board77

if it were an "allegation of fact" then it would be an opinion, so your question is disingenuous.

If something is a fact, it is a fact, there is no refuting it, it simply is. If it is an opinion, we can have all kinds of fun and intersting discussions.

Now we can see what your ultimate goal here is. If I claim it is an opinion, you will go off on your ad hominem attacks about how I'm not worthy of expressing an opinion, and you are above such lowly thoughts, and no one should ever listen to me.

If I claim it is a fact, you will then try to prove it is not a fact, but an opinion, thinking you have "gained one" on me by dissing both my opinions and my view of what a "fact" is.

So really the question is an extened ad hominem attack, which I don't think adds anything to the discussion.

The only real question is, do you want to actually discuss safety and the roles of law, inspectors, and unions in saftey, or do you not? Because sofar, you have not done so.

Ara-anna wrote:

Only one where some one died. But for some reason I think one human death over material things is one to many, even if the company turns out a profit.

Only one? This seems more like a freak incident than an example of a systemic problem with WalMart.

C_G wrote:

Only one? This seems more like a freak incident than an example of a systemic problem with WalMart.

Do you think that this incident will be forgotten in the long run? Not forgotten as to say that his death isn't important for some, but that nothing will come of this.

Quote:

If something is a fact, it is a fact, there is no refuting it, it simply is. If it is an opinion, we can have all kinds of fun and intersting discussions.

when you make a statement, the reader has no idea if you are saying this statement as your opinion or are you making the statement as a fact.

The response anyone then makes to your statement and how they react to it depends greatly on how you are stating your case.

Is it your opinion or is it a fact?

What is the corporate limit on helping to cause a helpless employees death this year?
One... two ... three ?

sauronsfinger wrote:

Quote:

If something is a fact, it is a fact, there is no refuting it, it simply is. If it is an opinion, we can have all kinds of fun and intersting discussions.

when you make a statement, the reader has no idea if you are saying this statement as your opinion or are you making the statement as a fact.

The response anyone then makes to your statement and how they react to it depends greatly on how you are stating your case.

Is it your opinion or is it a fact?

again, it's irrelevant. Either discuss it, or don't, it's your call.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

C_G wrote:

Only one? This seems more like a freak incident than an example of a systemic problem with WalMart.

Do you think that this incident will be forgotten in the long run? Not forgotten as to say that his death isn't important for some, but that nothing will come of this.

It's newsworthiness will probably fade when another freak incident news item of equal or greater newsworthiness replaces it.

Well Hal since you cannot even identify what your own statement is... its fairly pointless to even try to discuss it with you.

I would hope you would learn from the questions from TED and myself and come clean on this. I would hate to have to go through this process on other future statements on other future issues again and again and again until you do learn.

But I am a patient man.

Well, you certainly took a lot of posts to NOT say anything on topic, but you got a lot of your fun little jabs in, so I guess you must be happy.

So, everyone's in agreement then, safety is handled not by unions, but by laws and inspections? Good then, glad we avoided a big conflict on that one.

Hal, how do you think those laws and inspections came about? How did you think they got drafted and who supplied the information and data? Who agitated for them? Not the employers you may be sure.
Is it because you think that unions are socialist you have such antipathy to them? What power to affect their employment or to make it safe do you think an individual worker has against a big company?

I have never said unions have not or sometimes still serve a valuable purpose.

All I've really said in this thread is that no union would ever have prevented this tragedy from happening.

As an employer, I am grateful for Workers' Compensation. Cheap insurance, in the long run.

I used to work for the Compensation Board years ago. One part of my job was to type inquest reports, complete with photographs.

Walmart may not be legally responsible for anything - as far as the law itself goes. I suppose the employee will have been covered by Workers' Compensation law - there will be a death benefit paid out. There will be a formula, and the amount will depend on his age, length of employment, etc. I doubt that there will be any long term payments to his family.

I believe the family can sue. I could be wrong.

Certainly the people who stampeded in and crushed him are guilty of his death. But Walmart is guilty of creating an atmosphere of frenzy, and should have been better prepared for the rush.

If we're going to blame wal mart for creating that culture of a frenzy, then we really have to blame the entire country.

Well, maybe we should.

I don't blame Wal-Mart any more than I blame Best Buy, or the hoards of shoppers that believe the hype of all this consumerism. But, companies like Wal-Mart wield a lot of power with their "DOORBUSTERS" "MIDNIGHT ONLY" "WE ONLY HAVE 1000" sales hype. Companies know that people are like lemmings when it comes to goods. If companies cared for people as much as profits, we would live in a much different world.

Hal, with no union in place, it cannot be said with certainty whether this union could have or have not prevented this man's death. We just don't know because the union doesn't exist to chide or praise.

Quote:

If we're going to blame wal mart for creating that culture of a frenzy, then we really have to blame the entire country.

Why? The one does not follow from the other. A company has many choices as to how they behave and present themselves. They are not bound in to some national straitjacket. Do other companies conduct themselves in the same way?
We have been pointing out examples of public bodies that take the dangers of crowds seriously and which spend money and resources on removing their risks such as theatres and stadiums.
I ask again for I do not see the US adverts, does Wall Mart use the images of such rushes and crowds for their benefit?

No, we can't KNOW for certain in a hypothetical situation, but we can have a high degree of certainty. The chances of this happening are so slim, that even if there was a union in place, and even if this was a high priority for them, the cost to wal mart would be HUGE to make all of their front doors mob-proof.

The union would be in a terrible bargaining position because the liklihood is so small, and it would be one of the first things they'd give up for something else they wanted, because at best it would be a bargaining chip.

The only way wal mart would do anything about this, is if the PR from not doing it, would cost them more than doing something would. IMHO, in case anyone was wondering.

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:

Quote:

If we're going to blame wal mart for creating that culture of a frenzy, then we really have to blame the entire country.

Why? The one does not follow from the other. A company has many choices as to how they behave and present themselves. They are not bound in to some national straitjacket. Do other companies conduct themselves in the same way?
We have been pointing out examples of public bodies that take the dangers of crowds seriously and which spend money and resources on removing their risks such as theatres and stadiums.
I ask again for I do not see the US adverts, does Wall Mart use the images of such rushes and crowds for their benefit?

Yes, most major retail companies in the US do exactly the same thing. They are all fighting over people's business, because the day after thanksgiving was found to be the day people spend the most at retail some time ago.

The sales and incentives companies came up with to compete, and the public's clear desire to save a dollar on socks at all costs... have developed into a culture of mob shoppers on the day after Thanksgiving.

Quote:

. . . . A company has many choices as to how they behave and present themselves. They are not bound in to some national straitjacket. Do other companies conduct themselves in the same way?
We have been pointing out examples of public bodies that take the dangers of crowds seriously and which spend money and resources on removing their risks such as theatres and stadiums.
I ask again for I do not see the US adverts, does Wall Mart use the images of such rushes and crowds for their benefit?

Walmart chooses this kind of retailing. Other chains don't.

This went too far. I would be willing to bet they will change things up a little for the next time. There is no need whatsoever to have things get to the point that a man will be trampled to death. The mob mentality takes over at these moments, and Walmart and a few other retailers know how to whip it up. It's their bread and butter. They ought to be ashamed of themselves and they ought to publicly apologize for causing the mayhem that contributed to this poor man's death. He was a part time worker, probably making minimum wage. Poor sod.

hal wrote:

No, we can't KNOW for certain in a hypothetical situation, but we can have a high degree of certainty. The chances of this happening are so slim, that even if there was a union in place, and even if this was a high priority for them, the cost to wal mart would be HUGE to make all of their front doors mob-proof.

How can we have a high degree of certainty? A high degree of conjecture maybe. It isn't simply making the front doors mob-proof, but putting into action a plan to better control the crowd. Sadly, that's all moot considering it either wasn't done, or the crowd was larger than Wal-Mart's plan had originally thought. Unsure.