Oh, that poor "deprived" and "abused" Walmart corporation!

[Cooky]

What if the product is no good?

still only a fraction I believe.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

still only a fraction I believe.

That is definitely theft. You buy a product in good faith at their store thinking you bought an unbroken product, get home plug it in, find out it is a dud, go back to the store and they on;y give you a small fraction of what you paid inn good faith back. How isn't this theft?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without the express permission and consent of the employee and their families. Employee were told to sign a piece of paper without reading or having a lawyer consult them about and then Walmart used that to take out dead peasant policies

Yes, they bought policies that paid them because it costs money to replace good employees. Walmart paid for the policies to cover their personal losses if a valued employee died. So how did they steal? The money would never have gone to the employees family. If Walmart could not have done so, and it does appear to be a legal thing to do, they would simply not have bought the life insurance.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Yes, they bought policies that paid them because it costs money to replace good employees. Walmart paid for the policies to cover their personal losses if a valued employee died. So how did they steal? The money would never have gone to the employees family. If Walmart could not have done so, and it does appear to be a legal thing to do, they would simply not have bought the life insurance.

What exactly did they insure against again? Loss of what again?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Without the express permission and consent of the employee and their families. Employee were told to sign a piece of paper without reading or having a lawyer consult them about and then Walmart used that to take out dead peasant policies

On the face of it, I do not like these types of legal shenanigans. Especially in a company that is using the death of some employees to pay for the healthcare costs of others to avoid costs to themself. But how do we know that the policies were signed without consent of the signatures? How does that apply to the standing of the widowers?

To me, legal maneuvering like this is the rich person's version of welfare, but if they are operating within the law, the only way to deal with that is to seek changes in the laws.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, they bought policies that paid them because it costs money to replace good employees. Walmart paid for the policies to cover their personal losses if a valued employee died. So how did they steal? The money would never have gone to the employees family. If Walmart could not have done so, and it does appear to be a legal thing to do, they would simply not have bought the life insurance.

I am not sure I like it, but it sounds legal. Where my emotional distaste enters this question is in my ability and interest to promote change in the laws that support this. Though it sounds like supply and demand took care of the policy without need of people involving regulators.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I am not sure I like it, but it sounds legal. Where my emotional distaste enters this question is in my ability and interest to promote change in the laws that support this. Though it sounds like supply and demand took care of the policy without need of people involving regulators.

It is in a very grey area. The whole idea that some can place what is basically PROPERTY insure on a human being just stinks. These people weren't Walmart's property.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You should most definitely not kill someone because the voices say to or because your consciouse thinks it will feel good and give you a release.

I had a discussion with a psychiatrist friend about this. I mentioned that people tell me all sorts of things all the time and I can ignore it, listen, respond or accept what they say and even apply it. There is no compulsion to respond or act on any of it, especially all of it. He mentioned that he had a patient that saw a cat in her house when she has no cat. She understands it is not there, but she cannot help but see it. She, along with help, recognizes this fact and she takes medicine and attends therapy to deal with it. In some cases, people suffering from these delusions can recognize the fact and deal with it. It is those people that suffer command delusions that take it to the next level. They respond as if they are compelled to follow the commands no matter what. Fortunately, these are a minority of the people suffering from mental illness.

 

[Revoltingest]

Looking back when I was a kid, things were great. I did not have full knowledge of the world around me, I was white, I had limited worries and responsibilities, I did not understand what war was, etc., etc. What a cherry orchard of wonderful memories.

Aye, many of the worst things I know of aren't in my memory,
eg, segregation, illegal abortion, illegal homosexuality,
smaller homes, tolerance for child molesting....& more
which I won't remember.

But I do remember compulsory prayer in public schools,
tens of thousands of draftees dying in wars, no seat belts,
leaded gasoline, no AC, lousy TV, many teeth cavities,
smoking everywhere, less food variety, poorer tools,
painful dentistry, strict dress codes, blue laws, tolerance
of bullying in schools....& more I'll think of later.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is in a very grey area. The whole idea that some can place what is basically PROPERTY insure on a human being just stinks. These people weren't Walmart's property.

I agree. It seems very grey. A company can make a legitimate argument that the cost of replacing employees justifies a policy like that. Celebrities (or their body parts) are ensured in case something happens while they are making their movie, album or whatever work product relies on their presence for completion. It seems creepy to me, but that is not a sound basis for challenging it. Creepy is a gut basis for looking further to see if their is real reason to be creeped out.

Are they acting as if the employee is property? If they are, then there are larger issues involved than just life insurance. The entire way the company views employees would be outside of the image that Walmart tries to pass off as part of their values.

As I said, on the face of it, I do not like it and it sounds like the wealthy version of welfare, but I do not know that it is. Before I went off half cocked on my emotional response, I would have to know more. Of course the only more that is sufficient and relative is the legal basis on which such insurance policies are employed. If it is legal and there is a business reason to do it, no matter how creepy I find it, it may not be an evil act.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Aye, many of the worst things I know of aren't in my memory,
eg, segregation, illegal abortion, illegal homosexuality,
smaller homes, tolerance for child molesting....& more
which I won't remember.

But I do remember compulsory prayer in public schools,
tens of thousands of draftees dying in wars, no seat belts,
leaded gasoline, no AC, lousy TV, many teeth cavities,
smoking everywhere, less food variety, poorer tools,
painful dentistry, strict dress codes, blue laws, tolerance
of bullying in schools....& more I'll think of later.

I remember some of that. I grew up without AC. My parents smoked. My father quit without much ado, but mom took longer, though she finally won out. I started watching Perry Mason again after many years and in one episode he visits an office. He is talking to the receptionist and he starts fumbling with something on her desk. I thought it was a candy jar at first. Then I realized it was a cigarette jar and he was getting a smoke. I have never been someplace where cigarettes were put up like candy in a dish, but apparently it was a thing at one time. We did not have seat belts when I was really young, but we did have the "don't make me stop this car" dad. He never did stop the car, so I cannot say what would have happened.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Aye, many of the worst things I know of aren't in my memory,
eg, segregation, illegal abortion, illegal homosexuality,
smaller homes, tolerance for child molesting....& more
which I won't remember.

But I do remember compulsory prayer in public schools,
tens of thousands of draftees dying in wars, no seat belts,
leaded gasoline, no AC, lousy TV, many teeth cavities,
smoking everywhere, less food variety, poorer tools,
painful dentistry, strict dress codes, blue laws, tolerance
of bullying in schools....& more I'll think of later.

As I have gotten older, I have come to understand that I actually had a pretty good life growing up. I was sheltered from many things that I have come to discover that others had to deal with. We were not wealthy, but we were not the poor people I envisioned us as being. Still, there were many things we did without or that were a part of the culture that were not very safe or healthy. But much has improved since that time and are better now. In the wider world that I was often blissfully unaware of, many, many more improvements have taken place. Growing up in the 1970's and 80's I was told how wonderful the 50's were. I suppose that was true if you were middle class and white.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Aye, many of the worst things I know of aren't in my memory,
eg, segregation, illegal abortion, illegal homosexuality,
smaller homes, tolerance for child molesting....& more
which I won't remember.

But I do remember compulsory prayer in public schools,
tens of thousands of draftees dying in wars, no seat belts,
leaded gasoline, no AC, lousy TV, many teeth cavities,
smoking everywhere, less food variety, poorer tools,
painful dentistry, strict dress codes, blue laws, tolerance
of bullying in schools....& more I'll think of later.

That was one area where I had an advantage. My father was a Korean War vet and we had post privileges. Growing up, I had access to fruits, vegetables and foods from around the world that would take at least another 20 years before they were widely available in small town America. I remember mom and dad brought home papayas from the Commissary and we grew plants from the seeds in a box in the kitchen. I took them to show and tell in 1st grade. Only a couple of kids knew what papayas were and then only from word of mouth. I don't think the kids bullied me about it, but it would have been overlooked if they had.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, that is the idea I wanted to convey.


I was thinking more of potential, but I do acknowledge a need for regulation. The depth and breadth of it can be a source of discussion and debate.

That is the problem in responding to an OP like the one on this thread. If you favor the just application of the law, people will use that as a false reason to claim that you are defending a giant corporation over poor people. I support the rule of law, but that is not absolving Walmart of some of the practices the company engages in. I sure would not advocate barbarism as an answer though.

That might be a money maker though. Business Gone Wild, Mardi Gras edition. Whoooo!

If Walmart does something undesired, that can be addressed.
But for some to use this to justify theft is just heinous.

 

[Audie]

As I have gotten older, I have come to understand that I actually had a pretty good life growing up. I was sheltered from many things that I have come to discover that others had to deal with. We were not wealthy, but we were not the poor people I envisioned us as being. Still, there were many things we did without or that were a part of the culture that were not very safe or healthy. But much has improved since that time and are better now. In the wider world that I was often blissfully unaware of, many, many more improvements have taken place. Growing up in the 1970's and 80's I was told how wonderful the 50's were. I suppose that was true if you were middle class and white.

The 50s were not so great in war ravaged countries,
I guess. Probably not good anywhere except Canada and the
US.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, as mentioned above, people complain about the possibility that they might lose the good life and the fact that they're currently well off. But there are still others who aren't quite so well off, even if they may not be living in the abject squalor existent in some other nations in this world.

And even as far as how we compare to other countries, even here on RF, we hear from people in other countries who say that their healthcare system is much better. I've often heard people say that our educational system is faltering and lagging behind that of other countries. Our standing in the world and our credit rating as a nation have diminished. We're falling deeper and deeper into debt.

We could even end up in a nuclear war. Then it'll be Planet of the Apes all over again.



You're asking me to come up with statistics on a Saturday afternoon? It's almost time for my nap.



Earlier you were talking about using "real world" examples, but I would prefer to look at American history and how our "capitalist" society was achieved in more real world terms. When the existence of the Americas became known to the Europeans, it began a series of events in which various nations and factions scrambled for control over what they saw as "open territory."

Some people saw America as a literal gold mine - and there was a good deal of arable land, forest land, furs, mineral resources. There was quite a lot of wealth just by happening to stumble on to a piece of land which was sparsely populated where the indigenous inhabitants did not have the means to defend themselves against people armed with the weapons they were manufacturing in Europe at the time.

Cotton was also a big source of wealth for many states - although the issue of slavery led to a sharp divide in America which culminated in the Civil War and has remained a volatile and prominent issue to this very day.

There were also competing economic systems in America at the time. The South was an agrarian, slave-based economy dependent upon a single commodity for its national income, relying solely on that and importing everything else. The North was more industrial and diversified - and very capitalistic, although perhaps more predatory and malignant back in those bad old days. They had child labor, sweatshops, horrid working conditions, people living in tenements, company stores. Even the Postbellum South had sharecropping and embraced many of the same practices of the North.

It wasn't really until the World Wars, particularly the time of FDR, that conditions in America reached anything to the more tolerable and relatively decent levels most of us have seen in our lifetimes today. That's when the labor movement and the civil rights movement had built up enough strength and support to start to come into their own. I would say that was more in spite of capitalism than because of it. That is, capitalism had to be restrained and follow a different set of rules than what they were previously used to.

In more recent decades, capitalists have complained that these restrictions, regulations, and other forms of interference from "big gov" have hurt them and hindered their ability to make enough profit. The voters have heard this and were persuaded to support politicians like Reagan and Bush, who were ardent capitalists and advocates of lower taxes, deregulation, getting big government off our backs. Down with socialism! Down with welfare, those lazy bums! No more revenuers!

So, when it looks like more people want to remove the restraints and regulations put upon capitalism to make it more socially responsible and a positive force towards the betterment of society, then people may begin to see it more and more as a negative force and react against it.

I cannot face even where to begin responding to so much.
OK...civil rights....
Capitalism, as it's defined, doesn't address civil rights.
Neither does communism or socialism.
The extent of such rights is related to the economic system,
with capitalism allowing for greater rights, eg, freedom of
political speech, religion, redress in courts.
There is a theoretical basis for this, but set that aside in
favor of comparing the best of capitalist vs the best of
command economies. Empirically, capitalism wins.

The things wanted by so many self-proclaimed "socialists"
are really the province of government. Taxes can fuel them,
more generously than any command economy, but this only
occurs if the citizenry votes such leaders into office.
Even Democrats have been unwilling to go very far down
that road.

 

[Audie]

If Walmart does something undesired, that can be addressed.
But for some to use this to justify theft is just heinous.

Sure, steal a fighter plane from the Nazis but
Walmart , not so comlarable.

 

[Revoltingest]

....we did have the "don't make me stop this car" dad. He never did stop the car, so I cannot say what would have happened.

Did he at least slow down when you had to enter or exit the car?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If Walmart does something undesired, that can be addressed.
But for some to use this to justify theft is just heinous.

I agree. Apparently, overlooking petty crime is just the tip of the iceberg. It seems that some consider this justification for slaughter. I can probably guess that you would be as reluctant to throw support behind a movement that was based on killing selected citizens for emotional and political reasons as I am.

The way I see it. If a person is upset about how a law is enforced and adjudicated, there are rational, civil and legal means for them to address this. If your gut tells you something is rotten, then investigate and research to see if your gut is correct. Then communicate your views and seek leaders that reflect those views and drive change that way.

Assembling a hit list is a terrorist act and one that is a risky gamble on top of all of that. What you shoot into motion may explode out of control and out of the original scope that the hits were supposed to create. Russia and the Soviet Union are a great example of that. Russia needed change and that need went number one with a bullet. Then there was 70 years of dictatorship in the guise of communism.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I have gotten older, I have come to understand that I actually had a pretty good life growing up. I was sheltered from many things that I have come to discover that others had to deal with. We were not wealthy, but we were not the poor people I envisioned us as being. Still, there were many things we did without or that were a part of the culture that were not very safe or healthy. But much has improved since that time and are better now. In the wider world that I was often blissfully unaware of, many, many more improvements have taken place. Growing up in the 1970's and 80's I was told how wonderful the 50's were. I suppose that was true if you were middle class and white.

The 50s were wonderful for the people for whom it was wonderful.
(How's that for a truism?)

Change affects our perception of things. People who just won WW2
saw things really looking up. I recall one uncle whose compatriots
all died in the Pacific theater....so he was pretty happy with his
post-war quality of life. Today, people have it much better, but they
don't see this same fantastic improvement, so they perceive
stagnation & ennui instead of enjoying a pretty darn good lifestyle.