quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So the proven cases, hundreds of proven cases, get blown off and you try and belittle the ongoing cases. What proof do you need? The $300+ million settlement? The numerous cases where Wal-Mart lost at trial? What?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So the proven cases, hundreds of proven cases, get blown off and you try and belittle the ongoing cases. What proof do you need? The $300+ million settlement? The numerous cases where Wal-Mart lost at trial? What?

Proven cases shows that the company did some things illegal before. None of which I deny. And, proven cases also mean that WalMart paid a price for their actions. So, they paid the consequence. Those cases don't necessarily apply today, do they?

I didn't belittle the more current cases, except to say that they haven't proven anything. I didn't say they never would. I even stated that they should be held accountable, according to the law, if they are found guilty in either (or both) of those cases.

I do believe you should at least give WalMart the opportunity to represent themselves in court of law and let our legal system work. Innocent until proven guilty shouldn't be just an adage.

All you gave me that proves anything, is 1. WalMart acted illegally and was sued, and 2. They were found guilty and paid for it (link from 2008). Nothing current proving that their business practices are still flouting the law; just allegations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So the proven cases, hundreds of proven cases, get blown off and you try and belittle the ongoing cases. What proof do you need? The $300+ million settlement? The numerous cases where Wal-Mart lost at trial? What?

Proven cases shows that the company did some things illegal before. None of which I deny. And, proven cases also mean that WalMart paid a price for their actions. So, they paid the consequence. Those cases don't necessarily apply today, do they?
I didn't belittle the more current cases, except to say that they haven't proven anything. I didn't say they never would. I even stated that they should be held accountable, according to the law, if they are found guilty in either (or both) of those cases.
I do believe you should at least give WalMart the opportunity to represent themselves in court of law and let our legal system work. Innocent until proven guilty shouldn't be just an adage.
All you gave me that proves anything, is 1. WalMart acted illegally and was sued, and 2. They were found guilty and paid for it (link from 2008). Nothing current proving that their business practices are still flouting the law; just allegations.

And when they do lose those cases they will also be in the past and you can then argue those have no relevance to the company at the present. Do you not see the problem with that stance?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So the proven cases, hundreds of proven cases, get blown off and you try and belittle the ongoing cases. What proof do you need? The $300+ million settlement? The numerous cases where Wal-Mart lost at trial? What?

Proven cases shows that the company did some things illegal before. None of which I deny. And, proven cases also mean that WalMart paid a price for their actions. So, they paid the consequence. Those cases don't necessarily apply today, do they?
I didn't belittle the more current cases, except to say that they haven't proven anything. I didn't say they never would. I even stated that they should be held accountable, according to the law, if they are found guilty in either (or both) of those cases.
I do believe you should at least give WalMart the opportunity to represent themselves in court of law and let our legal system work. Innocent until proven guilty shouldn't be just an adage.
All you gave me that proves anything, is 1. WalMart acted illegally and was sued, and 2. They were found guilty and paid for it (link from 2008). Nothing current proving that their business practices are still flouting the law; just allegations.

And when they do lose those cases they will also be in the past and you can then argue those have no relevance to the company at the present. Do you not see the problem with that stance?

Do you see no problem with guilty until proven innocent?

If WalMart loses those cases (and any other cases from illegal activity that occurred within the past decade) then they should be held accountable according to the law.

Obviously, we can't convict WalMart for future illegal activities, so any case they lose will, technically, be "in the past." But, when you're not convicted of any activity that occurred in the past decade, at what point do past illegal activities become no longer relevant? Does Nike still have to pay the price for the sweatshops they used in the 80's?

WalMart hasn't been found guilty of anything in those last two links, Ken. Until they are, they are innocent. That's how our legal system works. Deal with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

"I'm not smart enough to fill these guys shoes, so I can't say if it's worth 10's of millions to do their job.

I can tell you that, on my best day, I'd have a tough time keeping track of 3,200 Supercenters, 1,200,000 employees, 40 architectural firms, 161 General Contractors and planned meetings with the next lower 38 committees that want my time in the next 4 days.

(I can add 3 consecutive numbers at a nearly 74% accuracy rate and I wouldn't take that job for 30 million bucks)."
_____________________________________________


I just retired from a multi-billion dollar corporation (multi-billions in profits, too). I worked at the headquarters and spoke informally with the CEO once or twice.

Let me assure you: Most CEOs do not even try to keep track of minutiae, such as all 3200 stores or 1,200,000 employees or outside firms or general contractors or anything else.
Every CEO of a major corporation has dozens of executive vice-presidents and division managers for doing that and all of them have bonuses and merit increases riding on their performance metrics.
The CEO is just the gathering point for this information, which he then in turn reports to the Board of Directors.

If the VPs and division heads don't produce good numbers to make the CEO look good so he receives his huge bonus, they do not remain around very long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover

What happened to you is tragic. I lost a company that I worked 25 years to make and had to lay staff off at Christmas time. I had to sell my house to move to where I could find work. And you know what, that happened to you and me because Carter and Clinton screwed with the economy to implement a socialist wish list that created a housing bubble that burst. Obama is doing the same thing now to the stock market with 85 billion dollars a month. All of which just shows that social justice doesn't work, never worked and will never work. So, are you now all in to artificially raise a wage for social justice or have you finally figured out that when the government fucks with the economy YOU will end up paying for it in the long run?

You are a republican, or worse, a tea-partier...aren't you?

You know, one of the most useful and important things I ever learned in college was when a professor said, "Important information can be useful to you regardless of whether or not it's entertaining or comes from a source you agree with." Look at domken, he'll only uses sources who agree with his political beliefs so he'll never be more than a useful idiot Kool aide drinker. Is that your aspiration in life? Do you need to know my political beliefs before you can consider my points? You do seem to judge people by how much they agree with you. Will you close your mind like domken if I am one of those "worse" nutsackers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sloguy02246

quote:




Anyone who still believes that simply working harder and doing better than the person next to you will move you on is, in my humble opinion, a fool.

Amen.
Amen.
Amen.

This totally erroneous belief that if a person works as hard as they can, nothing but good fortune will befall them is ridiculous. Today, working as hard as you can only guarantees your employer will enjoy greater productivity from you. There is no guarantee that it will benefit your career.

As one of the political pundits on TV recently said, people who work the hardest aren't the ones actually running our corporations and government. If that were true, our nation would be run by guys running lawn mowers and leaf blowers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: wnyThroatLover
I know my numbers weren't quite exact. I did a little rounding (down) with a couple of the figures to make the math a little easier to follow...
Granted Walmart made insane profits, can you honestly tell me that he did over 1000x the work of the individuals in the stores? I can't believe that to be true.
Not to mention, the biggest point of what I was trying to say there was simply this:
What in the hell could these CEO's possibly need (Insert ridiculous number of millions here) a year for?!? Does anyone really need 4 houses and 10 jets and 30 cars, especially when there are people around who bust their asses and can barely afford their small apartment and 1 or 2 (if it's a couple) cars and can barely pay their bills or buy food.
If I made 16 million in one year, I could easily retire and live VERY comfortably for the remainder of my days, and I'm sure any of you could as well!
There is this show called "Hoarders" where people fill their homes with things they are never going to do anything with. These people are doing the same thing with money.

How hard to the top CEO's work? How hard did Sam Walton work? How hard does an accountant work?

As far as what a CEO "needs" millions for? Doesn't matter. It's not up to you, me, or anyone else. Maybe that CEO is setting his/her kids up so they don't have to work as hard as he/she did. Maybe that CEO is setting up a foundation to help the less fortunate.

Well if the concern if truly how much more the CEO is making I guess we will have to start hating these guys too. According to the chart several are worse than walmart including target.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mcdonalds-starbucks-ceos-more-9-110100507.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So the proven cases, hundreds of proven cases, get blown off and you try and belittle the ongoing cases. What proof do you need? The $300+ million settlement? The numerous cases where Wal-Mart lost at trial? What?

Proven cases shows that the company did some things illegal before. None of which I deny. And, proven cases also mean that WalMart paid a price for their actions. So, they paid the consequence. Those cases don't necessarily apply today, do they?
I didn't belittle the more current cases, except to say that they haven't proven anything. I didn't say they never would. I even stated that they should be held accountable, according to the law, if they are found guilty in either (or both) of those cases.
I do believe you should at least give WalMart the opportunity to represent themselves in court of law and let our legal system work. Innocent until proven guilty shouldn't be just an adage.
All you gave me that proves anything, is 1. WalMart acted illegally and was sued, and 2. They were found guilty and paid for it (link from 2008). Nothing current proving that their business practices are still flouting the law; just allegations.

And when they do lose those cases they will also be in the past and you can then argue those have no relevance to the company at the present. Do you not see the problem with that stance?

Do you see no problem with guilty until proven innocent?

If WalMart loses those cases (and any other cases from illegal activity that occurred within the past decade) then they should be held accountable according to the law.

Obviously, we can't convict WalMart for future illegal activities, so any case they lose will, technically, be "in the past." But, when you're not convicted of any activity that occurred in the past decade, at what point do past illegal activities become no longer relevant? Does Nike still have to pay the price for the sweatshops they used in the 80's?

WalMart hasn't been found guilty of anything in those last two links, Ken. Until they are, they are innocent. That's how our legal system works. Deal with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
Desi, everyone knows WalMart kills babies in the stock room at every store, WalMart hates black people and Latinos and Jews....even Norwegians! Last week there was a WalMart in South Dakota that was stabbing new born puppy dogs just for fun. The staff was given $100.00 for every 10 new born puppies they stabbed. And an extra $200.00 for the first person to stab 100 new born puppies in under 7 minutes (I think it may have been an efficiency training meeting).

Then, in Orlando a manager was charged for having sex in front of several new hires with a live chicken.

These are the things that WalMart is all about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so where do you suppose al these mcdonalds workers get retraining, what in, where? how much, how long? what do they live on while they work and retrain?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So no matter how many times Wal-Mart is caught making employees work off the clock it is irrelevant because it isn't provably happening at this time. Do you not understand that the number of times they've been caught does show that it is an ongoing practice?
This all started because you asked for proof that Wal-Mart routinely forces employees to work off the clock. I presented proof they've lost and settled many cases involving such. I also presented ongoing litigation involving the same. What would constitute proof if neither of those qualify?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
If the problem is The Man.....be the man.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
If the problem is The Man.....be the man.

QFT

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so where do you suppose al these mcdonalds workers get retraining, what in, where? how much, how long? what do they live on while they work and retrain?

We were just discussing something similar. Our local community college offers adult courses for nominal fees that teach people all sorts of skills and offers certifications in certain careers, like Administrative Assistant. Because of the class scheule, they would have no need to stop working.

That said, I bartended my way through college so that I would have something to live on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So no matter how many times Wal-Mart is caught making employees work off the clock it is irrelevant because it isn't provably happening at this time. Do you not understand that the number of times they've been caught does show that it is an ongoing practice?
This all started because you asked for proof that Wal-Mart routinely forces employees to work off the clock. I presented proof they've lost and settled many cases involving such. I also presented ongoing litigation involving the same. What would constitute proof if neither of those qualify?

Ongoing litigation isn't proof of guilt, though, Ken. A decade is a long time, and may show that the company has made changes. If these last two suits find WalMart guilty (especially the one regarding the dockworkers, as that's more of a Corporate-level thing than a worker at one WalMart), then there is more proof that WalMart is still routinely forcing employees to work off the clock. Until those suits come back with a guilty verdict, the only thing we know, is that WalMart has forced employees to work off the clock before.

How much time has to go by before WalMart is no longer blasted over previous illegal actions (for which they were found guilty and paid restitution as a consequence)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So no matter how many times Wal-Mart is caught making employees work off the clock it is irrelevant because it isn't provably happening at this time. Do you not understand that the number of times they've been caught does show that it is an ongoing practice?
This all started because you asked for proof that Wal-Mart routinely forces employees to work off the clock. I presented proof they've lost and settled many cases involving such. I also presented ongoing litigation involving the same. What would constitute proof if neither of those qualify?

Ongoing litigation isn't proof of guilt, though, Ken. A decade is a long time, and may show that the company has made changes. If these last two suits find WalMart guilty (especially the one regarding the dockworkers, as that's more of a Corporate-level thing than a worker at one WalMart), then there is more proof that WalMart is still routinely forcing employees to work off the clock. Until those suits come back with a guilty verdict, the only thing we know, is that WalMart has forced employees to work off the clock before.
How much time has to go by before WalMart is no longer blasted over previous illegal actions (for which they were found guilty and paid restitution as a consequence)?

How about until they win some cases where this is alleged?
And the cases I presented were not all a decade old.
This is 5 years old
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/business/24walmart.html?_r=1&
And was clearly a case of Wal-Mart trying to get rid of these cases while no one was watching the news, note the date of the story.

quote:

“Many of these lawsuits were filed years ago, and the allegations are not representative of the company we are today,” Tom Mars, general counsel and executive vice president at Wal-Mart Stores, said.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)