Page 3 of 7 First 1234567 Last
  1. #21
    Rivington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,807
    Style
    Taijiquan
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I think it's pretty unlikely even outside the legal issues, which are incredibly unbalanced on the side of employers, partially because Wal-Mart is incredibly litigious and the unemployed people are, well, unemployed and don't constitute a large enough class—that is, this isn't happening all the time at Wal-Mart—to get very far on their own. Also, then there's the particular issue:

    “He looked right at me and said, 'The gun is cocked. C’mon guys, just let me go. I don’t want to do this,'” Shawn Ray recalled.


    Wal-Mart would surely argue, and likely very persuasively, than the employees should have done just that. Mr. Ray gave away his case to the newspaper.

    All that said, I am by no means defending Wal-Mart's policies or actions; I'm just describing them. The ultimate solution to this sort of thing is organized labor (which Wal-Mart is against, of course, as are, foolishly, many many employees in Utah). Legislation and regulation can be ignored for a long time, and individual judicial solutions are generally only partial and that after years and thousands upon thousands of dollars spent.

  2. #22
    W. Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,822
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mo_Fo View Post
    You seem to be very familiar with workplace/HR law, do you think that since the employees were defending their lives rather than asset protection that this would stand in the court of law as a wrongful termination suit?
    The men were asset protection staff in the process of performing their duties (the gunman was a suspected shoplifter brought to a back office). They violated Walmart's company policy AP09 by counterattacking the gunman. The policy specifically describes the situation of a gun being drawn during an altercation with a shoplifter.

    Walmart's position is that, being asset protection staff (and a store manager), they knew exactly what "disengage and withdraw" in AP09 meant. The ex-employees are trying to limit the meaning of the terms "withdraw" to presume that it means literally put distance between you and the gun-wielding suspect, when in fact Walmart's term is much broader and definitely is meant along the lines of "don't re-engage".

    They did, in fact, engage. I don't blame them for it, I think if put in the same situation many of us might react to save ourselves.

    So again just in case I wasn't clear, **** Walmart.

  3. #23
    W. Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,822
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    All that said, I am by no means defending Wal-Mart's policies or actions; I'm just describing them. The ultimate solution to this sort of thing is organized labor (which Wal-Mart is against, of course, as are, foolishly, many many employees in Utah). Legislation and regulation can be ignored for a long time, and individual judicial solutions are generally only partial and that after years and thousands upon thousands of dollars spent.
    I think we are pretty much in synch on this one. **** Walmart, thrice.

    By the way Fox News is telling me unions are evil. Is this true?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Thousand Oaks, CA
    Posts
    146
    Style
    BJJ, Boxing
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    “He looked right at me and said, 'The gun is cocked. C’mon guys, just let me go. I don’t want to do this,'” Shawn Ray recalled.

    This. I missed this line. Good catch. That will be the statement that will be their undoing in attempting litigation.
    I agree with you.

  5. #25
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,724
    Style
    xingyi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Unions are a catch-22. If they had one in Walmart we might not have heard about this at all. It my have been handled in house and they might have kept their jobs.

  6. #26
    Rivington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,807
    Style
    Taijiquan
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Unions are a catch-22. If they had one in Walmart we might not have heard about this at all. It my have been handled in house and they might have kept their jobs.
    Yup. Or if they were let go the union lawyers would be working on the case instead of whatever guy down at the Legal Hut at the shopping mall these fellows could afford. Or the policy might have been different in the first place due to bargaining. Or or or...

    Not sure what you mean by Catch-22 though, as that refers to the paradox of needing something you can only get by not needing it. (If you want to be declared unfit to fly combat mission, you have to ask for an evaluation—however, asking to be declared unfit demonstrates fitness... or to get a literary agent you need to be published; to be published you need a literary agent.)

  7. #27
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,724
    Style
    xingyi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Yes, your agent example is what I am referring to with some of the unions I have encountered.

  8. #28
    Rivington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,807
    Style
    Taijiquan
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You mean getting into the union? That can happen, with the older craft unions. Wal-Mart would likely be organized by a broader union though.

  9. #29
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,724
    Style
    xingyi
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    No, I was thinking employment and union dues.

    Okay, we are using different definitions. Thanks, you always keep me on my toes.

    http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/catch-22
    a difficult situation for which there is no easy or possible solution
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1298489226
    a : an illogical, unreasonable, or senseless situation b : a measure or policy whose effect is the opposite of what was intended c : a situation presenting two equally undesirable alternatives
    I see how my original comment made little sense. I was responding to his "evil" comment.

  10. #30
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    This is basically what happened to Mark Tripp, right? Or am I guilty of just skimming over that whole thread?

Page 3 of 7 First 1234567 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO