or $
1,350,000 check transaction to the feds.
Ony cash -- currency -- transactions in excess of $ 10,000 from someone ot
already a known customer trigger a CTR. (currency transaction report).
Please engage brain before again putting fingers to keyboard.
--
Jim McLaughlin
Reply address is deliberately munged.
If you really need to reply directly, try:
jimdotmclaughlinatcomcastdotcom
And you know it is a dotnet not a dotcom
address.
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "GAF has been spending about $50,000 a year on gift cards at the
> Wal-Mart Supercenter at 11110 Causeway Blvd. in Brandon. For years GAF
> sent a white, female administrator to buy them without incident. This
> time, when she was on vacation the day before Thanksgiving, Pitts did
> the job himself. He phoned in the order for 520 cards, got the
> accounting department to issue Wal-Mart a $13,600 check and then
> encountered a royal hassle trying to exchange it for gift cards at the
> store."
I see, I had never seen the article. I wonder if they had sent a white guy
instead of the white lady that they are used to seeing if they would have
hassled him also. In the Houston area if there were no minorities shopping
the Wal-marts there would only be a need for 1 store instead of the 40 or
50.
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:26:38 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>Larry Jaques (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| Oh, bullshit, 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
Larry Jaques (in [email protected]) said:
| On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:02:58 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> 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/
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:29:50 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> 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 <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
>On 3 Dec 2005 12:52:17 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Charlie
>Self" <[email protected]> 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 shit 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.
It's stupid and the "right thing" seems like it would be common sense,
but it ain't the way civil tort law works. Years ago, I poured over
tombs of civil actions for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution
and false arrest in both state records and on WestLaw - and you
wouldn't believe some of the court and jury decisions. You have cases
where criminals caught in the act win judgments, but legitimately
damaged innocents receive nothing. It's all a big load of crap - and
the courts are inconsistent in application and are totally lacking in
reasonable common sense.
And in most jurisdictions (around here, anyway) municipalities are
immune from any liability in all but the most egregious cases.
Few have the resources to pursue a case beyond the local levels where
such things are simply "covered-up".
BTW, Sheriff's departments and other law enforcement and fire
officials are generally also considered an arm of the court - in these
here parts, anyway...
As one judge told me, we are all "Brothers and Sisters of the Bar".
Meaning that they cover each others asses to the detriment of yours.
And this includes cronies, contributors, and family members.
>Well, except for the insurance companies and lawyers who all charge
>their highest rates for the privilege.
Guaranteed! Soulless bastards...
Greg G.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3 Dec 2005 17:57:02 -0800, "A.M. Wood" <[email protected]>
> 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 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.
"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.
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.
Lew
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 20:28:46 GMT, "Charles Self"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:38:17 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
>>> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> quickly quoth:
>>>
>>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> 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, bullshit, 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?
Horseshit reasoning like that is why I filtered you, and why I'll do it
again. The two situations are not analogies, and if you don't think people
lacking economic opportunity tend to use the word "nigger" (substitute any
other racial or religious epithet you wish) more than those with more
education, you're being silly. Demanding that a single example fit every
person is beyond silly.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:29:50 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
> "Charles Self" <[email protected]> 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>
The register keys might have as much to do with the problem that
"hamburguesa con queso" doesn't fit on the keys very well.
todd