There's Safety in a Union

Well that didn't take long. Just a few days after the death of a Wal-Mart employee in Long Island, following a stampede of psychotic "Black Friday" shoppers, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, longtime nemesis of the behemoth from Bentonville, was already exploiting the tragedy. CNN has details:

The union is calling for an investigation "by all levels of government" to ensure justice for Damour's family and make sure that such an incident never happens at Wal-Mart again.

"If the safety of their customers and workers was a top priority, then this never would have happened," said Patrick Purcell, a projects director for the local UFCW. "Wal-Mart must step up to the plate and ensure that all those injured, as well as the family of the deceased, be financially compensated for their injuries and their losses. Their words are weak."

The UFCW has long been a harsh critic of Wal-Mart's, arguing that the world's largest retailer offers low wages and poor health care for its workers and pushes competitors and suppliers to do the same or go out of business.

It is true, in its way. Perhaps the UFCW could argue that had the Long Island Wal-Mart been a union shop, wages would be much higher, as would be the price of the products on its shelves—thus potentially preventing the crush of bargain hunters.

In other Wal-Mart stampede news, the New York Times refers to the death in Long Island as a "shopping Guernica," comparing the trampling death to a Nazi bombing raid during the Spanish Civil War. And according to the Times, it was all rather predictable anyway, because big business like Wal-Mart are controlling our minds and making us kill for plasma televisions:

It was a tragedy, yet it did not feel like an accident. All those people were there, lined up in the cold and darkness, because of sophisticated marketing forces that have produced this day now called Black Friday. They were engaging in early-morning shopping as contact sport. American business has long excelled at creating a sense of shortage amid abundance, an anxiety that one must act now or miss out.


I wrote about the history of anti-big box hysteria here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The union is calling for an investigation "by all levels of government" to ensure justice for Damour's family and make sure that such an incident never happens at Wal-Mart again.

    "If the safety of their customers and workers was a top priority, then this never would have happened," said Patrick Purcell, a projects director for the local UFCW. "Wal-Mart must step up to the plate and ensure that all those injured, as well as the family of the deceased, be financially compensated for their injuries and their losses. Their words are weak."


    Those bastards!

    WTF is wrong with you?

  • ||

    It is true, in its way. Perhaps the UFCW could argue that had the Long Island Wal-Mart been a union shop, wages would be much higher, as would be the price of the products on its shelves-thus potentially preventing the crush of bargain hunters.

    Or perhaps they could make their actual argument, that unions have long succeeded in improving the safety of workplaces.

  • ||

    You need a federal investigation for a workers compensation claim? The managers screwed the pooch on crowd control.

    It's a terrible accident, but accident it was. Native Americans used the same principle to herd buffalo off cliffs. I doubt any of those shoppers had any idea they were killing a guy, or had any choice but to keep moving to avoid getting killed themselves even if they did know.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    An investigation by "all levels of government", joe? Really? That's what you want to defend?

  • BDB||

    This thread is going to degenerate into culture war bullshit very fast.

  • ||

    You need a federal investigation for a workers compensation claim?

    Justice, in a case of negligence like this, goes beyond workman's comp. We're talking OSHA fines as a start, and we'll see about criminal liability.

    An investigation by "all levels of government", joe? Really? That's what you want to defend? God damn motherfucking right, except I'll replace "defend" with "demand." Am I being clear enough? Local, state, and federal.

  • sage||

    It's a terrible accident, but accident it was. Native Americans used the same principle to herd buffalo off cliffs.

    Well, that didn't take long. You just Crazy-Horsed the thread.

  • ||

    You know who's to blame? Fucking Tickle Me Elmo, that's who.

  • ||

    I doubt any of those shoppers had any idea they were killing a guy, or had any choice but to keep moving to avoid getting killed themselves even if they did know.

    Right, it was the circumstances. People in a rushing mob are just trying not to go down and get killed themselves, once the rush starts.

    So, who created the circumstances and let them get out of hand?

  • Cosmotarian||

    I shop at WalMart with irony and disdain.

  • BDB||

    What was so difficult about putting the shoppers into a line and handing out tickets?

    Or does Target have a patent on TheLine that I'm not aware of?

  • hotsauce||

    joe forgot to take his meds again. A civil suit is more than enough to "get to the bottom of this."

  • ||

    Now I don't know about the Union angle or its relevance, but I think Wal-Mart should in fact be held liable in this case..

    The actions of its customers on Black Friday are clearly foreseeable, and this poor employee had no training in crowd control/management. He was asked to do this job because he was a big burly guy, an intimidating presence.

    If Wal-Mart (or any store) is going to allow their customers to camp out over night, and motivate floods of people to show up at the same time (via having early bird sales and limited supply) I believe said retailer has a responsibility to bring in extra security/staff and have them trained for crowd control and come up with a plan to keep some kind of order.

    Otherwise they should be held liable for their these forseeable tragedies.

    This isn't the first time someone has been trampled by crazed shoppers going nuts over cheap crap. These stores expect the chaos, and know it's coming yet can't be bothered to ramp up staff to keep the environment safe for their employees and their patrons.

  • ||

    You know who really needs a union? The Cylon Centurions. The skinjobs really abuse them. And don't get me started on Raiders.

  • Dello||

    joe,
    "God damn motherfucking right, except I'll replace "defend" with "demand." Am I being clear enough? Local, state, and federal."

    Yeah? Well just the other day, some fuckhead in a car didn't stop for my son and I when we were ALREADY IN THE CROSSWALK! He nearly hit us!!!

    I demand a local, state, and federal investigation!!

    What's that?

    Who cares! Hire more government employees at every level if you have to (or even if if you don't HAVE to), but I want this investigated!!

  • ||

    I doubt any of those shoppers had any idea they were killing a guy, or had any choice but to keep moving to avoid getting killed themselves even if they did know.

    I dunno about that. Shoppers were running / bumping into cops and paramedics that were trying to administer CPR to the downed fellow.

    When cops announced the store closing due to the injury shoppers were visibly and audibly pissed about it.

    Apparently people seem to lose their humanity when it comes do discounted crap.

  • ||

    What was so difficult about putting the shoppers into a line and handing out tickets?

    Or having actual security guards, and enough of them?

    A lot of workplace injuries can be traces to understaffing.

  • ||

    The union might have an argument if hundreds of Wal-Mart employees had been killed in a similar manner by Wal-Mart's negligence. Of course, this is a blatant attempt to use an accident (which probably is due to that store's negligence) to promote the union's agenda. Typical of the irrelevant nonsense we hear from unions trying to break into a company.

  • Dello||

    joe,
    "So, who created the circumstances and let them get out of hand?"

    Damn right! We need federal price controls on Plasma TVs, so that there is never a rush for stores to try and unload inventory at the end of the year.

  • ||

    Dello,

    The federal government has no jurisdiction over crosswalks. The entirety of the responsibility for enforcing traffic laws is at the local and state level.

    But good job pissing on this poor worker's grave. A car driving through a crosswalk. Yeah, that's a fair comparison.

  • ||

    Dello, kindly fuck off, and stop bringing up irrelevant RAH RAH TEAM RED crap.

    Price controls? Go troll some other thread.

  • Abdul||

    I get a creepy feeling watching Wal-Mart's ads where cashiers are flicking on and off their "on-duty" lights in time with the Ukranian Bell Carol. The cashiers are all smiling, ready to spread Christmas joy, and you just know a crowd of people whipped into a consumer frenzy is going to trample them like the slow pygmy at the elephant hunt.

    Still, it's hard to see how a Union would have changed this. The crowd pushed locked doors off their hinges! Would United Food and Commercial Workers have foreseen that?

  • libertarian democrat||

    I don't hold walmart particularly responsible, personally. I am sure they could and should have done more, and hold some blame, but not the majority of it.

    I think every person in the stampede should be charged with assault or a form of manslaughter. Diffuse responsibility is not no responsibility.

  • Fluffy||

    Or perhaps they could make their actual argument, that unions have long succeeded in improving the safety of workplaces.

    Justice, in a case of negligence like this, goes beyond workman's comp. We're talking OSHA fines as a start, and we'll see about criminal liability.


    The hazard here isn't unsafe machinery or poorly stored chemicals, joe. The hazard here is that customers came to a retail store. The police visited the store before the incident, decided that it wasn't a hazardous enough situation to require police involvement, and left.

    So unless your union plans on instituting changes that would prevent a retail store from having customers, there is little reason to believe that a union would have, or could have, improved matters. And I think the entire notion of criminal responsibility is rendered absurd and should be completely estopped by the fact that the police chose to leave. If the police could not realize the situation was dangerous, how could it possibly be reasonable for the store managers to realize it?

    That being said, I do, however, agree with the Times that Black Friday is set up to manipulate shoppers. If a store really wants to sell a limited number of items at a drastically discounted price, they could hand out tickets to the people who line up first for those items. But they usually don't do that, because they actually want people to get excited about getting into the store, because that excitement is what gets them to buy other items. Calmly handing out tickets to the first 200 people and then telling everyone else that things are sold out would defeat the entire purpose of having the sale in the first place.

  • ||

    Abdul,

    An adequate security presence and standard crowd control practices would have prevented the crowd from getting to the point where they were pushing doors off hinges.

    Of course, this is a blatant attempt to use an accident (which probably is due to that store's negligence) to promote the union's agenda. Uh, yeah, they're using an example of a worker killed through employer negligence to promote their worker safety agenda. Blatantly. Those bastards.

  • Dello||

    Joe,

    If we're gonna have an investigation at every level of government about ANYTHING, then shouldn't we do it about EVERYTHING?

    My answer would be "No: That's why we HAVE different levels of government."

    Your comments about jurisdiction support my arguement, wouldn't you agree?

  • sage||

    I doubt any of those shoppers had any idea they were killing a guy,

    Well I'm no expert, but I would think that a human torso has a little more give than a tile floor. That is to say, it feel different under your feet.

  • robc||

    So, who created the circumstances and let them get out of hand?

    The customers?

  • ||

    All those people were there, lined up in the cold and darkness, because of sophisticated marketing forces

    FucKinG CorpaRATshun MindCuntRol!


    Dello's right. You never hear about mobs rushing the counter at a state liquor store. WalMart doesn't need the UFCW, they need AFSCME.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    shopping Guernica

    More like Futball (soccer) Guernica, except less people died.

  • sage||

    The hazard here is that customers came to a retail store. The police visited the store before the incident, decided that it wasn't a hazardous enough situation to require police involvement, and left.

    Obviously the police need to be in a union.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Or perhaps they could make their actual argument, that unions have long succeeded in improving the safety of workplaces.

    Well of course. Workplace injuries usually go down when you gradually replace work with increasingly long coffee breaks.

  • Dello||

    Uh, joe?

    If the feds don't bring in price controls to manipulate the sale (to make it not a sale, and thus no rush), then what exactly should the feds be doing that state and local can't?

  • ||

    I would like to make a general point here: WTF is wrong with people?

    And I call for an investigation at all levels.

  • robc||

    I think every person in the stampede should be charged with assault or a form of manslaughter. Diffuse responsibility is not no responsibility.

    I heard on the radio that they have the video and are planning to press charges.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    God damn motherfucking right, except I'll replace "defend" with "demand." Am I being clear enough? Local, state, and federal.

    What should the federal government be investigating, exactly?

    Which bureau should do the investigating? The DoD? The DHS? The FBI?

    What, exactly, would the feds be investigating that New York State cannot do on its own?

  • ||

    Wrong, Fluffy.

    The hazard here is that customers came to a retail store.

    The hazard here was failing to provide adequate crowd control and security when faced with a crowd well beyond the ordinary operations of a retail store.

    No different from failing to provide a railing above a chemical vat. There was a hazardous situation, they put their employee into it without adequate safety measures, and he died on their floor.

    And I think the entire notion of criminal responsibility is rendered absurd and should be completely estopped by the fact that the police chose to leave. The police left Jeffrey Dahmer's appartment, just before he killed the teenage boy they saw with him. They didn't realize there was anything going on but a guy couple having fun. So?

    If the police could not realize the situation was dangerous, how could it possibly be reasonable for the store managers to realize it? The police aren't experts on customer rushes. Wal Mart, presumably, is. If some beat cop doesn't realize the cracks in a storage tank are really bad, is that supposed to relieve the company from responsibility when it gives?

  • ||

    Dello | December 2, 2008, 12:56pm | #

    Joe,

    If we're gonna have an investigation at every level of government about ANYTHING, then shouldn't we do it about EVERYTHING?


    No. We should have investigations at the appropriate level of government. In this country, worker safety is primarily the jurisdiction of OSHA.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't hold walmart particularly responsible, personally. I am sure they could and should have done more, and hold some blame, but not the majority of it.

    Considering the fact that the worker was killed because the mob broke down the doors before the store was officially open, after people in the crowd chanted "Break the doors! Break the doors!" I think the responsibility here belongs to persons in the crowd who committed, you know, actual crimes.

    If the standard of liability is going to be, "Your facilities should be able to withstand 2000 people determined to commit crimes" then very few workplace indeed are safe, and just about every workplace in the country is run by evil men who care not for the safety of their employees. Including, say, the State House in Massachusetts. I bet if I had 2000 people determined to bust shit up, I could get someone hurt there too. Those heartless capitalists!

  • ||

    Anybody who waits outside WalMart all night in the dark and cold to buy a teevee has got a better than even chance of successfully pleading non compos mentis.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    If Wal-Mart hired more employees like this these kinds of issues would be avoided.

  • Dello||

    "The police aren't experts on customer rushes."

    I thought the police were experts on every topic...

  • ||

    The customers?'

    Nope. The store. The customers didn't hold the sale, the customers didn't put one temp in charge of crowd control.

  • Abdul||

    Joe,

    I actually was a member of UFCW. My first job was bagging groceries at a union supermarket. You know who had better staffing, better wages, and better benefits? The non-union shop down the street.

    Perhaps the Union would have upped the staffing because it's good for members to get as many hours as possible, but I bet a Wal-Mart in Long Island on Black Friday had all hands on deck anyway.

    So while I don't doubt that security guards could've prevented the accident, I do doubt that the union would have required managment to hire non-union contract security guards to do work around the shop while some dues-paying members stay home not earning overtime.

  • ||

    "Or perhaps they could make their actual argument, that unions have long succeeded in improving the safety of workplaces."

    I'd credit a lot of that to insurance companies.

    I don't think it was the regulations that improved workers conditions so much as it was the courts that started recognizing and protecting workers' rights.

  • Dello||

    joe,
    "In this country, worker safety is primarily the jurisdiction of OSHA."

    So then why do we need state and local in this case?

  • ||

    Dello | December 2, 2008, 12:59pm | #

    Uh, joe?

    If the feds don't bring in price controls to manipulate the sale (to make it not a sale, and thus no rush), then what exactly should the feds be doing that state and local can't?


    Promulgate and enforce OSHA regulations.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    because you know what spells efficiency? Having the LIPD, the NYSPD and OSHA investigators tripping all over each other.

  • Other Matt||

    Fuckwit says: Dello, kindly fuck off, and stop bringing up irrelevant RAH RAH TEAM RED crap.

    As opposed to his "RAH RAH TEAM BLUE" crap which is entirely acceptable and even encouraged in his small mind, just so you understand.

    Unions trying to use a death as an organizing mechanism is pretty shitty, but expected, at least to me. Is there anyone who would disagree? I don't see it as that surprising, nor joe's going off meds response. It's all pretty much par for the course with those kind of people. The incident itself doesn't matter much, as long as they get a pulpit to put out their particularly spun bullshit.

    For instance, let's assume that the gate had stood instead of collapsing. It would stand to reason that there was a fairly high amount of pressure against that gate for it to collapse, which by necessity (under the laws of physics, though I'm sure joe will try to find some way they don't apply here because Wal Mart is mean to people)would have to be transmitted from the crowd through an individual. If the gate held, and individual was crushed, and killed, would the union be so vocal about how unionization would have fixed it? Of course not, because it doesn't suit their agenda. It isn't about a death, it's about an agenda.

    So, what's the big surprise that the unions do their typical lying crap, and joe goes off?

  • ||

    What should the federal government be investigating, exactly?

    Which bureau should do the investigating? The DoD? The DHS? The FBI?

    What, exactly, would the feds be investigating that New York State cannot do on its own?


    OSHAOSHAOSHAOSHAOSHAOSHAOSHAOSHAOSHAOSHAOSHAOHAOSHA.

    I can stop typing that now.

  • ||

    If the standard of liability is going to be, "Your facilities should be able to withstand 2000 people determined to commit crimes" then very few workplace indeed are safe, and just about every workplace in the country is run by evil men who care not for the safety of their employees. Including, say, the State House in Massachusetts.

    Good thing no one's proposing that standard, then. Nice strawman. Is it free-range?

  • Fluffy||

    The police aren't experts on customer rushes.

    Joe, come on now, this is just stupid.

    Who exactly IS an expert on crowd control, if not the police?

    The police aren't welders or engineers, joe. I would not expect them to evaluate a holding tank. But if they survey a large crowd and say, "Nope, nothing going on here that requires our intervention," that is pretty much definitive. Especially since the action Wal-Mart "should" have taken when faced with the crowd getting out of hand was...what, exactly? Hmmmm? ...[drumroll]... Who should they have called? The ghostbusters, joe?

    If the fire marshal visits your facility, inspects everything, says, "Everything here is absolutely perfect!" and then walks out as the place bursts into flame, I would think it similarly absurd to talk about criminal liability. That's the analogous situation - not one where we ask some beat cop to inspect pipe seals at a refinery.

  • ||

    And criminal investigations into this sort of thing seems ridiculous--at least directed at management.

    If they've got somebody on tape purposely stomping on somebody, well obviously...

    I was at a late night sale that night at two different stores, and they had a security guard at one of them (a Target) that handed out vouchers to people in line for the major sale item, a flat screen TV. That way, there was no need for people to rush through the door. As long as you had a number, you were getting a TV at the sale price.

    The other store, that didn't do that... That was kinda dumb, but criminal? Haven't movie theaters done it that way for like a century?

  • OSHA||

    Clearly WalMart needs stronger doors that can hold back a frenzied mob.

  • ||

    What OSHA regulation do you want, joe?

    You want them to say they can't do "first come, first served?"

  • adrian||

    does the NFL get blamed when football fans burn cars after the super bowl?

    is there no personal responsibility left in this world? the people who stepped on this guy are the ones who should be on trial.

  • robc||

    joe,

    Nope. The store. The customers didn't hold the sale, the customers didn't put one temp in charge of crowd control.

    The customers charged and broke down a locked door. The customers failed to line up nicely like we were all taught to do in elementary school. The customers acted like they were getting festival seating at a Who concert or tiered stands at an FA Cup semifinal.

    Does Wal-Mart have some civil responsibilities? Almost assuredly. There were a bunch of criminals amongst the customers. I would charge everyone who entered the store as part of the mob with at least negligent homicide. And ask for maximum sentence.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Not to be a jerk, but one has to ask, "If I were the one lone temp on the door, and I saw people breaking it in, why would I continue to stand there?"

  • ||

    Abdul,

    I'm not sure how your story is relevant. Unions typically push for conditions that are relevant to the actual issues faced at workplaces.

    "All hands on deck" - the problem is the number of hands. I'm sure they had the maximum number of employees their standards allowed. I'll bet all of the checkout counters were staffed, but that doesn't mean much when the issue is crowd control.

    And how did you make the leap from "all hands on deck" to "union employees at home not earning overtime?"

  • ||

    The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union is using this incident to make a point that's basically ideological, and as Michael Moynihan observes, that's exploiting the tragedy. He does this by way of making a point that basically ideological.

  • ||

    Joe'cuse!

    I think using one incident at one store to promote the idea that Wal-Mart exhibits a general contempt for its employees might just be a little overboard, yes. If the unionization of Wal-Mart has merit, let them argue it. Jumping onto an isolated but high-profile news item is the typical nonsense I was referring to.

    I do think that retailers should be careful about drumming up a frenzy and letting shoppers murder each other for $100 laptops, but Wal-Mart's hardly alone in doing that sort of thing.

  • ed||

    this day now called Black Friday

    Most of the stampeders were black. Coincidence?

  • ||

    Considering the fact that the worker was killed because the mob broke down the doors before the store was officially open, after people in the crowd chanted "Break the doors! Break the doors!" I think the responsibility here belongs to persons in the crowd who committed, you know, actual crimes.

    So tell me again, joe, how this was Wal-Mart's fault? How exactly was their staffing inadequate, considering it was behind locked doors?

    Was it reasonably foreseeable that the mob would riot? If you say yes, how many other big box retail stores have had riots over the past several years on Black Friday?

    Are there any other circumstances in which a store should be held responsible for crimes committed against store property and employees on its premises?

    Were any OSHA rules even arguably involved in this? OSHA regulates things like ergonomics, hazardous substances, safety equipment, and the like. Its all very nice to say OSHA should investigate, but I'd like to see even one OSHA regulation that could have prevented this before they get called in.

  • Fluffy||

    Good thing no one's proposing that standard, then.

    Bull fucking shit, joe. That's EXACTLY the standard you're proposing.

    You above called not just for civil liability, but for OSHA fines AND criminal liability.

    What happened in this case is that 2000 people broke the law. When you force the doors of a store open and run inside when the store isn't open for business, that's breaking and entering. When you chant instructions to someone else to do the same, that's criminal incitement.

    The Wal-Mart facility did not withstand 2000 people who committed a crime. Their doors broke, and this guy was crushed in the ensuing stampede.

    You advocated CRIMINAL LIABILITY for the store as a result.

    That to me means you are saying that if when 2000 people engaged in lawbreaking attack a facility, if the facility can't stand up to it and a worker is hurt, joe thinks the owners and managers should face criminal liability.

    No strawman. None at all. Just because you single out Wal-Mart and other non-union facilities as the only people who should be criminally liable in your mind, doesn't mean that your argument is actually limited in that way, joe.

  • ||

    Fuck you, Other Matt. A man is fucking dead, and instead of being bothered by that, you feign outrage that somebody is trying to prevent it from happening again?

    For instance, let's assume that the gate had stood instead of collapsing. How about, let's assume that you can read at a fourth-grade level, and everything I've written about crowd control, not stronger doors, being used to prevent the rush?

    Go crawl back under your rock, you racist dickhead.

  • sage||

    does the NFL get blamed when football fans burn cars after the super bowl?

    No, silly. The NFL is already a union shop.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I would charge everyone who entered the store as part of the mob with at least negligent homicide.

    You're saying that the unjustifiably disregarded a material risk and that their actions deviated from a reasonable standard of care.

    Given that there were people "in the middle" of the mob, what standard of care should they have employed when the mob crushed forward?

    You're basically asking people to have stopped a flowing river.

  • robc||

    Not to be a jerk, but one has to ask, "If I were the one lone temp on the door, and I saw people breaking it in, why would I continue to stand there?"

    What I heard on the radio was that he was trying to prevent a 8 month pregnant woman from getting crushed. Of course, the obvious question is "What the fuck was a 8-month pregnant woman doing in a mob?"

  • Warty||

    The athlete with his hernia says it
    Picasso with his Guernica says it
    My wife with her furniture
    Everybody!
    Babe, I'm on fire
    Babe, I'm on fire

  • Abdul||

    And how did you make the leap from "all hands on deck" to "union employees at home not earning overtime?"

    Where do you refute the point that Unions usually argue against managment hiring contract workers who are non-union members to do work that could be done by union members?

    "Management, please don't hire more security guards who would pay dues into our mobbed-up casino investment fund--I mean 'treasury.' Instead, hire some scabs because the health and safety of our workers is more important than filthy, filthy money."

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    Who exactly IS an expert on crowd control, if not the police?

    The police are experts at controling a crowd once they decide it needs to be controlled. They are not experts on whether a certain situation is dangerous, or what the likely behavior of people during a rush like that is.

    Who should they have called? More security. How many times do you want me to write this?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I'm sympathetic for the general situation, but the UFCW and the media are basically waving his bloody shirt. And frankly, it's offensive.

  • ||

    Ken Shultz | December 2, 2008, 1:07pm | #

    And criminal investigations into this sort of thing seems ridiculous--at least directed at management.


    The owners of the Station nightclub went to prison. They allowed, through their own negligence, a hazardous situation to develop, and people died.

  • ||

    Wal-Mart's negligence couldn't be more obvious. I suspect a few mil for the family of the deceased. Still, I'm not sure how federal investigations or union politics enter into the frame.

  • robc||

    TAO,

    They wouldnt have been in the middle of the mob, if they hadnt participated in the breaking and entering part of the criminal operation.

    Actually, is the B&E a felony? If so, is this one of those states were someone dying as part of a felony gets you a murder charge? If so, lets go murder 1 on the entire mob.

    Since someone yelled out to break the doors down, can we get RICO charges added on top?

  • squarooticus||

    Or perhaps they could make their actual argument, that unions have long succeeded in improving the safety of workplaces.


    I'm sure those empty factory floors in Detroit are incredibly safe these days.

  • ||

    What OSHA regulation do you want, joe?

    The General Duty Clause pretty much covers this.

    All employers have a responsibility to provide a workplace free of recognized hazardous to human health, to paraphrase.

  • Dello||

    I'm still waiting to hear why we need state and locals to invetigate an OSHA claim...

  • ||

    Joe'cuse!

    Are you suggesting that the private sector is better at security and crowd control than the police? Well, welcome to libertarianism, joe. Coffee and doughnuts are at the first table, righteous indignation is in the back.

  • ||

    Go crawl back under your rock, you racist dickhead.

    Awesome. More of this, please, joe.

  • ||

    Pro Libertate,

    I think using one incident at one store to promote the idea that Wal-Mart exhibits a general contempt for its employees might just be a little overboard, yes.

    This is hardly the only evidence we have of Wal Mart scrimping on labor costs as part of its standard operations. It's just that this one got somebody killed.

  • Wal*Mart Greeter||

    Thank you for killing me at Wal*Mart. Stampede again.

  • Dello||

    "The police are experts at controling a crowd once they decide it needs to be controlled. They are not experts on whether a certain situation is dangerous, or what the likely behavior of people during a rush like that is."

    RIIIGHT... cause the cops are never there for a peaceful war protest march: They only show up AFTER it becomes violent.

  • ||

    The FBI could subpoena the store's transaction reports for the time period involved, and charge everyone who bought anything with murder.

    Another good reason to pay cash.

  • ||

    All employers have a responsibility to provide a workplace free of recognized hazardous to human health

    The General Motors approach; no customers, no hazard, no problem.

  • Other Matt||

    How about, let's assume that you can read at a fourth-grade level, and everything I've written about crowd control, not stronger doors, being used to prevent the rush?

    I missed you too joe. You're hilarious. We should have lunch sometime.

    As to your moronic drivel accosting my reading level, your attempt to confuse things doesn't change that you wouldn't give a rip if the unions didn't, and the unions wouldn't if it weren't a worker at Wal Mart, and if a press against a gate killed someone then a press against a door would also. Doesn't change any of that, but keep on trying joe.

  • Dello||

    robc,
    "Actually, is the B&E a felony? If so, is this one of those states were someone dying as part of a felony gets you a murder charge? If so, lets go murder 1 on the entire mob."

    And we know where to find all these people because most used credit cards for their purchases. Hang them all.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    So while I don't doubt that security guards could've prevented the accident,

    That never would have happened because Rent-A-Cops have been scorned and reviled and neutered by culture and by law for decades.

    When I was a laddie security guards had guns and billy clubs and if you screwed with them they'd take care of business and lock you in cuffs until the cops came to haul your sorry ass to jail.

    Today, security guards stand at the door and ask old ladies if they can look inside the bag on the way out. Gotta make sure nobody's shoplifting Geritol.

  • ||

    Lee Scott must be Psychic!

  • ||

    RC,

    So tell me again, joe, how this was Wal-Mart's fault? How exactly was their staffing inadequate, considering it was behind locked doors? They didn't provide adequate crowd control procedures outside the store, and the mob turned ugly when the mad rush ensued.

    Was it reasonably foreseeable that the mob would riot? The mob didn't riot. There was a rush, and somebody got trampled.

    If you say yes, how many other big box retail stores have had riots over the past several years on Black Friday? Rushes happen frequently at open gate events, particularly at sales like this. There's a link upthread about people getting hurt at one.

    Are there any other circumstances in which a store should be held responsible for crimes committed against store property and employees on its premises? There are many such circumstances.

    Were any OSHA rules even arguably involved in this? The general duty clause. Employers aren't required just to follow the letter of the law when regulations are promulgated; they're required to operate their businesses in a safe manner.

  • squarooticus||

    FWIW, I agree with Joe on liability here. Wal-Mart does, in fact, have the responsibility to create a shopping environment safe from reasonably-envisioned levels of violence, especially when they create a situation in which they expect a large crowd and then do nothing to make sure the crowd doesn't get unruly.

    But, no, I don't think there should be government involved, because you can't actually pinpoint the person or persons who actually killed the poor guy, thus making criminal charges pointless as a practical matter. This is a civil matter and should be decided there.

    As for the unions: those sanctimonious, opportunistic parasites can fuck off.

  • ||

    Bull fucking shit, joe. That's EXACTLY the standard you're proposing.

    No, it's not. I've told you what I've proposed, and it has nothing to do with doors.

  • Dello||

    So, can ANYONE (but not joe, it seems) tell me why we need state and local investigations in an OSHA claim?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    They wouldnt have been in the middle of the mob, if they hadnt participated in the breaking and entering part of the criminal operation.

    No, time out on the field.

    Let's say that you got there at 3 AM and there were 100 people at the door. Over the course of the next whatever-time-frame, you find yourself in a crowd of 1000, then 2000. Now, what should you do when the crowd surges? Push back? Try to leave? Or move forward?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    RIIIGHT... cause the cops are never there for a peaceful war protest march: They only show up AFTER it becomes violent.

    I watched LAPD run away from the rioters on live TV......

  • Chuck||

    I do think that retailers should be careful about drumming up a frenzy and letting shoppers murder each other for $100 laptops,...

    Now that would be a spectacle. Two shoppers enter, one shopper leaves...with a laptop.

  • Other Matt||

    This is hardly the only evidence we have of Wal Mart scrimping on labor costs as part of its standard operations. It's just that this one got somebody killed.

    In other words "It's Wal Mart, it's their fault!!!" Kinda like joe saying "It's not a democrat!!" If you understand his comments that way, they make more sense.

    Of course the mere fact that just about every business attempts to minimize labor costs doesn't matter, in that case it's economizing, if it's WalMart it's "Scrimping."

  • ||

    Joe'cuse!

    Yes, but there's a major leap from not providing, say, the appropriate level of benefits to employees to letting them getting trampled to death. The union is behaving inappropriately here, I'm afraid.

    In any event, all companies attempt to save money on labor, so tying that generality to body counts is a bit problematic.

    Chuck,

    Ah, you've shopped at Thundermart!

  • Alan Vanneman||

    What's truly disgusting about Wal-Mart phobia at the NYT and elsewhere is the obvious class bias. The real problem with Wal-Mart is that it's so tacky. If only they had some decent wines!

  • robc||

    The mob didn't riot.

    Im pretty sure charging and breaking down locked doors qualifies.

  • ||

    Abdul, what you talking about here?

    Where do you refute the point that Unions usually argue against managment hiring contract workers who are non-union members to do work that could be done by union members?

    If they need X number of their union employees to man the store, plus a bunch of additional security for a big event, none of the union emoployees stay home.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I'm pretty much in agreement with squarooticus:

    1. Civil liabilities for Wal*Mart
    2. No criminal indictments sought
    3. The unions are bloody-shirt-waving douchebags.

  • ||

    So tell me again, joe, how this was Wal-Mart's fault? How exactly was their staffing inadequate, considering it was behind locked doors?

    What? Can security in your store only stand inside the doors? They couldn't have had security guards outside the doors pushing people back away from the doors? What a dumb thing to say.

    There are a LOT of things Wal-Mart SHOULD have done -- like have security who is trained in crowd control, had security outside with the customers keeping themn away from the doors until the store is open. They could have demanded they form a line and enter orderly.

    Wal-Mart had many options. Now I don't believe there was any criminal intent, but civilly, Wal-Mart absolutely should be held liable for what happened to this poor guy. He was asked to do a job he was untrained and woefully unprepared for.

  • ||

    If the police could not realize the situation was dangerous, how could it possibly be reasonable for the store managers to realize it?

    The police aren't experts on customer rushes. Wal Mart, presumably, is. If some beat cop doesn't realize the cracks in a storage tank are really bad, is that supposed to relieve the company from responsibility when it gives?



    Oh Jesus H. McChrist joe,
    The police are supposedly experts at crowd control. Is there some sort of significant difference between shoppers at Wal-Mart crowds and, oh I dunno, concertgoers in Cincinnati that you, and presumably WalMart executives, are aware of?

    Or is this perhaps just a fuckup that the self serving, worker exploiting, profir mongers at WalMart will do their damnedest to avoid repeating due to all of the negative publicity in addition to revenues lost at that particular store that particular day?

  • BDB||

    I wish they could push for criminal charges against the mob chanting "BREAK THE DOORS!"

  • ||

    The Angry Optimist | December 2, 2008, 1:16pm | #

    I'm sympathetic for the general situation, but the UFCW and the media are basically waving his bloody shirt. And frankly, it's offensive.


    Oh, please. If the union was arguing that Wal Mart was unsafe and predicting this a month ago, you would have blown them off because "nobody's getting killed." You would have accused them of featherbedding over a mythical threat.

    So now, when faced with the only evidence that could possibly get their point through, they're wrong for using it. You're accusing them of featherbeadding by waving a bloddy shirt.

    Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

  • Dello||

    "So, can ANYONE (but not joe, it seems) tell me why we need state and local investigations in an OSHA claim?"

    Anyone? Anyone at all?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    The one thing nobody has noticed is that these kinds of sales occurred all over America on Black Friday. Nobody got trampled, killed, or even ended up with a bloody nose. Except those morons in New York.

    The actual question de jour is WTF is the matter with those people?

  • ||

    I am not even sure Wall Mart is negligent here. In order to be negligent the incident has to be forseeable. Has this ever happened before? The last time anyone in this country was trampled by a crowd in this county it was at Who concert in 1979. Is it really forseable that a black Friday sale, something that has happened without incident millions of times over the last 40 years of so all over the country, would result in a riot and a store employee being trampled? I don't think so.

    In order for the Unions to have a point here, this would need to have been a forseable danger and something the unions have been working to prevent in unionized stores. Does anyone here besides Joe, who will beleive anything a union tells him, actually beleive that had the store been unionized the Union would have forseen an accident that had never happened before, known there would be a rowdy mob of 1000s waiting at the store at 6 am and made Wall Mart call the police and control the crowd?

  • robc||

    TAO,

    Let's say that you got there at 3 AM and there were 100 people at the door. Over the course of the next whatever-time-frame, you find yourself in a crowd of 1000, then 2000. Now, what should you do when the crowd surges? Push back? Try to leave? Or move forward?

    I wouldnt have been there. I would have waited in line and bitched about the mob cutting the line. I know this from personal experience getting student GT-Duke basketball tickets in 1990. I* bitched enough the ticket give out policy changed.

    *As part of a mob threatening to burn down the athletic association. Well, not really, it didnt get to that point.

  • ||

    There are a LOT of things Wal-Mart SHOULD have done -- like have security who is trained in crowd control

    Blackwater! A few rounds over their heads would have settled things right down.

  • Fluffy||

    The police are experts at controling a crowd once they decide it needs to be controlled. They are not experts on whether a certain situation is dangerous, or what the likely behavior of people during a rush like that is.

    Joe, this is just moving farther and farther into the realm of the absurd.

    You advocated criminal liability for the store.

    Criminal liability can't exist if a reasonable person would not have known the situation was one that would result in imminent harm.

    You're basically saying that it's so hard to know in advance if a situation is hazardous that not even police trained in crowd control can be expected to know it - but despite the fact that it's so difficult to know that not even the police could know it, the store managers should have known it.

    And police do basic crowd control of crowds that haven't yet started to riot all the time, joe. Who provides security outside political events like conventions, joe? Who provides the security of nonviolent political demonstrations, joe?

    In the Station nightclub incident, the nightclub owners weren't only wilfully negligent, they openly flouted fire codes and occupancy permits. The situations aren't remotely comparable.

    More security. How many times do you want me to write this?

    There was security on site. If a moment came when they said to themselves, "Yikes, this is getting out of hand!" who should they have called? The police.

  • ||

    Dello | December 2, 2008, 1:18pm | #

    I'm still waiting to hear why we need state and locals to invetigate an OSHA claim...


    Because OSHA doesn't investigate state laws on assault, criminal negligence, and manslaughter. Next!

  • ||

    Pro Libertate | December 2, 2008, 1:19pm | #

    Joe'cuse!

    Are you suggesting that the private sector is better at security and crowd control than the police?


    No, 50 cops could probably control the crowd better than 50 security guards - but that would probably be overkill, and overly expensive to boot.

    Maybe four cops in the parking lot, a few dozen security guards.

  • Warty||

    After spending a good part of my youth at metal shows, I've learned how to avoid mob rushes, and that it's a good idea to do so. Apparently that lesson escaped the shoppers here...maybe the public schools should start teaching this.

    Or, alternatively, to thin out the sale-mad idiot population, maybe we should dig giant spike-filled pits and bait them with XBOX 360 $89.99! TODAY ONLY! WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!! signs.

  • Other Matt||

    So, can ANYONE (but not joe, it seems) tell me why we need state and local investigations in an OSHA claim?

    Typically, the State will conduct claims investigations under OSHA, unless it's on Federal property, and even then it's mostly the state. That would be the state OSHA, btw.

    If you're speaking of criminal investigations, I don't have a problem with them in general. Someone was killed, it's not an inappropriate response to investigate. There is a problem if they investigate with a preconcieved notion. A local investigation should suffice, unless there's some suspicion of impropriety or incompetence.

  • ||

    RIIIGHT... cause the cops are never there for a peaceful war protest march: They only show up AFTER it becomes violent.

    Thank you, Dello, for agreeing with me that the police are not terribly good at determining when a crowd in dangerous. Own Goal.

  • Warty||

    OK, criminal negligence makes sense, but assault? Manslaughter? Fuck off.

  • ||

    So, can ANYONE (but not joe, it seems) tell me why we need state and local investigations in an OSHA claim?

    Wah wah wah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    When I'm kicking a dozen people's asses at the same time, Dello, it might take me a while to get back around to yours. Patience.

  • David Ross||

    This editorial comes preGodwin'ed for your reading convenience.

    PS. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler!

  • ||

    You've gotta love OtherMatt's reasoning:

    In other words "It's Wal Mart, it's their fault!!!"

    Because there is TOO MUCH evidence to support the idea that Wal Mart scrimps on labor, to the detriment of its employees' safety, you can't point to that evidence to back up a statement that they scrimped on labor costs, to the detriment of their employees safety.

    Utter genius.

  • ||

    "This editorial comes preGodwin'ed for your reading convenience.

    PS. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler!"


    Who? Bush?

  • BDB||

    Hitler hated Big Box stotres.

  • Dello||

    joe,

    Who might be liable for assault, criminal negligence, and manslaughter? Are you suggesting that the shoppers be charged with these crimes?

  • dhex||

    joe's puter-fu is strong!

    geeee-ahhhh!

  • ||

    I don't see how this is unforeseeable. Isn't there a story about a Black Friday trampling at WalMart every fucking year? Usually it just leads to hospitalization, it's just that this year it lead to a death. This is a pretty predictable outcome.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    negligence isn't a crime.

    You're accusing them of featherbeadding by waving a bloddy shirt.

    And is that or is that not what they are doing? I'm sorry, but the union's crocodile tears over this guy do not convince me, especially since he was a temp.

  • Fluffy||

    Wal-Mart does, in fact, have the responsibility to create a shopping environment safe from reasonably-envisioned levels of violence

    I disagree. My responsibility should extend up to the point where other people break the law.

    McDonald's stops serving breakfast at 11:15. But it's not their fault if some asshole really, really wants an Egg McMuffin, and decides to drive his car over pedestrians because he wants to get to the McDonald's down the street before 11:15.

    I should be able to offer an item for sale and expect that people will obey the law as they approach my place of business to purchase that item.

    Stopping people from breaking the law isn't my job. It's the police's job. I should be held accountable for making sure my customers and employees are safe in any situation where laws aren't broken. Past that point it's not reasonable or fair to make out-thinking douchebags my responsibility.

  • ||

    I'm kicking a dozen people's asses at the same time

    Whoa.
    Dude, you should be a, like WalMart security guard greeter.

  • ||

    Joe,

    Why would Wall-Mart or a union or any other reasonable person have known that this was going to happen and been expected to plan for it? Unless you can show me how this was a known danger that had happened before, I don't see how. Once the thousands of people showed up, there was nothing the store could do. The people broke down the doors and charged in. This is different from the Who concert in Cincinatti where the arena managers opened a few but not all of the doors and had been warned of the dangers of general admission seating. There is no way anyone could have forseen this happening. Had the store been unionized it still would have happened. This is just the union dancing on some poor person's grave.

  • ||

    Alan Vanneman | December 2, 2008, 1:27pm | #

    What's truly disgusting about Wal-Mart phobia at the NYT and elsewhere is the obvious class bias. The real problem with Wal-Mart is that it's so tacky. If only they had some decent wines!


    And here I thought it had something to do with treating their employees like shit. Oh, look, one of them is dead now.

  • ||

    """The customers?'

    Nope. The store. The customers didn't hold the sale, the customers didn't put one temp in charge of crowd control."""

    But they are the ones that did the stampeding. Walmart has less knowledge about crowd control than the cops.

    What's wrong with expecting people to NOT trample others. We should expect people to behave like adults. Sure, the store could have done better, but the customers could have prevented the death by acting like adults.

    Nassau cops are looking at security tape footage, they plan to arrest people involved.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    When I'm kicking a dozen people's asses at the same time

    Chairborne Ranger
    Chairborne Ranger
    Where have you been?
    Kicking ass on threads
    And back again.

  • Other Matt||

    You've gotta love OtherMatt's reasoning:

    Obviously. Seems you can't refute it, you keep going to "Look, it's a pony!"

  • ||

    J sub D | December 2, 2008, 1:28pm | #

    I answered this same point in a reply to Fluffy.

  • ||

    "Isn't there a story about a Black Friday trampling at WalMart every fucking year?"

    Really? I would like to see some links on that because I don't recall any. Maybe there has been in which case it is forseable, but I don't remember anything like this ever happening.

  • BDB||

    "BDB | December 2, 2008, 12:40pm | #
    This thread is going to degenerate into culture war bullshit very fast."

    And would you look at this:

    "Alan Vanneman | December 2, 2008, 1:27pm | #
    What's truly disgusting about Wal-Mart phobia at the NYT and elsewhere is the obvious class bias. The real problem with Wal-Mart is that it's so tacky. If only they had some decent wines!"

  • robc||

    joe,

    Your 1:37 post. I thought you didnt screw up italics. :)

  • ||

    When I'm kicking a dozen people's asses at the same time, Dello, it might take me a while to get back around to yours. Patience.

    Priceless. Don't ever change, joe.

  • David Ross||

    re, the mob: I saw pics of the stampeders. More importantly I saw the expression on their faces. We're talking scum here: ecstatic, violent scum. They weren't there for a few discounts (which they can find in any other store). They were there for the opening moshpit.

  • Glorified Troll||

    darn tootin' we need some OSHA fines, hand'em out left and right, investigate across the board, bring in the FBI and stick these mommielover WalMart board members down in Arkansas with some criminal charges. Don't like it, deal.


    The hazard here isn't unsafe machinery or poorly stored chemicals, joe. The hazard here is that customers came to a retail store. The police visited the store before the incident, decided that it wasn't a hazardous enough situation to require police involvement, and left.

    So unless your union plans on instituting changes that would prevent a retail store from having customers, there is little reason to believe that a union would have, or could have, improved matters. And I think the entire notion of criminal responsibility is rendered absurd and should be completely estopped by the fact that the police chose to leave. If the police could not realize the situation was dangerous, how could it possibly be reasonable for the store managers to realize it?

    That being said, I do, however, agree with the Times that Black Friday is set up to manipulate shoppers. If a store really wants to sell a limited number of items at a drastically discounted price, they could hand out tickets to the people who line up first for those items. But they usually don't do that, because they actually want people to get excited about getting into the store, because that excitement is what gets them to buy other items. Calmly handing out tickets to the first 200 people and then telling everyone else that things are sold out would defeat the entire purpose of having the sale in the first place.


    I can't hear you! Ignore. Ignore. Ignore.

    FAIL

  • BDB||

    The mob was full of assholes, I think that was the real problem here since, again, no one else got trampled on Black Friday at any other Wal-Mart in the entire nation of 300 million people.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    When Black Friday comes
    I'm gonna dig myself a hole
    Gonna lay down in it 'til
    I satisfy my soul

  • ||

    "When I'm kicking a dozen people's asses at the same time, Dello, it might take me a while to get back around to yours. Patience."

    You sound like the black Knight Joe. It is just a flesh wound not a beat down by like 15 people forcing you to defend the indefensible.

  • ||

    John | December 2, 2008, 1:30pm | #

    There is a link in this very thread about employees being injured in such a rush. It's hardly the only such event. You just didn't notice before, because nobody got killed.

  • sage||

    Maybe four cops in the parking lot, a few dozen security guards.

    Sounds like we just need the right people in charge.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Strange how I read the story and realized I would KILL for a 32gb iTouch to replace my 8gb. If people only realized the fear of an ass raping in prison is the only thing that keeps me honest and good . . .

  • Other Matt||

    What's wrong with expecting people to NOT trample others. We should expect people to behave like adults. Sure, the store could have done better, but the customers could have prevented the death by acting like adults.

    You would, unfortunately, joe is a poster child for "it ain't gonna happen."

    The problem with reviewing the tape, and I qualify that I have no problem with someone reviewing it, it's appropriate, is that it will be hard to differentiate between those who are pushed into the situation and those who just didn't care and stepped on the guy.

    If I'm at the front of a line, and I'm trying to get over this guy, and I get pushed into him and step on him, that's a whole different thing than running over him gleefully. I hope they are able to differentiate, though I'm not sure how they could.

    The people in the back could be viewed as having some kind of liability for pushing people in, but that's hard to do criminally. They'd have to know that someone was being trampled in the front, which I don't think they would.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Does this:

    And here I thought it had something to do with treating their employees like shit. Oh, look, one of them is dead now.

    Logically follow? I think not.

  • ||

    So, if Wal-Mart had brought in SWAT teams to round up the shoppers and ship them to Cuba to live with Elian Gonzalez' dad, that would've been okay? The greeter would be alive in that scenario, I grant you that.

  • Other Matt||

    You sound like the black Knight Joe. It is just a flesh wound not a beat down by like 15 people forcing you to defend the indefensible.

    People that talk like joe "kicking ass" on the internet, invariably can't back it up in person. People that can don't talk like that. Instead of the Black Knight, sounds more like little penis syndrome.

  • ||

    It's easy, Naga- you just shadow somebody who's in the store, buying the iPod you desire. Somebody feeble, and easily overwhelmed; a granny buying presents for those crazy youg'uns. When she gets to her car, you pounce!

    Maybe she's even got car you like...

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    You advocated criminal liability for the store. Actually, I advocated an investigation to determine criminal liability.

    Criminal liability can't exist if a reasonable person would not have known the situation was one that would result in imminent harm.

    The reasonable person standard takes into account specialized knowledge. If a reasonable person who knows the toxic properties of a certain substance would not handle it in a certain way, a company is required to act on that knowledge, even if an ordinary person would not know they have to handle it in a certain way.

    And police do basic crowd control of crowds that haven't yet started to riot all the time, joe. Who provides security outside political events like conventions, joe? Who provides the security of nonviolent political demonstrations, joe?

    And they often get it wrong. You might have noticed this.

    There was security on site. And it was inadequate. There was no security keeping the crowd in line and calm outside the store. How many times have I written this now?

    If a moment came when they said to themselves, "Yikes, this is getting out of hand!" who should they have called? The police.

    And as I've already written, the police are perfectly competent to control a crowd once they decide to do so.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Other Matt,

    I believe the psycho-babble term is "penis envy".

  • ||

    How about this... we set up a store for next year's Black Friday to give both the left and the right their chance to show how their preferred strategies would work. Take a Wal-Mart in middle America, then, on one side of the store, have it manned by union stooges from the UFCW to run security...

    ...and on the other side, have employees in riot gear with beanbag guns.

    We'll either see which side is best at maintaining Black Friday order, or which one is best at racking up a retaliatory body count of their own.

  • ||

    """Maybe four cops in the parking lot, a few dozen security guards.""""

    Maybe, maybe not. The only thing that would have certainly made a difference is the crowd not acting like assholes.

    I can understand the concept of the store doing what is reasonable to prevent, but I can't understand the concept of I trampled someone to death and it's your fault.

  • David Ross||

    P Brooks: I was thinking of "a whiff of grape" myself. Or, if you like, pour la racaille, la matraille.

    When the crowd formed outside, and organised itself as a mob, the WalMart should have called in the cops. The First Amendment gives one the right of "peaceful assembly", which doesn't include chanting mobs outside a place of business. (If the union were picketing outside, that's different.)

  • Naga Sadow||

    P Brooks,

    Refer to fear of ass raping in prison part in my above post. Though I like the way you think.

  • hotsauce||

    Love watchin' joe get thoroughly pwned by Fluffy.

  • ||

    Again Joe, even if it had happened before, show me some evidence that Unions were concerned about it and made unionized stores take measures to prevent it. Without that, there is no reason to believe Wall Mart having a union would have made any difference. It is true, however, if this had happened before that might show, depending on the facts of the other cases, that the accident was foreseable and make Wall Mart negligent, although the worker will be bared from suing under the workman's comp laws.

  • Glorified Troll||

    Naga Sadow | December 2, 2008, 1:42pm | #
    Strange how I read the story and realized I would KILL for a 32gb iTouch to replace my 8gb. If people only realized the fear of an ass raping in prison is the only thing that keeps me honest and good . . .


    Would you like to see my shiny new ego, built by pure US Steel and Union sweat, buddy; good for kicking 15 libertarians at the same time, and while doing so expands out like a puff piece, impervious to lances from White Knights, too.

    I gonna get you Percival!!

  • ||

    Dello | December 2, 2008, 1:37pm | #

    joe,

    Who might be liable for assault, criminal negligence, and manslaughter? Are you suggesting that the shoppers be charged with these crimes?


    Well, maybe. It depends what's on the tape. If they were just trying to keep up with the crowd and not go down themselves, that's one thing. I tend to think that's the situation they found themselves in. Rushing crowds are nasty; that's why you've gotta keep control before they start.

    It's also possible the store itself, or its managers, could be guilty of those things, but that's a stretch.

  • Fluffy||

    Maybe four cops in the parking lot, a few dozen security guards.

    Yeah, joe, you're not advocating featherbedding or anything.

    I guess as it turns out, you're not pushing your point in this thread in the service of the potential Wal-Mart union members after all. You're doing it for the police union! And the security company workers' union, if they have one.

    I'll bet there were 2000 people there at 5 AM at the various entrances to the Berkshire County mall on Black Friday. Know how many cops and security guards there were? Zero.

    If we stuck 4 cops in front of every retail entrance on Black Friday, no one would benefit except the lords of featherbedding everywhere, the pigs. And I bet the private security would mostly be off-duty cops pulling time and a half or working off the books, too.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    When the crowd formed outside, and organised itself as a mob, the WalMart should have called in the cops.

    I thought part of the issue was is that the police were there and gone.

    Of course, the cop issue is one of the better pieces of joe pretzel-logic I've seen in a long time.

  • BDB||

    I can't believe this is a thread about Wal-Mart and all the "evil", "exploitative", and "plastic" capitalism it represents, and CO hasn't chimed in yet. Amazing.

  • ||

    Of course if Wall Mart had called the cops on a predominately black crowd and the cops had shown up and dispursed the crowd, there probably would have been a riot and the New York Times would be editorializing about the evil racist Wall Mart calling the cops for the crime of "shopping while black". There is no way Wall Mart can win with some people.

  • BDB||

    "John | December 2, 2008, 1:52pm | #
    Of course if Wall Mart had called the cops on a predominately black crowd and the cops had shown up and dispursed the crowd, there probably would have been a riot and the New York Times would be editorializing about the evil racist Wall Mart calling the cops for the crime of "shopping while black". There is no way Wall Mart can win with some people."

    Sadly, John has this right on.

  • David Ross||

    Excuse me: "mItraille".

  • ||

    From a quick scan in Google News, here are a couple of instances. I don't have access to Lexis and don't feel like poring through all the news stories. I remembered that there were a couple related to cheap DVDs, so here are prior DVD-only related mob injuries. I'm sure later years will be plasma and LCD TV related.

    2003

    2005

  • ||

    John | December 2, 2008, 1:39pm | #

    Joe,

    Why would Wall-Mart or a union or any other reasonable person have known that this was going to happen and been expected to plan for it? Unless you can show me how this was a known danger that had happened before, I don't see how.


    Already answered. Hell, there's a link to another story on this very thread, about Tickle Me Elmo. This happens every year - it just usually results in hospitalizations, not fatalities.

    Once the thousands of people showed up, there was nothing the store could do. People gather by the thousands all the time. Every been to Fenway? They just have adequate measures for such a crowd, including security outside.

  • Naga Sadow||

    GT,

    Are you coming on to me? Or jerking off while typing and not realizing what you are typing? The White Knight? Pussy . . .

  • ||

    """And as I've already written, the police are perfectly competent to control a crowd once they decide to do so."""

    Let's be honest, cops and crowd control is a preventive measure, they would have had to been online between the crowd and the store. Once the problem developed, it wouldn't preventive crowd control, it would have been a beat down festival for the boys in blue. Today we would be talking about how the cops were out of control beating the hell out of people who just wanted to shop.

  • ||

    joe, Nobody here is not trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. The argument is over whether unionizing Wal-Mart workers would have had any effect, or whether the fault lies with the police and the shoppers involved.

    Or, as a a side note, whether 'Teh Consumerizm is to blame!' Personally I find the whole "Corporation Mind Control!!!" schtick a big nauseating. I don't know too many people who are blind followers of advertising, do you? They're all just these people "out there" that everyone thinks exists but are always someone else.

    Also, while there might be a tangetial safety improvement from unionizing, that's heavily outweighed by the downsides in efficiency and higher prices across the board. You're doing the same thing the union is, using a tragedy to plug an agenda that is only tangentially connected to it.

    The primary thing that could have prevented this is if the police had done their jobs and not walked away. Wal-Mart are NOT experts on crowd control. The police are.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    the thing that tickles me the most is that all of this could have been prevented, not with security guards or cops or whatever, but with about 3,000 feet of velvet rope and some of those brass poles.

  • BDB||

    Like I said, TAO, Target must have a patent on the concept of TheLine that Wal-Mart doesn't feel like paying to use.

  • ||

    TrickyVic,

    First, let's differentiate between the people who started the stampede and the people caught up in it. The former were wrong, even if they never touched thte guy, the latter were just in the wrong place, even if it was their feet that killed the guy.

    Second, let's go beyond this vague term "crowd control." The police are experts at using crowd control techniques when they decide to use them. They often demonstrate poor judgement about when that is.

    Wal Mart, on the other hand, is probably the world's foremost authority on shopper behavior, including what happens at a rush sale like this.

    People keep talking about the crowd chating "break the doors, break the doors," and they still put one temp out there to stand guard.

  • ||

    Oh Jesus H. McChrist joe,
    The police are supposedly experts at crowd control. Is there some sort of significant difference between shoppers at Wal-Mart crowds and, oh I dunno, concertgoers in Cincinnati that you, and presumably WalMart executives, are aware of?

    J sub D | December 2, 2008, 1:28pm | #

    I answered this same point in a reply to Fluffy.



    No you didn't. You dodged the question because you wrote something stupid and got called on it.

    The police are experts at controling a crowd once they decide it needs to be controlled. They are not experts on whether a certain situation is dangerous, or what the likely behavior of people during a rush like that is.



    If deciding what crowds need controlled is not part of crowd control, than deciding what trees need trimmed is not part of tree trimming, deciding what wounds need to be treated is not part of first-aid.

    Try again.

  • ||

    This was an unforeseeable incident. WalMart could not have reasonably expected that a crowd would break down their doors and charge inside and kill someone. This isn't a pattern of the same thing happening over and over again -- apparently this is the first time this has happened to a WalMart employee. And you can bet top WalMart management are discussing what steps to take to reduce the risk of something like this happening again, because they don't want either the bad publicity or the legal costs of defending against this.

    Saying "But -- but -- they need a union to prevent this from happening again ..." isn't helpful. A union wouldn't have prevented this.

    Every single day -- every single hour -- in a nation of 300 million people, completely unexpected bad shit happens somewhere, no matter what reasonable precautions are taken. The solution is not really expensive, unreasonable precautions, because the loss of prosperity from that will result in MORE overall losses of life at the margins, as people buy less safe cars, get less prenatal care, etc.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Thanks for the epiphany joe!

    *adds "riot shield" to Christmas list*

  • ||

    I can understand the concept of the store doing what is reasonable to prevent, but I can't understand the concept of I trampled someone to death and it's your fault.


    Right-O! In this country we have gotten to a point where if some group of people behave like stampeding, brainless, beasts and trample some poor walmart "slave" clearly the system that produced this is to blame. I mean, you cannot honestly expect people to be responsible for their own self-preservation and be respectful of the rights of others. There's cheap shit to buy!

    This situation is disgusting and unfortunate, but it is not a criminal case. It just proves that while a person could be fairly intelligent, groups of people are dumb, panicky, and sometimes violent.

  • ||

    Logically follow? I think not.

    Uh, yeah. How can there possibly be any connection between "they treat their employees like shit" and "they put one temp in front of an angry mob?"

  • ||

    I think its pretty obvious that the local Walmart brass screwed the pooch on this.

    On the other hand... there's 3800 Walmart facilities. One had a trampling death. I'm not really seeing where we need massive federal investigations and criminal charges for an accident or a pattern of company wide recklessness.

    Somebody screwed up, somebody died. It's a matter for workers comp or other civil courts. I don't think a failure to understand the power of crowds rises to the level of criminality.

  • robc||

    I was at Great Taste of the Midwest this last summer. 6k people wanting all-you-can-drink beer in a limited time frame. They all lined up nicely outside the entrance to get in. Some workers helped organize the line but with gentle prompting and little to no security.

    Inside, which took almost an hour to get everyone in, there were 6k drunk people causing no problems (that I saw) and forming organized lines without any prompting.

    Point? Im not sure. Maybe Wal-Mart should have liquored the crowd up?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    well, phalkor, if I exhort you to do things, but never actually do that thing myself, and my exhortations whip up the emotions of a crowd into a frenzy, is that just "free speech"?

    If so (GODWIN COMING!) Hitler never did anything wrong.

  • ||

    Why do I write about kicking ass?

    Because I so thoroughly pwn people that they feel the need to start writing about Elian Gonzales, because they're just so gosh darn wound up.

  • Warty||

    In the Black Friday spirit, I present: a crowd of idiots fighting over the last Xbox.

    I defy you to come up with a better argument against democracy.

  • ||

    Mo,

    It has happened a couple of times. But that only gets you half way. Show me where unions recognized the problem and worked to prevent it in unionized stores.

  • robc||

    5000, not 6000 peeps at Great Taste. Maybe that was the difference.

  • short, fat bastard||

    Idiot's guide to joe's world: individuals cannot be held responsible for dangerous behavior, the establishment du jour is always at fault.

  • Glorified Troll||

    Naga Sadow | December 2, 2008, 1:54pm | #
    GT,

    Are you coming on to me? Or jerking off while typing and not realizing what you are typing? The White Knight?


    If my ego is impervious to Reason what possible chance would you stand?

    Pussy . . .

    Thanks! Don't mind if I do! Got any snappers on that tray?

  • Fluffy||

    The reasonable person standard takes into account specialized knowledge. If a reasonable person who knows the toxic properties of a certain substance would not handle it in a certain way, a company is required to act on that knowledge, even if an ordinary person would not know they have to handle it in a certain way.

    Actually, you're expressing this in a way almost opposite from the truth.

    The reasonable person standard holds that if one is a professional in a given field, one will be held to the standard of what a reasonable professional in your field would have known, and how they would have acted. It most emphatically does NOT require that lay people act as they would have acted if they were presumed to have specialized knowledge.

    So the issue would be one of whether Wal-Mart should be held to a higher "reasonable professional" standard than the police themselves. You continue to try to pretend that the police should not be regarded as professionals at crowd control, and that's really just silly. The people hired by taxpayers to engage in crowd control are certainly professionals at it. How you can possibly apply a standard that holds that police aren't crowd control professionals, but some Martin Mull type managing a Wal-Mart is, is beyond me. Maybe it's just a reflex of always holding the state blameless and private actors as omniscient and omnipotent. I don't know.

    The police officer is a representative of the state. He is a professional at crowd control. When a professional and official representative of the state decides on the spot that a crowd is not dangerous, the state should not be allowed to later argue that I should have known it WAS dangerous. If they could not know, I could not know. It's simple enough, when you aren't determined to pillory someone.

  • ||

    velvet rope and some of those brass poles.

    Oooh! Look over there! Screw the Playstation. I hope I've got plenty of ones.

  • ||

    And, of course, my penis, my poltical orientation, and...well...lots of stuff about me.

    It's a combination of people knowing they can't hold up their end of the argument, and being so pissed off about that that they need to take it out on me.

    Ha ha.

  • ||

    When I'm kicking getting my ass kicked by a dozen people's asses at the same time, Dello, it might take me a while to get back around to yours. Patience.

    FTFY

    You union fetish is gone truly bizarre this time.

    I suppose now would be a good time to point out that baseball parks are designed to to control frequent and scheduled ticketed crowds and are specifically designed to keep non-paying customers out. Retail stores are designed specifically to allow easy access whether you buy anything or not and generally do not require a ticket for admittance. They're kinda completely different.

    If Walmart has had frequent and angry mobs breaking down the doors of their stores in the past, or other stores in the area reported the same, I'd agree with you on their liability. Have they?

  • ||

    One other thing Mo. In those incidents it appeared that the stores opened the door and people charged in. Here, Wall Mart did not open the doors. The people broke them down. That is a big difference. It may be that the people at Wall Mart, who had called the cops, saw the crowd and were trying to prevent it from getting out of hand when the crowd went bizerk and broke down the doors. That makes them a lot less culpable than the stores who saw the crowd and opened up the doors anyway.

  • ||

    prolefeed,
    I agree this doesn't need a union or a federal investigation to get fixed. I disagree that it was unforeseeable. I hope the victim's surviving family gets a hefty payment from the criminal negligence lawsuit out of this.

    While I did my quick scan, besides the stories of people getting hurt, there were a bunch of stories about how there was a giant, unruly mob, but no injuries were reported. When a situation is deemed worthy of "no injuries reported", it's generally the mark of an unsafe situation. You never read, "man crosses the street, no injuries reported". You only read, "10 car pileup, no injuries reported," becuse people expect injuries in a car accident.

    Walmart uses the stories of giant mobs as a form of free advertising. When they show up on the news, people think, "Oh there must be great deals there, I should go get them!" and Walmart reaps the benefits. This employee paid the ultimate price for that negligent policy and Walmart should compensate his family handsomely. As evidenced above, other stores manage their crowds effectively and without incident.

  • dhex||

    "Uh, yeah. How can there possibly be any connection between "they treat their employees like shit" and "they put one temp in front of an angry mob?""

    it wasn't just one employee - he just happened to get crushed. at least that's what's being reported in the local media.

    not that outdoor crowd control wouldn't have helped prevent the throng of jackasses from pushing the doors down, but i don't think it's quite as spy v. spy as that.

  • ||

    TrickyVic,

    Maybe, maybe not. The only thing that would have certainly made a difference is the crowd not acting like assholes.

    Adequate security could have kept the crowd from turning into assholes. That's the point - those people cooked away in the parking lot for hours, most likely, with some instigators winding everyone up.

    Think about some security and cops intervening when the first guy starts pushing and shoving. The crowd doesn't turn into a mob.

  • ||

    Hitler Walmart never did anything wrong.

    Is that kind of like yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater?

    My gut instinct tells me that inciting people to violence and/or destruction is wrong. It seems like a stretch that doorbuster sales intentionally incite violence. If Hitler were a chain-superstore, what store would he be?

  • ||

    For every anti-Wal-Mart zealot there is an equally obnoxious anti-union zealot.

  • ||

    Mo,

    That guy is going to be bared from suing because of the workman's comp laws. He was an employee, he can only get workman's comp which is not based on negligence.

  • tort laywer||

    People, people, you're looking at this all wrong. We need a major class action lawsuit against the manufacturor of the defective door.

  • ||

    Yeah, joe, you're not advocating featherbedding or anything.

    Right, Fluffy. Becasue as this dead 35-year-old man on the floor shows, there is no plausible reason why anyone could say there needed to be more security.

    Look, just because this is all about your feelings about unions to you, doesn't mean it is to me.

  • ||

    It has happened a couple of times. But that only gets you half way. Show me where unions recognized the problem and worked to prevent it in unionized stores.

    Stop arguing with the Mo in your head, dude. I don't even like unions.

    I said that this isn't unforeseeable because I read stories about Walmart mobs trampling someone on Black Friday every year. I pulled up a couple of examples, as promised. I don't think this a union or non-union problem. This is a negligence problem by Walmart to get free advertising on the news. Walmart should pay the family a hefty sum in both actual and punative damages for this.

  • ||

    TrickyVic,

    Let's be honest, cops and crowd control is a preventive measure, they would have had to been online between the crowd and the store. Once the problem developed, it wouldn't preventive crowd control, it would have been a beat down festival for the boys in blue.

    Crowd control isn't only about one mass of people beating another back. See my comment to you above.

  • ||

    That goes for Race Card John, and BDB as well.

    If there were cops in the parking lot, and they responding by attacking the majority-black crowed indiscriminately, they would have gotten shit for it, and they would have deserved it.

    Good think nobody is advocating that.

  • David Ross||

    Mo - "Walmart uses the stories of giant mobs as a form of free advertising."

    Show me the memoranda where WalMart's suits agreed amongst themselves that ginning up big mobs of assholes would be their advertising strategy. Or, if you like, Youtubes of WalMart ads showing this sort of thing.

  • ||

    J sub, stop hiding behind the vague term "crowd control." I've broken it out and explained what I meant. If you want to reply to that, do so. If you just want to play dumb, buh bye.

  • ||

    John,
    I'm sure there's some way his family could sue based on negligence above and beyond workman's comp. I'm not a lawyer, but I think criminal negligence should allow restitution above and beyond it.

  • Fractional-Reserve Banker||

    I do think that retailers should be careful about drumming up a frenzy and letting shoppers murder each other for $100 laptops,...

    Now that would be a spectacle. Two shoppers enter, one shopper leaves...with a laptop.



    Say!

  • kinnath||

    From the CNN story.

    The statement said the store added internal security, brought in outside security, erected barricades and worked with Nassau County police in anticipation of heavy crowds.

    It should be obvious to every sentient being that Walmart is run by cold, heartless bastards unable to plan ahead.

  • BDB||

    Yes joe, but just because they get shit for it doesn't mean they wouldn't have done it. What I'm saying is a squadron of cops would have been overkill, and more than likely would have resulted in some kind of police brutality.

  • ||

    The Angry Optimist | December 2, 2008, 1:55pm | #

    the thing that tickles me the most is that all of this could have been prevented, not with security guards or cops or whatever, but with about 3,000 feet of velvet rope and some of those brass poles.


    Yep. Easily predicted - maybe not that it would happen at this particular store, but that it would have happened - and easily prevented. Such a pity.

    But velvet rope costs money.

  • BDB||

    As for the racial angle, that goes for a lily-white crowd, too. It's just that since the crowd was all black, if there WAS police brutality, we would be hearing about race non-stop for the next three months in relation to that incident cause it would sell papers.

  • Fluffy||

    Right, Fluffy. Becasue as this dead 35-year-old man on the floor shows, there is no plausible reason why anyone could say there needed to be more security.

    Look, just because this is all about your feelings about unions to you, doesn't mean it is to me.

  • Glorified Troll||

    Yup, there will come a day when you get tired of my rhetorical excesses and my impervious ego and stop writing small tomes that utterly destroy every point I make while I simply state, 'no, you didn't' and then you spend another half an hour rebutting that you certainly did while quoting the small tome you spent the afternoon writing, but that day wont be today. I will simply sit back, typing my asshole remarks while at this brain dead job, making a little cash and gleefully berating your asses while you gnash your teeth and impotently snarl. The life of kings.

  • dhex||

    "Show me the memoranda where WalMart's suits agreed amongst themselves that ginning up big mobs of assholes would be their advertising strategy."

    there are more forms of advertising than what shows up on tv or in a newspaper. obviously a big crowd is a spectacle in and of itself.

  • ||

    They didn't provide adequate crowd control procedures outside the store, and the mob turned ugly when the mad rush ensued.

    Apparently, the cops looked over the situation and thought no additional "procedures" were needed.

    The mob didn't riot. There was a rush, and somebody got trampled.

    To my mind, a mob that breaks down locked doors and kills someone is close enough to a riot, but whatever.

    Rushes happen frequently at open gate events, particularly at sales like this. There's a link upthread about people getting hurt at one.

    But locked doors getting broken down? No links about that. And out of how many "sales like this" is someone hurt? I think that foreseeability should be a tough sell here, but of course juries love hindsight.

    There are many such circumstances [in which a store should be held responsible for crimes committed against store property and employees on its premises].

    Such as? Generally speaking, a criminal act, such as breaking down doors and stomping someone to death, is an intervening cause. It is generally not negligent or a breach of a legal duty to fail to prevent someone from committing a crime. I'll need some specifics here, joe.

    The general duty clause [of OSHA]. Employers aren't required just to follow the letter of the law when regulations are promulgated; they're required to operate their businesses in a safe manner.

    Not exactly. That clause states: "Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees."

    And so we are back to foreseeability, only more narrowly, as it pertains to harm to employees. So, how many employees have been harmed by crowds at "rush sales"?

    And, of course, there is the additional question of whether the hazards to which OSHA applies include criminal acts by third parties. I don't believe it does, but feel free to provide a citation to the contrary.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    I didn't claim that lay people have to act as if they had specialized knowledge, but that a company and its employees who do have that knowledge are expected to act on it.

    Wal Mart has knowledge about crowds rushing during its rush sales. Everyone knows that rushing crowds can be dangerous. People have been injured in the past, even if this is the first death at a Wal Mart.

    You continue to try to pretend that the police should not be regarded as professionals at crowd control

    I'm not answering this for what would be about the sixth time. You can respond to the points I've already made, or stop addressing me on the issue.

    Or, I can just ignore you, which is what I'll do the next time you hide behind the vague "crowd control" and pretend I haven't offered a response.

  • ||

    Why do I write about kicking ass?

    Because I so thoroughly pwn people that they feel the need to start writing about Elian Gonzales, because they're just so gosh darn wound up.


    I am going to bookmark this thread for repeated future enjoyment. I think this tops any previous efforts by joe. I really do. This is fucking comedy gold.

  • ||

    Good thing we are now officially in a recession/depression and in the future people will be less eager to purchase goods at the expense of life and limb.

  • !||

    joe's just being pissy today, because his mother wouldn't put out last night.

  • ||

    JW,

    I suppose now would be a good time to point out that baseball parks are designed to to control frequent and scheduled ticketed crowds and are specifically designed to keep non-paying customers out. Retail stores are designed specifically to allow easy access whether you buy anything or not and generally do not require a ticket for admittance. They're kinda completely different.

    Which is precisely why having the same basic safety staffing and procedures on this day, when they were faced with a situation more like a crowd going into a baseball stadium than the ordinary operations of a retail store was so ill-advised.

  • Other Matt||

    It's a combination of people knowing they can't hold up their end of the argument, and being so pissed off about that that they need to take it out on me.

    Right. Couldn't be that you're just entirely full of shit. "Kicking ass", what an idiot.

  • Fluffy||

    Shit! I had a long post get eaten by bad tags.

    Shorter version:

    I've been at Black Friday situations involving large crowds and never come remotely close to seeing an incident.

    But joe argues that reasonable crowd control for such situations is 4 cops and dozens of security guards outside.

    He also argues that if you don't meet his standard of what is appropriate, you deserve to face criminal liability if there's an incident.

    Since we can't know in advance if a situation will develop like this one, that means that every retail situation where hundreds of people show up requires 4 cops and dozens of security guards outside, or people deserve to go to jail if there's a problem.

    Putting 4 cops and dozens of security guards outside every retail situation where hundreds of people show up would be featherbedding, joe. 99.9999999999% of the time, the cops and security guards would sit there drawing overtime pay for doing nothing. Using an extreme outlier case to argue that businesses should face criminal liability if they don't always keep on hand the staff to deal with that extreme outlier case is pretty much the definition of featherbedding.

  • ||

    Show me the memoranda where WalMart's suits agreed amongst themselves that ginning up big mobs of assholes would be their advertising strategy. Or, if you like, Youtubes of WalMart ads showing this sort of thing.

    Really? You don't see how a news story on the 6 o'clock news every year the day after Thanksgiving about large crowds of people going to Walmart to get a cheap (laptop/DVD player/plasma TV) isn't free advertising? Political campaigns do the same thing. Create a spectacle ad that's not released on the web, for next to nothing, and have the news netwroks talk about it for 3 days. It costs you far less than actual TV advertising, but has the same effect of getting out the message.

    While I don't have access to internal memorandums and presentation, I'll eat my hat if there's not a single one (probably from marketing) that says something like, "Large holiday crowds create buzz and media coverage. We should encourage them by having well timed sales."

  • ||

    BDB | December 2, 2008, 2:14pm | #

    Yes joe, but just because they get shit for it doesn't mean they wouldn't have done it. What I'm saying is a squadron of cops would have been overkill, and more than likely would have resulted in some kind of police brutality.


    What I'm saying is, a few cops keeping the most obnoxious people in line prevents crowds from turning into mobs, without lines of baton-wielding police charging the crowd.

  • ||

    "I'm sure there's some way his family could sue based on negligence above and beyond workman's comp. I'm not a lawyer, but I think criminal negligence should allow restitution above and beyond it."


    No there isn't. You cannot sue your employer for negligence. That is why we have workman's comp. It takes the place of tort liability and keeps everyone from suing their boss for every injury. It is a seperate system. That is what drives a lot of the nuttier tort litigation. Someone gets burned to death on the job due to the obvious negligence of their employer. Since they can't sue the employer, they sue the maker of the gas pump or some sealent that burned up.

  • ||

    Jesus F. Christ, people. "Foreseeable" is not the same as "predictable."

  • ||

    Good news though, there's at lteast one (1) available job at a Long Island Walmart!

  • Glorified Troll||

    Episiarch | December 2, 2008, 2:20pm | #
    Why do I write about kicking ass?

    Because I so thoroughly pwn people that they feel the need to start writing about Elian Gonzales, because they're just so gosh darn wound up.

    I am going to bookmark this thread for repeated future enjoyment. I think this tops any previous efforts by joe. I really do. This is fucking comedy gold.


    Here, here, Epi. Raise our glasses for a toast. I was wondering if you recognized my handle from a previous post of yours?

  • ||

    "The statement said the store added internal security, brought in outside security, erected barricades and worked with Nassau County police in anticipation of heavy crowds."

    Assuming that is true Joe, what else where they supposed to do? It looks like they did everything you are advocating and it still happened.

  • ||

    Create a spectacle ad that's not released on the web, for next to nothing, and have the news netwroks talk about it for 3 days.

    Should be, "Create a spectacle ad that's not released on TV, for the web, for next to nothing, and have the news networks talk about it for 3 days."

  • anarch||

    Lamar, would you refine the distinction? Is there a further technical, legal sense in which the terms differ?

  • ||

    Here, here, Epi. Raise our glasses for a toast. I was wondering if you recognized my handle from a previous post of yours?

    (clinks glass)

    I do not, in fact, recognize that. Do you have a link by any chance?

  • ||

    John,

    Assuming that is true - which is quite an assumption - then that would be a strong defense by Wal Mart. Oddly enough, Fluffy insists that such efforts would amount to unnecessary featherbedding, but whatever. Perhaps it would be ok with him if we could confirm that they weren't in a union.

    That sounds like the sort of thing they should be checking out in the investigation I, and the union, are calling for.

  • Other Matt||

    I am going to bookmark this thread for repeated future enjoyment. I think this tops any previous efforts by joe. I really do. This is fucking comedy gold.

    Agreed.

  • Paul||

    American business has long excelled at creating a sense of shortage amid abundance, an anxiety that one must act now or miss out.



    I wonder where the New York Times' editorial board stook on the U.S. "acting now" on the bailout. You know, before it's too late? I wonder. I wonder.

  • Fluffy||

    Wal Mart has knowledge about crowds rushing during its rush sales. Everyone knows that rushing crowds can be dangerous. People have been injured in the past, even if this is the first death at a Wal Mart.

    The police have knowledge about crowds rushing. In fact, they have specific training about how to deal with unruly crowds. All police officers know that rushing crowds can be dangerous, and that people have been injured in the past.

    I'm not answering this for what would be about the sixth time.

    You've addressed it with nonsense that has repeatedly been debunked, but you keep trying to parse it in ever-more absurd ways - like "the police know what to do about a rioting crowd, but are helpless with crowds that haven't rioted yet" and such blather.

    You just don't get the basic notion that the state should not be entitled to advance arguments contrary to those advanced by its representatives on the spot. Maybe it was completely obvious to anyone but the braindead that the crowd was very dangerous. That just doesn't matter to me in legal terms as soon as the cops pronounced the crowd undangerous. It is simply absurdly unjust for an official representative of the state to decide that a situation is safe, but then for the state to argue after the fact that a private individual should have known a situation was unsafe. I don't care if Wal-Mart had a superadvanced AI store manager with data from every unruly crowd incident in the last millennium reviewing the situation - if the cops say a situation is safe, I am entitled to treat it as safe, and so is Wal-Mart. Period.

    The police fucked up. The precise way in which they fucked up should release Wal-Mart from criminal liability. I don't think Wal-Mart should have faced criminal liability anyway, based on the lawbreaking of the crowd, but even if I accepted the notion that such liability was possible, I would refuse to accept that one can be criminally liable for not anticipating a riot better than the police could.

  • ||

    Isn't it always the people who have the least to say who can't stop writing about me?

  • ||

    J sub, stop hiding behind the vague term "crowd control." I've broken it out and explained what I meant. If you want to reply to that, do so. If you just want to play dumb, buh bye.

    Funny, I use quotes, and joe dodges again. With nothing other than an new assertation that crowd control is a "vague term".

    joe | December 2, 2008, 12:56pm | #

    Abdul,

    An adequate security presence and standard crowd control practices would have prevented the crowd from getting to the point where they were pushing doors off hinges.


    Apparently "standard crowd control" practices exist even though the term is vague.

    See how that works joe? Quotes and rational arguments.

    I do think WalMart is liable for this tragedy. I also think the cops are equally if not more liable. After all, they are the experts (is that a vague term?) at this stuff.

  • Glorified Troll||

    Putting 4 cops and dozens of security guards outside every retail situation where hundreds of people show up would be featherbedding, joe. 99.9999999999% of the time, the cops and security guards would sit there drawing overtime pay for doing nothing. Using an extreme outlier case to argue that businesses should face criminal liability if they don't always keep on hand the staff to deal with that extreme outlier case is pretty much the definition of featherbedding.

    One hundred percent true. However, you are wasting your time trying to make a salient point to some one who doesn't care. That 'harmony of sentiments' that Adam Smith talked about is not something that drives your target audience here. Do yourself a favor, you have made about a dozen damn good points about this matter on this thread, and it is something that has interest for a National audience, turn those points into an article, submit to Reason and see if you can make some scratch from it.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Wal Mart has knowledge about crowds rushing during its rush sales. Everyone knows that rushing crowds can be dangerous.

    I repeat, one store in the entire country had this problem.

    Everybody from Kohls to Best Buy to WalMart had Black Friday sales. Nobody got trampled anywhere in the entire country of 300 million people except at this store by this bunch of assholes.

  • ||

    So, no, Fluffy, you're not going to respond to what I've written about the police, other than to invoke the magic words "blather" and "debunked."


    buh bye

  • Other Matt||

    The precise way in which they fucked up should release Wal-Mart from criminal liability.

    Cue joe with "Look, over there! Something entirely different, and I already answered you so I won't again!" in 3...2....1...

  • Other Matt||

    Too late, he beat me to it.

  • ||

    Are we supposed to pretend not to that Glorified Troll is Other Matt?

  • Fluffy||

    To leave joe alone for a moment, what I can't get about this is that Wal-Mart's deals sucked this year anyway. These people were rioting and breaking doors down to get shitty deals.

    I can remember in previous years at Wal-Mart and BestBuy that the stuff I got my ass up at 4 AM for was free after rebate. There was no free after rebate stuff this year. There were trivial discounts on TV's and phones everyone already bought at higher prices two years ago and last year, and which will be even cheaper in another month. I don't get it at all.

  • teh summary||

    For those of you who skipped to the end...

    People who have have actually read the accounts of the incident seemed to agree that: the crowd (ie killers) are responsible, there was no criminal negligence by WalMart, and WalMart will probably face a civil action.

    Insane internet heroes (ie joe) "demanded" a sweeping investigation of everything, made random assertions with no basis in fact, began proclaiming his superiority, was roundly mocked, and then curiously retreated to pussy equivocations about "the facts".

    Hitler was mentioned.

  • ||

    Well, bye, tossers.

    You get to go to bed secure in the knowledge that you argued your hearts out to make sure that Wal Mart won't be coerced into making its stores safer in response to a preventable tragedy.

    Good work, everybody!

    I'm out.

  • BDB||

    "teh summary | December 2, 2008, 2:37pm | #
    For those of you who skipped to the end...

    People who have have actually read the accounts of the incident seemed to agree that: the crowd (ie killers) are responsible, there was no criminal negligence by WalMart, and WalMart will probably face a civil action.

    Insane internet heroes (ie joe) "demanded" a sweeping investigation of everything, made random assertions with no basis in fact, began proclaiming his superiority, was roundly mocked, and then curiously retreated to pussy equivocations about "the facts".

    Hitler was mentioned."

    You need to do this on every thread.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Fluffy, sometimes you amaze me. Nice post at 2:33.

    And I'm not just saying that so you'll buy me a glass of wine, neither.

  • ||

    So, no, Fluffy, you're not going to respond to what I've written about the police, other than to invoke the magic words "blather" and "debunked."

    I'm literally laughing out loud at work and had better stop, but this is just so fucking excellent that I'm having trouble.

    Fluffy, I think you should apologize to joe. After all, there was no reason to crush him that thoroughly. It wasn't sportsmanlike.

  • kinnath||

    Assuming that is true - which is quite an assumption - then that would be a strong defense by Wal Mart.

    Given that it was an authorized spokesman for the company making the statement to the press, it can be assumed that it is true or that walmart is too stupid to realize that it easy to verify such statements.

    You really don't have a leg to stand on here joe.

  • Glorified Troll||

    Episiarch | December 2, 2008, 2:30pm | #
    Here, here, Epi. Raise our glasses for a toast. I was wondering if you recognized my handle from a previous post of yours?

    (clinks glass)

    I do not, in fact, recognize that. Do you have a link by any chance?


    'fraid not. Your comment about a 'glorified troll' occurred during the late Democratic primary season at the tail end of a very long topic where your two or three sentences said everything that needed to be said. Too sober to spark any memory beyond that, however.

  • MAX HATS||

    I used to work Sears and Toys -R Us during holidays, and these sorts of incidents are common across the country. The only thing that is unusual is the death. Of course Wal-Mart should have planned for it. I'm sure they did plan for it. But the planning at this store was obviously inadequate. Is the union over-reaching by advocating an investigation "at all levels?" Sure. Is it even possible to investigate something "at all levels?" Probably not. Is that really tremendously germane to the larger issue here? No. This is probably not the best nor most relevant issue to use as a springboard into vitriol against unions or workplace safety.

  • ||

    Joe writes arguments.

    People can't refute them.

    People insult joe personally.

    Joe responds.

    Same people insult joe for writing insults, then claim victory.

    Same shit, different day.

    All in all, another convincing victory.

  • robc||

    I wish I had another appropriate Chik-fil-a example to convince joe he was wrong.

  • Abdul||

    Joe declares victory as if he is an impartial referree in a contest that acutally has winners and losers.

    Same shit, different day.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    But velvet rope costs money.

    ha ha. So that means that the union is NOT crassly waving a bloody shirt?

    I didn't know that "failure to have velvet rope = treating employees poorly".

    Why do I write about kicking ass?

    "Well, I'm in the business. Business of kicking your ass. And let me tell ya, business is booming."

    "You lookin' to uh, expand your business?"

  • ||

    Here's an interesting experiment: find the three handles who wrote the most about me, then go through the thread and find the substantive points they made on the subject.

    Episiarch, Glorified Troll and OtherMatt.

    I think there is a grand total of one point dealing with the subject between them. So, obviously, I lost.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    Give it up. joe is just on the rag today. Explaining the inconsistenies in his arguments in a clear concise manner appears futile.

    "Crowd control" is a "vague term" with "standard practices" that the cops are not "experts" on recognizing when they are needed. Store managers are better trained and more responsible in these situations.

    Got it?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    You get to go to bed secure in the knowledge that you argued your hearts out to make sure that Wal Mart won't be coerced into making its stores safer in response to a preventable tragedy.

    You're like an immature little 12-year-old, you know that? God, what a fucking snot.

  • Glorified Troll||

    joe | December 2, 2008, 2:36pm | #
    Are we supposed to pretend not to that Glorified Troll is Other Matt?


    Nice! You get the blame for my snark today, OM. Now, I can still buddy up to Joe on other threads, and pretend to be his friend.

  • ||

    Another day, another victory.

    I'm out of here, I got a double-header with my sister and my mother tonight.

  • ||

    Abdul | December 2, 2008, 2:43pm | #

    Joe declares victory as if he is an impartial referree in a contest that acutally has winners and losers.


    Sometimes, Abdul, I come out of arguments thinking "you know, they raised some good points."

    Not this time. This was a slam dunk. The subject of unions makes libertarians lose their faculties.

  • ||

    Maybe this incident says a lot more about Long Island than it does about Wal Mart? There are some places you sort of expect crowds to behave like this: NYC, Chicago, Philly.

    When I'm kicking a dozen people's asses at the same time, Dello, it might take me a while to get back around to yours.

    Joe, the difference between your real life and your life on this board is that in your real life, people laugh at you behind your back. I promise you.

  • Fluffy||

    So, no, Fluffy, you're not going to respond to what I've written about the police, other than to invoke the magic words "blather" and "debunked."

    Joe, you argued that police aren't experts at controlling crowds that haven't gone out of control yet.

    I responded that they are assigned exactly that task on many occasions, such as escorting peaceful crowds at demonstrations.

    You responded that yes, they are assigned to that task, but they aren't very good at it and make many mistakes.

    That is not an argument proving that police aren't professionals at crowd control. That's an argument proving that even the state's best crowd control experts often fuck up.

    In addition to being an absurd parsing of the concept of "expert" or "professional", your argument highlights the great difficulty in predicting which crowds will and will not create a hazardous situation. And your argument for criminal liability requires that task be easy and transparent for a private store manager.

    So I have not ignored your statements about the police, joe. I have answered them. You just don't like my answers, because you are bound and determined to hold private actors more responsible for their decisions than you hold the police, and will contort yourself into whatever knots required to make sure you can do that. You aren't always so determined; sometimes you are very reasonable on this very issue. Strangely, your less reasonable behavior tends to surface when you are angry at Mean, Nonunion Corporation. I can't imagine why, of course.

  • ||

    All in all, another convincing victory.

    A perfect coda to a near-perfect thread. It couldn't be better if I handed him a script.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Sometimes, Abdul, I come out of arguments thinking "you know, they raised some good points."

    No, you don't. Try not to lie to the people, joe.

  • ||

    Store managers are better trained and more responsible in these situations.

    Actually, corporate's decision not to train and provide resources for store managers in this area might have a lot to do with what happened.

  • MAX HATS||

    To follow up: when I was working at Sears, there was a Black Friday incident where mobs stormed the checkout counters and were fighting each other for - if I recall correctly - 10 dollar gift certificates. This was in a wealthy Seattle suburb. Didn't even make the news. This stuff happens everywhere.

    News reports indicate that the employees tried to form a "human chain" to stop the mob, and when the chain broke several employees were trampled, fatally so for one. That is dumb. Possibly criminal. That is putting employees lives on the line to keep merchandise in order - a very bad call. Being a manager of a store does not give you the right to demand some young temp risk his life.

  • ||

    secure in the knowledge that you argued your hearts out to make sure that Wal Mart won't be coerced into making its stores safer in response to a preventable tragedy.

    Awesome.

    Go ice down the bloody stumps of your fingers.

  • ||

    "The subject of unions makes libertarians lose their faculties."

    Not sure why. Perhaps they'd prefer some good old fashioned government regulation instead of collective bargaining.

  • Fixed It For You||

    joe writes arguments.

    People throughly refute them.

    joe refuses to recognize that he's wrong.

    joe compounds his illogic with boasting.

    People insult joe personally.

    joe whines.

    Same people insult joe for whining.

    Same shit, different day.

    All in all, another round of pounding sand.

  • Abdul||

    I'm out of here, I got a double-header with my sister and my mother tonight.

    I wasn't going to make it ad hominem, but dude, Rick Santorum warned us that gay marriage would lead to this.

    Just kidding. Enjoy your "header."

  • kinnath||

    From the CNN story:

    Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar said Saturday that the company had no response to the union's comments, referring CNN to a written statement the retailer released Friday.

    The statement said the store added internal security, brought in outside security, erected barricades and worked with Nassau County police in anticipation of heavy crowds.

    "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the deceased," Wal-Mart Senior Vice President Hank Mullany said in the statement. "We are continuing to work closely with local law enforcement, and we are reaching out to those involved."


    joe, please show me how any deficiencies in Walmart's planning and actions rise to the level of criminal negligence in the death of the temporary worker who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    Joe, you argued that police aren't experts at controlling crowds that haven't gone out of control yet.

    Nope. Not once. I have never argued this. Quite the opposite, I argued that a police presence that concentrated on keeping the instigators in line was an effective method of crowd control.

    Rather, you are misstating another argument I made, which was that police are not terribly good at telling a peaceful crowd from a dangerous one, or predicting whether a crowd will turn hostile.

    And your argument for criminal liability requires that task be easy and transparent for a private store manager. No, my argument is that the store manager should be prepared, just in case.

  • ||

    If you can't even restate my arguments accurately, Fluffy, is it possible you haven't crushed them as thoroughly as you'd like to think?

  • ||

    joe,

    To be accurate, joe, I was mocking your chest-beating in this thread by referring to your absurd (in my mind) assertions and self-congratulatory statements in the Elian thread. Maybe I shouldn't have gone there--I wasn't trying to evade the topic at hand, but I also didn't mean to be insulting. Just poking fun. (Note that I intentionally did not use the word "kidnapping"--that would've been going a bridge too far.)

    Incidentally, let's recall what we were arguing about. I never said that the store's management couldn't be held accountable for what happened. It may well have been negligent. My objection was to the union attempting to extrapolate this one, isolated incident into a general claim that Wal-Mart wants to exterminate its greeters and all greeting-type people.

  • Glorified Troll||

    joe | December 2, 2008, 2:43pm | #
    Here's an interesting experiment: find the three handles who wrote the most about me, then go through the thread and find the substantive points they made on the subject.

    Episiarch, Glorified Troll and OtherMatt.

    I think there is a grand total of one point dealing with the subject between them. So, obviously, I lost.

  • ||

    kinnath,

    Why was in that place at that time?

    Do you make a habit of taking the word of accused parties, or is it only when it's Wal Mart?

    There are two positions here - investigate because there might be liability, or don't, because it isn't possible that the decisions made by Wal Mart contributed to this tragedy.

    Nobody has written a single word that makes me question whether my position is the right one:

    An investigation by "all levels of government", joe? Really? That's what you want to defend? God damn motherfucking right, except I'll replace "defend" with "demand." Am I being clear enough? Local, state, and federal.

  • ||

    joe | December 2, 2008, 2:47pm | #

    Store managers are better trained and more responsible in these situations.

    Actually, corporate's decision not to train and provide resources for store managers in this area might have a lot to do with what happened.



    Nice partial quote there, joe. Here is my enire post, you dishonest fuck.

    J sub D | December 2, 2008, 2:44pm | #

    Fluffy,

    Give it up. joe is just on the rag today. Explaining the inconsistenies in his arguments in a clear concise manner appears futile.

    "Crowd control" is a "vague term" with "standard practices" that the cops are not "experts" on recognizing when they are needed. Store managers are better trained and more responsible in these situations.

    Got it?


  • ||

    Strangely, your less reasonable behavior tends to surface when you are angry at Mean, Nonunion Corporation.

    It's generally his "tell" when he's getting his ass handed to him on a platter, regardless of the topic. That, and his chest-thumping pronouncements that he "won."

  • ||

    Well, bye, tossers...Good work, everybody!...I'm out.

    Your OCD is showing, joe. Compulsions aren't good for you.

  • ||

    My objection was to the union attempting to extrapolate this one, isolated incident into a general claim that Wal-Mart wants to exterminate its greeters and all greeting-type people.

    Oh, is that their claim? I thought it had something to do with negligence and cutting corners.

    And yeah, bringing up the fact that you're still sore about the Elian thread was pointless.

  • ||

    J sub D,

    Wow, I'm really under your skin, aren't I?

    "You dishonest fuck?" My my.

    Go drink with your war criminal buddies, old fart. It's all you're good for.

  • BDB||

    There was an Elian Gonzales thread?

  • ||

    No, my argument is that the store manager should be prepared, just in case.

    Rifles and pistols just in case banditos show up. Scuba gear just in case the world gets flooded before lunch. Crosses and holy water just in case the store is attacked by vampires. Compressed air tanks and Roy Schneider just in case of a shark attack. Machetes just in case of zombie attack. Chainsaws just in case of triffid attack.

    Help me out with the thousands of other contingencies a store manager of a Wal-Mart has to think of to satisfy joe. You know, all the ones a union would magically be prepared for.

  • kinnath||

    kinnath,

    Why was in that place at that time?

    Huh?

    Do you make a habit of taking the word of accused parties, or is it only when it's Wal Mart?

    Public statements of the accused are always relevant.

    There are two positions here - investigate because there might be liability, or don't, because it isn't possible that the decisions made by Wal Mart contributed to this tragedy.

    There are two courses of action that should be pursued.

    1) The police should arrest and the DA should prosecute all participants in the mob that broke the door and killed the worker.

    2) The next of kin should pursue civil actions to determine if Walmart was negligent in any way that contributed to the death.

    So back to my question, how is Walmart criminally negligent here?

  • Abdul||

    There was an Elian Gonzales thread?

    Kind of amazing that more than ten years after the fact, that little illegal alien punk inspired a 300-post thread.

  • ||

    Your OCD is showing, joe. Compulsions aren't good for you.

    ...says the more prolific of my internet stalkers.

    Seriously, if I send you a signed photo, would that get you to stop doing this, or just encourage you more?

  • ||

    Go drink with your war criminal buddies, old fart. It's all you're good for.

    Please tell me this isn't someone ultra-spoofing joe, because this is phenomenal.

  • Ska||

    Maybe this incident says a lot more about Long Island than it does about Wal Mart?

    Maybe about Valley Stream. It's the shopping hub for several of the low income areas in Nassau County.

  • BDB||

    "Abdul | December 2, 2008, 3:01pm | #
    There was an Elian Gonzales thread?

    Kind of amazing that more than ten years after the fact, that little illegal alien punk inspired a 300-post thread."

    Well, there was no broadband in 1998. Making up for lost time, I guess. Link to the thread? I find it a little hard to believe.

  • ||

    SugarFree,

    Rifles and pistols just in case banditos show up. Scuba gear just in case the world gets flooded before lunch. Crosses and holy water just in case the store is attacked by vampires. Compressed air tanks and Roy Schneider just in case of a shark attack. Machetes just in case of zombie attack. Chainsaws just in case of triffid attack.

    None of those things are predictable outcomes of a Black Friday rush sale. As opposed to a rushing mob, which breaks out pretty frequently.

  • BDB||

    Joe is too difficult to spoof.

  • ||

    joe,

    I'm not sore; I just don't get why you beat a losing and dead horse at times. That was the archetypal incidence of that to me.

    As to "negligence and cutting corners", I addressed that earlier. Does Wal-Mart generally expose its employees to an unsafe environment? I don't think so, and I don't think that's really been the complaint against Wal-Mart to date. The real issue has been compensation, benefits, etc.

  • ||

    It's the shopping hub for several of the low income areas in Nassau County.

    That should be good for another seventy-five "racist fuck" -style comments.

  • ||

    kinnath,

    Public statements of the accused are always relevant. Relevant, sure, but why exactly are you so willing to accept them as the truth?

    So back to my question, how is Walmart criminally negligent here?

    You mean, might be criminally negligent, right? There's only one side of this argument making definitive statements, and it ain't me babe.

    Wal Mart might be criminally negligent, or worse, if they knowingly put this individual in a situation likely to cause bodily harm. Some of us think we need to know the details to answer the question of whether their behavior rises to criminal negligence or worse, and some of us want to pretend that, categorically, it is not possible for them to be.

  • lurking lurker||

    Man, usually I am here, read some interesting thoughts batted about and enjoy the particular flavors of all the usual suspects and then move on. But this ... wow.

  • The Grisly Truth||

    It would be totally worth another trampling death in a unionized store just to see joe claim that the union did nothing wrong.

  • Fluffy||

    All joe had to do to pirouette on me in this argument is backtrack from the notion of criminal liability.

    That's it.

    Joe: "Well, yeah, I guess criminal liability's a stretch. But they're definitely civilly liable. And a union would definitely help avoid future situations where employee staff levels are a potential issue."

    Fluffy: [crickets.]

    But joe would rather tenaciously argue that police have no crowd control knowledge than admit than the tiniest, smallest tangential element of any of his posts is wrong.

    Now he's arguing that I'm summarizing his points wrong.

    Rather, you are misstating another argument I made, which was that police are not terribly good at telling a peaceful crowd from a dangerous one, or predicting whether a crowd will turn hostile.

    But this would not be responsive to my initial point, so if I did misinterpret your argument, it was in a way charitable to you.

  • Mike Laursen||

    So, who created the circumstances and let them get out of hand?

    Ooh, ooh, let me guess. Capitalists, joe?

  • ||

    Seriously, if I send you a signed photo, would that get you to stop doing this, or just encourage you more?

    If it's a picture of you wearing your gorilla suit while beating your chest and standing on a chair so that you can reach the keyboard, please just post a link here so that everyone can appreciate it.

    But no photo could ever be as entertaining as your posts, joe.

  • ||

    Pro Libertate | December 2, 2008, 3:02pm | #

    joe,

    I'm not sore; I just don't get why you beat a losing and dead horse at times. That was the archetypal incidence of that to me.


    Right up until I posted the definition of kidnapping, and every single element was met?

    You're very emotionally wedded to one side of that argument, but you lost.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Go drink with your war criminal buddies, old fart. It's all you're good for.

    Did you really just say this, joe?

  • ||

    Rifles and pistols just in case banditos show up. Scuba gear just in case the world gets flooded before lunch. Crosses and holy water just in case the store is attacked by vampires. Compressed air tanks and Roy Schneider just in case of a shark attack. Machetes just in case of zombie attack. Chainsaws just in case of triffid attack.

    You forgot "Lock up all the knives and forks, in case the store is taken over by cannibals."

  • ||

    joe, now that your ass is on a serving tray, and in your arms, how much does it weigh?

  • MAX HATS||


    Rifles and pistols just in case banditos show up. Scuba gear just in case the world gets flooded before lunch. Crosses and holy water just in case the store is attacked by vampires. Compressed air tanks and Roy Schneider just in case of a shark attack. Machetes just in case of zombie attack. Chainsaws just in case of triffid attack.



    Joe may not be exactly winning here, but that doesn't make every thing he says wrong. Every retail manager of a "big box" or major department store in the country should and generally is prepared for crowds and even riots at Black Friday. These things happen everywhere, every year. The only thing novel about this case that I can see is the "human chain" and the inevitable consequence of trying to stop a mob with red rover - a man died.

    Acting like this whole event was completely unpredictable is either disingenuous or ignorant.

  • ||

    None of those things are predictable outcomes of a Black Friday rush sale. As opposed to a rushing mob, which breaks out pretty frequently.

    joe, I am directly addressing you because I have to agree with you here. However, I still fail to see how unionized Walmart employees could possibly have prevented this. Wait! I get it!

    You are suggesting that we unionize the consumers, right? All people who participate in Black Friday must first pay their dues then attend a "Rushing Mob Safety Course". Then they would be qualified to assess the general safety of their mob and allow for all of the frenzy of a good doorbuster without the needless pain and suffering.

    Good idea joe! But do you think it will work? Will people really want to join such a union? What if non-union people try to come to the sale? What if one of the people in the crowd is carrying the zombie virus?

    joe, I think you were on to something, but you've neglected a bunch of the salient details.

  • unemployed professor||

    The subject of unions makes libertarians lose their faculties.

    And vice-versa.

  • BDB||

    How does being in the Navy make one a war criminal? I knew you were a liberal joe but shit, I didn't know you were to the left of Howard Zinn!

  • MAX HATS||

    It would be totally worth another trampling death in a unionized store just to see joe claim that the union did nothing wrong.



    Unless the union also ran the store, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

  • Hogan||

    who killed davey moore, why and what's the reason for? joe, thoughts?

  • Pac||

    I can't help wonder if any of you have jobs. Since it's the same people posting on the majority of these articles everyday.


    Enjoy your echo chamber may reality find you someday.

  • ||

    A small point of interest here....I believe that Walmart has dropped the hyphen form its name and is now simply, Walmart.

  • Other Matt||

    Joe may not be exactly winning here

    Wait! I thought joe was "Kicking Ass" here! Well, at least to hear him tell it. What'd I miss?

  • ||

    Mike Laursen,

    Ooh, ooh, let me guess. Capitalists, joe?

    I don't know the political orientation of the Wal Mart managers, but I do know how you go about looking at this story.

    This man's death, and Wal Mart's responsibility, is nothing but a proxy fight for your blah blah blah left-right fight, and like all hacks and liars, you have to believe that everyone else is the same.

    Capitalists? What an incredibly telling response.

  • sage||

    If it's a picture of you wearing your gorilla suit while beating your chest and standing on a chair so that you can reach the keyboard, please just post a link here so that everyone can appreciate it.

    lmao

  • ||

    joe,

    You've got to be kidding. Or kidnapping. You were utterly wrong. You simply ignored the repeated comments that you can't impute liability for something legally in dispute. Whether you'd like to assume the facts away or not doesn't make you less wrong. Really, you get irrationally defensive at times. It'd be better to concede gray areas rather than do victory laps over questionable or completely inaccurate assertions.

    See? Now you've got peaceful old me annoyed.

  • ||

    Incidentally, it is Monkey Tuesday, so any gorilla-suit photos are welcome--from anyone here ☺

  • kinnath||

    Public statements of the accused are always relevant. Relevant, sure, but why exactly are you so willing to accept them as the truth?

    I posted upstream that this statement would be extremely easy to verify. So it seems highly unlikely that a company the size of walmart would make false statements in public on a matter like this. The statement was made to the press last Friday. I would imagine that it would have alredy been challenged by now if it was not true.

    So going with probabilities, I'll take the statement on face value until proven otherwise.

    Wal Mart might be criminally negligent, or worse, if they knowingly put this individual in a situation likely to cause bodily harm. Some of us think we need to know the details to answer the question of whether their behavior rises to criminal negligence or worse, and some of us want to pretend that, categorically, it is not possible for them to be.

    There are drugs that can help you with your paranoia.

  • ||

    "This man's death, and Wal Mart's responsibility, is nothing but a proxy fight for your my blah blah blah left-right fight, and like all hacks and liars, you I have to believe that everyone else is the same."

  • Pac||

    I don't see a problem with Walmart being held liable for their action(or lack of) and policies.


    Nor should there be a problem with Unions attempting to further the conversation.

    But i forget, i guess i should be finding a way to make the unions look bad instead of actually discussing the issue.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    joe, did you or did you not call Jsub's fellow servicemembers "war criminals"?

    Answer the question.

  • ||

    phalkor,

    I've got an idea. When you ask me a question, you let me answer it, rather than writing what you JUST KNOW that people on the other side of an issue must think, because you've been told what they think by their political opponents?

    Crazy, huh?

    There's actually a very easy, obvious answer to the question However, I still fail to see how unionized Walmart employees could possibly have prevented this.

    Unionized employees negotiate over workplace conditions, especially worker safety conditions. Included in the standards they negotiate for, often, are requirements to provide adequate staffing levels, and safety protocols (such as, in this case, security details).

    The workers who are endangerd on a job, believe it or not, often have the most particular, detailed understanding of the risks they face and of what can be done to address them.

  • ||

    joe,

    Actually, perhaps I did err here. It's an ad hominem attack of sorts for me to bring up an unrelated error (from my POV) to assault, even indirectly, your position in this thread. I retract my statement. Except for Episiarch, who likely won't allow the retraction.

  • ||

    But the Nazis were socialists!

  • ||

    And vice-versa.

    The subject of faculties makes libertarians lose their unions?

    BDB,

    I was just goading J sub D. He took it very personally when I dared write that there were war crimes in Vietnam. He frequently drinks with some Vietnam Veterans, so obviously, there were no war crimes there.

    I just wrote that to get his goat.

  • ||

    MAX HATS,

    I decided to employ hyperbole because joe consistently refuses to address the fact that:

    The statement said the store added internal security, brought in outside security, erected barricades and worked with Nassau County police in anticipation of heavy crowds.

    He pitches it like there is a slavering mob howling for security guard blood and Snidely Whiplash store manager threw the security guard in front of them like raw meat. It didn't happen that way, but you can't get joe off message with silly things like facts.

  • ||

    Incidentally, it is Monkey Tuesday, so any gorilla-suit photos are welcome--from anyone here ☺

    Thanks for the reminder. I'm off to Urkobold.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I just wrote that to get his goat.

    So the answer is "Yes, yes you did call them war criminals."

  • MAX HATS||

    Wal Mart might be criminally negligent, or worse, if they knowingly put this individual in a situation likely to cause bodily harm. Some of us think we need to know the details to answer the question of whether their behavior rises to criminal negligence or worse, and some of us want to pretend that, categorically, it is not possible for them to be.

    There are drugs that can help you with your paranoia.



    They used temps to play red rover against a mob. If that isn't negligence, what do you think is?


    Sugafree: noted. I haven't exactly read every post here (323 and counting). Apologies.

  • ||

    I retract my statement. Except for Episiarch, who likely won't allow the retraction.

    RETRACTION DENIED

  • ||

    kinnath,

    So going with probabilities, I'll take the statement on face value until proven otherwise. Why go with probabilities, when we could actually get the facts? Why are you so afraid of an investigation?

    There are drugs that can help you with your paranoia. Uh, yeah, the statement that it is possible for an employer to be negligent and put an employee into danger is utter paranoia. That can't possibly happen. What?

  • ||

    See?

  • ||

    You never go full retract.

  • ||

    P Brooks,

    Nice try, but if you'll notice, it is not I who have been dropping poltically-tinged commentary about capitalists and socialists and corporations and whatnot. I've been arguing the facts of the case, and the entirety of the political, left-right bullshit is coming from the other side.

  • kinnath||

    They used temps to play red rover against a mob. If that isn't negligence, what do you think is?

    They sent an employee to open the door. Wether the employwee was a temp or a seasoned employee would not have changed the outcome.

    You need to prove that the management should have known that there was a forseeable chance that the employee would be trampled to death to claim negligence.

  • Jerry||

    If Black Friday brings these risks, why are people willing to work on that day?

  • ||

    I haven't exactly read every post here (323 and counting). Apologies.

    No apologies necessary, I was being an ass... I turned into one after actually reading the thread.

  • ||

    I just wrote that to get his goat.

    joe, me too! I do, however, think an ad hominem attack is fairly useless on an anonymous thread. Really, who would take such a post seriously?

    Wait. Nevermind.

  • ||

    So the answer is "Yes, yes you did call them war criminals."

    Yes. Also, I've written about having sex with your mother. Equally true, and I meant it just as much.

  • ||

    I was just goading J sub D. He took it very personally when I dared write that there were war crimes in Vietnam. He frequently drinks with some Vietnam Veterans, so obviously, there were no war crimes there.

    I just wrote that to get his goat.


    Actually you assertyed that war crimes by vietnam vets were routine, you also iumplied that the entire chain of command was aware of them did nothing. I have never asserted that war crimes are absent from any war, I took exception to your slandering a bunch of folks that were placed in an untenable position by a Democratic President and congress.

    And no, you didn't get my goat as I pay no attention to fools and drunkards. My pointing out that you use partial quotes in debate, and the inconsistencies of your arguments apparently got yours.

  • Other Matt||

    Here's an interesting experiment: find the three handles who wrote the most about me, then go through the thread and find the substantive points they made on the subject.

    Episiarch, Glorified Troll and OtherMatt.


    Damn, joe, you must be slipping. I've posted no more than 10 comments on this thread, at least directed towards you. This thread is over 300. You still haven't addressed my primary point, which is that if it weren't WalMart, neither your nor the unions would be up in arms. My point was that using a man's death for political hackery was pretty shitty, but I expect that from unions, and you. My remaining comments directed at you dealt with your lack of response to this, at least a coherent response, and to answer some other questions. I will admit that I find your description of "kicking ass" so ridiculous I had to comment on it, because without fail EVERY time some idiot, such as yourself, uses that terminology on the web, they are invariably little pissant small people who can't bring themselves to treat others with civility when anonymous.

    How you equate this to "Points" I don't know, but you've evaded my comments, not responded to the substance of them whatsoever, and now claim I'm one of the ones who "wrote the most" about you.

    I simply stated you're a partisan hack who is generally full of shit, a fact commonly acknowledged here. I stated you didn't respond to my points, which I think everyone would agree with. I stated that everyone who "kicks ass" typically suffers from small man's syndrome, you seem to fit the profile but it's nothing more than an opinion. It happens to be one I believe, but you're free to dispute it and I don't particularly care. I stated that you try to go with the "Look, over there!" in response to questions, seems like I'm not the only one.

    I'm honored that you consider me enough of an irritant to you to be deserving of specific mention, though. Obviously I'm doing something right.

  • ||

    the entirety of the political, left-right bullshit is coming from the other side.

    rly?

  • anti-capitalist||

    in case the store is taken over by cannibals

    Like, HEL-LO?

  • ||

    I was being an ass... I turned into one after actually reading the thread.

    Reading the thread is what turned you into one. Right. Nice try.

  • Jerry||

    BTW, I am waiting for joe to call this death a result of spontaneous order.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Also, I've written about having sex with your mother. Equally true, and I meant it just as much.

    Again, you're a fucking snot and a punk, joe.

  • ||

    Jerry | December 2, 2008, 3:23pm | #

    If Black Friday brings these risks, why are people willing to work on that day?


    If Black Lung brings these risks, why are people willing to work in the mines?

    Because they gotta. Because they think it won't happen to them. Because, statistically, they're probably right, there probably won't be a serious event in their particular store.

  • Fluffy||

    Fine, joe. You just want an investigation, to see if maybe perhaps there's criminal liability. You don't think there is, or anything. You just want to be sure.

    OK, great. By all means, let's investigate.

    I will refrain from accusing you of arguing like a 9/11 Truther here.

    "I'm just asking questions. Is that so wrong? Can't we be brave enough to ask questions?" [/Randy Marsh voice]

  • ||

    joe | December 2, 2008, 3:22pm | #
    P Brooks,

    Nice try, but if you'll notice, it is not I who have been dropping poltically-tinged commentary about capitalists and socialists and corporations and whatnot. I've been arguing the facts of the case, and the entirety of the political, left-right bullshit is coming from the other side.



    Let's hop into the wayback machine...

    joe | December 2, 2008, 12:35pm | #

    Or perhaps they could make their actual argument, that unions have long succeeded in improving the safety of workplaces.



    A slobbering love of unions as a cure-all has nothing to do with left-right politics. Nothing at all.

  • ||

    You still haven't addressed my primary point, which is that if it weren't WalMart, neither your nor the unions would be up in arms.

    How would one go about addressing this?

    OK, "nuh-uh." Happy?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    When you're being political, I suppose it's usual to accuse the other side of being political.

  • ||

    Unionized employees negotiate over workplace conditions, especially worker safety conditions. Included in the standards they negotiate for, often, are requirements to provide adequate staffing levels, and safety protocols (such as, in this case, security details).

    The very notion that a union contract would have made any difference at all to a mob that breaks down a door and tramples employees is hilariously laughable.

    Although, I will admit that a posse of union thugs in front of the store before it opened would likely have prevented the riot. Because if company property is going to be damaged, and employees are going to be injured, it should be the union that does it, not customers!

  • The Angry Optimist||

    wow, joe, that sounds exactly like the mindreading point you made about me upthread.

  • MAX HATS||

    from: nydailynews article

    Sensing catastrophe, nervous employees formed a human chain inside the entrance to slow down the mass of shoppers.



    Putting a human chain in the way of the mob is putting lives on the line. The only way that there isn't negligence by my book is if it can be shown management had no way of knowing the employees attempted a human chain and had no way of stopping it. It seems unlikely to me that management was no where near the front door.

  • sage||

    If Black Friday brings these risks, why are people willing to work on that day?

    If Black Lung brings these risks, why are people willing to work in the mines?


    Right. Because a traditional sale-day, and a debilitating illness, are exactly the same thing. Exactly!

    Teh Victory!

  • kinnath||

    Why are you so afraid of an investigation?

    There are two courses of action that should be pursued.

    1) The police should arrest and the DA should prosecute all participants in the mob that broke the door and killed the worker.

    2) The next of kin should pursue civil actions to determine if Walmart was negligent in any way that contributed to the death.


    The employee was killed by the mob, not walmart.

    The employer took action to prepare for a large and unruly crowd. The police came, appraised the situation, and left. Everyone involved in the situation "appears" to have thought things were under control.

    Unless you have some mystical powers that allows you to read the minds of the management in the hours leading up to the tragedy, you have no reasonable basis to suspect criminal behavior on the part of walmart.

    The best solution is for everyone, especially the union, to just shut up and let the police investigate the event.


  • ||

    P Brooks,

    rly. Look through the thread, and count all of the statements I've made about Republicans, capitalists, and the like. This is a story about an employer, and employee, and what took place (and didn't take place) when he died at work. That's all I've written about. The entirety of the "you're just saying that cuz" blah blah blah unions capitalists Democrats bullshit is from Other Matt and his ilk.

  • Other Matt||

    Nice! You get the blame for my snark today, OM. Now, I can still buddy up to Joe on other threads, and pretend to be his friend.

    Missed this one earlier. Perhaps that's why he's blaming me as one that "wrote the most" about him.

  • Glorified Troll||

    phalkor | December 2, 2008, 3:24pm | #
    I just wrote that to get his goat.

    joe, me too! I do, however, think an ad hominem attack is fairly useless on an anonymous thread. Really, who would take such a post seriously?

    Wait. Nevermind.


    I use to be like you. Take the debate in the thread seriously, assume good intention on the part of Joe, and write cogent, thought out arguments keep things stimulating. After the umpteenth time he pulled the kind of shit he pulled in this thread on me, I said, 'no more.' Fuck'em. Screwing with him is as much as he deserves, and as much as he is going to get.

  • ||

    See, P Brooks, look at this:

    Jerry | December 2, 2008, 3:27pm | #

    BTW, I am waiting for joe to call this death a result of spontaneous order.


    Just becasue Jerry and others look at this as a proxy fight for their political ideology doesn't mean I've been.

  • ||

    the employee was killed by EXCESSIVE GREED!!!

  • ||

    The best solution is for everyone, especially the union, to just shut up and let the police investigate the event.

    ?

    You're no fun.

  • ||

    Also, I've written about having sex with your mother. Equally true, and I meant it just as much.

    This is the ultimate joe thread, I think. It's hitting every note. The claims of victory, the claims of bowing out, the insulting people's female family members, the accusations of partisanship, and the incredibly tasteless insults.

    I love it. I don't want it to end.

  • MAX HATS||



    Unless you have some mystical powers that allows you to read the minds of the management in the hours leading up to the tragedy, you have no reasonable basis to suspect criminal behavior on the part of walmart.



    Alternately, one can read news articles that talk about putting human chains in front of mobs.

  • ||

    Fluffy | December 2, 2008, 3:28pm | #

    Fine, joe. You just want an investigation, to see if maybe perhaps there's criminal liability. You don't think there is, or anything. You just want to be sure.


    I think there might be.

    I will refrain from accusing you of arguing like a 9/11 Truther here.

    You may have forgotten, but there was an investigation of 9/11. There have been several. When there is an investigation of this incident, and then another, and then another, and I keep saying there needs to be another one, you might have a leg to stand on.

    Again, what's so terrible abount finding out if an employer's policies played a role in a worker's death?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Wow - over 350 posts about an idiotic statement made by idiotic union officials.

    What a waste of time.

    The only thing that needs to be said is that labor unions are run by liberals and socialists.

    And, as such, they are physically incapable of being smart enough to be an authority on anything.

    There - that takes care of it.

  • ||

    SugarFree,

    The observation that unions have negotiated to improve the safety of workplaces is no "a slobbering love of unions," but a univerally-acknowledged fact. Now I'm supposed to pretend not to know things you deem politically inconvenient, in order to not be political? That doesn't begin to make sense.

    All you've done is out your own motives here. I make an objective observation about what unions do - negotiate over workplace conditions - and because it that fact looks good for unions, you can't stand it.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Epi - we'll just see if he makes some defense of an action from Obama that he would castigate Republicans for doing.

  • Other Matt||

    Are we supposed to pretend not to that Glorified Troll is Other Matt?

    Sorry that I'm reading upstream here so I'm in a timewarp reversed.

    ::sigh:: joe, joe, joe, joe, joe

    How many times must we go through this? I'm quite comfortable calling you out under this name. I have no need to use other pseudonyms, nor have I ever, to call attention to your many failings. I don't know what paranoia causes you to think that I would need another name to do so, I'm obviously not showing a lot of restraint in telling you how little I think of you under this one.

    Perhaps it's that you don't want to recognize that a number of people feel the same about you.

    The person with the "laugh behind your back" comment was spot on.

  • ||

    MAX HATS,

    Human chain or not, the argument against Walmart still boils down to whether it is reasonable for them to expect a mob to break down doors and trample employees. And the fanciful notion that a union would have.

    For the record, after hitting a certain income level, my wife and I decided never to go to a Walmart again. I haven't been in one in about four years. It's been glorious.

  • ||

    The Angry Optimist | December 2, 2008, 3:30pm | #

    When you're being political, I suppose it's usual to accuse the other side of being political.


    Jeebus, tell me about it. I note that unions negotiate over working conditions, and win concessions they want, and it's treated like some kind of biased statement of fealty to a political movement.

  • joe\'s true self||

    mew mew, I'm no partisan. you're the partisan...see me, I'm objective and you're a hack.

    Mew, mew.

  • ||

    "spontaneous order."

    WTF? Is that more of your "dog whistle" political jargon of which I am blissfully oblivious?

    I fail to see how you can make any reasonable claim to being politically nonpartisan; just admit it.

  • Glorified Troll||

    Other Matt | December 2, 2008, 3:32pm | #
    Nice! You get the blame for my snark today, OM. Now, I can still buddy up to Joe on other threads, and pretend to be his friend.

    Missed this one earlier. Perhaps that's why he's blaming me as one that "wrote the most" about him.


    Doubt it. You got logical up stream. He don't like that.

  • ||

    RC Dean, bobbing and weaving:

    The very notion that a union contract would have made any difference at all to a mob that breaks down a door and tramples employees is hilariously laughable.

    Good thing no one's argued that, then. Any time you feel like you can take on my actual argument, chump, you give it a shot.

    BTW, interesting how security guards, you know, like the dead guy, suddenly become "thugs" when they join a union.

  • ||

    sage,

    Right. Because a traditional sale-day, and a debilitating illness, are exactly the same thing. Exactly!

    You drew the parallel wrong. The equivalent, in this case, to "a debilitating illness" is not "a traditional sale-day," but "being trampled to death on the floor of a WalMart."

  • Other Matt||

    I use to be like you. Take the debate in the thread seriously, assume good intention on the part of Joe, and write cogent, thought out arguments keep things stimulating.

    Well, even if I'm not you, you're not me, we do share this common experience. I actually wrote just about word for word the above, when I pointed out that it was ironic that Obama would embrace gun control given it's racist history. joe went offline, and I realized what he really was.

    All of which has nothing to do with the fact that the unions are using an unfortunate incident in a shitty manner, and wouldn't say a word if it weren't WalMart, a claim which joe apparently agrees with by omission of any coherent statement to the contrary. However, it's nice to see others jump into it.

  • joe\'s true self||

    mew mew, chump! I'm a tuff gai, kicking ass and taking names on message boards.

    mew mew.

  • Seward||

    joe,

    Can you provide us some studies which show the link between unionization and work place safety, etc.?

    One thing we do know is that unionization harms initiative instincts of individual employees and it decreases the wages of non-union employees inside and outside the industry the union employees work in. Oh, and unionization, if it does lead to an increase in wages for those who are unionized, will also inevitability lead to gentrification.

  • Other Matt||

    Doubt it. You got logical up stream. He don't like that.

    Well, there is that too.

  • MAX HATS||


    Human chain or not, the argument against Walmart still boils down to whether it is reasonable for them to expect a mob to break down doors and trample employees.



    It's entirely reasonable, because it happens every year. Further, it has been noted in this thread that WalMart did prepare for it, with barricades and extra security. So did WalMart see it coming? Clearly. But I don't even see that as their fault. You can't blame WalMart for the mob. What you can blame WalMart for is how they responded to the mob. Literally putting temps and employees in front of it, arms linked, is negligent. What is unknown is whose idea that was, and whether management could have stopped it.

  • ||

    OK, everybody. We're getting close to 400. Time to take off your pants and sing show tunes.

  • ||

    All you've done is out your own motives here. I make an objective observation about what unions do - negotiate over workplace conditions - and because it that fact looks good for unions, you can't stand it.

    I don't care about your union-o-philia one bit, but in this forum, to claim that a huge explosion in union members by subsuming Walmart in order to solve an isolated incident of possible negligence in a fairly extreme situation exacerbated by criminal activities of a mob is a statement of politics.

    But please, continue to insist that we misunderstood exactly what you were saying.

  • ||

    kinnath,

    The employee was killed by the mob, not walmart.

    Surely you aren't actually this ill-informed about the law. You don't need to be the one who pull the trigger to be guilty of a crime, if your actions helped make it happen.

    The best solution is for everyone, especially the union, to just shut up and let the police investigate the event. My point exactly. Let the police and DA look at EVERYBODY involved in this, and see who did what.

  • kinnath||

    http://www.iejs.com/Law/Criminal_Law/Negligent_Homicide-Manslaughter.htm

    The first of these, negligent homicide, is the killing of another person through gross negligence or without malice. It can also be considered a death that is the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which includes the operation of a boat or snowmobile. In some states, the term negligent homicide replaces the terminology of manslaughter (involuntary) with similar defining. Unintentional killing(s) in which the actor(s) should have known they were creating substantial and unjustified risks of death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care summarizes the relationship between the definitions of these terms .

    I expect that walmart will come to some settlement with the next of kin rather than wait for a jury to say they had some civil liability associated with the wrongful death of the trampled employer.

    But we don't live in the world of Law and Order, and I don't see any way that this event rises to the level of criminally negligent homicide.

  • sage||

    The equivalent, in this case, to "a debilitating illness" is not "a traditional sale-day," but "being trampled to death on the floor of a WalMart."

    Then your statement @3:28 is worded wrong. See what you did there?

  • ||

    Lamar,

    The last time we did, you took pictures. I'm not in the habit of fueling your perversions.

  • Seward||

    What is interesting to me about unions is the apparent lack of exit and entry of unions onto the market. That denotes a lack of competition by actors in that market and that seems problematic at least at first glance.

  • Warty||

    The only thing this thread is missing is Tubgirl.

  • ||

    I thought R C's remark that the presence of a union wouldn't have made a difference was relevant. Why is the union using this to promote the forced unionization of Wal-Mart if the death is totally unrelated to what the union would do for, or more appropriately worded, to, Wal-Mart?

  • ||

    This is hilarious:

    Seward | December 2, 2008, 3:45pm | #

    joe,

    Can you provide us some studies which show the link between unionization and work place safety, etc.?

    One thing we do know is that unionization harms initiative instincts of individual employees and it decreases the wages of non-union employees inside and outside the industry the union employees work in. Oh, and unionization, if it does lead to an increase in wages for those who are unionized, will also inevitability lead to gentrification.


    OK, let's get this straight: that unions negotiate for and achieve improved workplace safety conditions is some sort of highly-controversial point that needs back-up: but "one thing we do know" is...

    Man, I can't even finish. Uh, yeah, I'm the one bringing a bias about unions to the discussion, because the fact the unions work to make workplaces safer is so controversial.

    Seriously, Seward, I could probably spend half an hour looking for studies. But I'm not going to.

  • Fluffy||

    What you can blame WalMart for is how they responded to the mob. Literally putting temps and employees in front of it, arms linked, is negligent.

    This is why arguments about negligence and liability piss me off.

    We have joe in this thread arguing that Wal-Mart personnel are better crowd control experts than the police, so they should have been able to know that the police determination that the crowd wasn't dangerous was false.

    Here Max Hats argues that Wal-Mart personnel are helpless in the face of crowds, and it was negligent to have Wal-Mart employees in the path of the crowd.

    So Wal-Mart is negligent because their staff are crowd control experts and ignored the conclusions they should have drawn from their expertise, and they're also negligent because their staff are NOT crowd control experts and should have not been anywhere near the crowd.

    Also, posters above asserted that Wal-Mart was negligent because they sent "a single temp" to deal with the crowd. But now that we see a report about a human chain, it appears that Wal-Mart was negligent in attempting a show of force, because that put many people in the crowd's path instead of just one.

    Good luck in a liability trial with these people on your jury, folks.

  • ||

    Surely you aren't actually this ill-informed about the law. You don't need to be the one who pull the trigger to be guilty of a crime, if your actions helped make it happen.


    Walmart has a sale and a mob shows up, rushes the door, and tramples an employee to death.

    The crowd isn't at fault, so let's move up the chain. Walmart isn't at fault, they need to have the sale to compete with the other stores. The other stores aren't at fault they need the sales to generate income and consumer excitement for the holiday season. The holiday season isn't at fault it has no consciousness or knowledge of it's own existence.

    I think you see where I'm going with this, yeah? If Jesus were never born, there would be no Christian holidays, then no shopping season, then no Walmart sale, then no trampling mob, then no dead employee.

    It always gets back to Jesus (jeebus).


    (or Hitler, I'm honestly not sure)

  • MAX HATS||

    Unintentional killing(s) in which the actor(s) should have known they were creating substantial and unjustified risks of death by conduct that grossly deviated from ordinary care



    Human chain. Versus. Mob.

    Unintentional? check
    Killing? check
    Should have known of the risk? check
    Unjustified risk? check
    Conduct grossly deviated from ordinary care? check


    If anything, you're making management look even worse than I thought. By the argument you are making, whether or not management was aware of the human chain by the employees is of less importance than management being aware of the risk (beyond dispute, given that they clearly had prepared for it) and whether they had a plan to deal with it that was within norms (very arguable).

  • kinnath||

    In summary, for walmart's actions to be criminal, you need to provide beyond all reasonable doubt that the management knew that their preparations were inadequate and that they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN there was a substantial and unjustified risk that the temp employee WOULD BE KILLED when he was sent to open the door.

  • ||

    SugarFree: it's only perverted after I photoshop children's faces onto everybody.

    And darn it, the second I cut up, everybody starts getting serious again.

  • ||

    P Brooks | December 2, 2008, 3:41pm | #

    "spontaneous order."

    WTF? Is that more of your "dog whistle" political jargon of which I am blissfully oblivious?


    I didn't write that. The fact that it was a quote might have tipped you off. "Spontaneous order" is a central concept to libertarian theory, and the person who wrote the comment I quoted was spitballing about what I just gotta believe, and that I just gotta be arguing here a proxy battle against his beloved political theory.

    I fail to see how you can make any reasonable claim to being politically nonpartisan; just admit it.

    I, personally, am partisan as hell; it's just that that fact has nothing to do with anything I've written on this thread.

  • Other Matt||

    The only thing this thread is missing is Tubgirl.

    Well, joe's doing a pretty good job of spraying shit around, so consider him a stand in?

    We have joe in this thread arguing that Wal-Mart personnel are better crowd control experts than the police, so they should have been able to know that the police determination that the crowd wasn't dangerous was false.

    Don't forget to add that he believes that this would somehow magically have been solved by unionization.

  • ||

    I guess I missed it, in all the excitement- did the District Attorney, at the request of WalMart, try to sweep this incident under the rug? Did the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, at great risk to life and limb, expose his nefarious plan?

  • ||

    I make an objective observation about what unions do - negotiate over workplace conditions - and because it that fact looks good for unions, you can't stand it.

    I will state without hesitation that as a former 12-year veteran of the UFCW, I can't recall a single instance of them agitating for better working conditions in the company I worked at. i can't recall them agitating for much of anything except for how awful those non-union shops were.

    They were good for settling employee-employer disputes that got hot and heavy, but essentially they were there to make sure that unskilled people doing monkey work were grossly overpaid for their labor.

  • ||

    Off-topic:

    Why doesn't Reason give Fluffy a job? I try not to rag the writers much, but Fluffy does better analysis and clearer, conciser writing than many who have worked and/or interned here.

    Give Fluffy a job.

  • ||

    Common sense application of common renditions of negligent homicide are nice, but who has time to pour over the case law?

  • joe\'s true self||

    and I also lie about my partisanship out of my teeth.

    Deny! Deny! Deny!

  • ||

    I've always wondered about the point of service unions. They make some sense in industry, but not so much in call centers and in retail. Which is why unions outside of the government employee variety have been slowly fading the last few decades.

  • anarch||

    Lamar, I see you're back.

    Not to nag, and only in case you overlooked my question, which is just for information's sake; no agenda here.

  • ||

    SugarFree vents,

    I don't care about your union-o-philia one bit, Oh, obviously. I can tell by how you won't stop talking about it

    ...but in this forum, to claim that a huge explosion in union members by subsuming Walmart in order to solve an isolated incident Isolated? There are rushes like this, resulting in injuries, all the time

    ...of possible negligence in a fairly extreme situation exacerbated by criminal activities of a mob is a statement of politics. Only if you assume, as you do and I don't, that this is an isolated incident.

  • ||

    joe,

    You'll have to back up this not being an isolated incident. I rather doubt that Wal-Mart has much of a body count, outside of what might be expected for any large collection of people.

  • ||

    "Give Fluffy a job."

    Fluffy's analysis @ 12:54 is Bill O'Reilly-esque in its depth and tone.

    For example, Fluffy wrote "So unless your union plans on instituting changes that would prevent a retail store from having customers,"

    I mean, c'mon. This is the day after Christmas, the biggest shopping day of the year at the nations largest retailer, and Fluffy acts like its Tuesday evening at clock repair shop.

  • MAX HATS||


    Here Max Hats argues that Wal-Mart personnel are helpless in the face of crowds, and it was negligent to have Wal-Mart employees in the path of the crowd.



    If you can't see the problem of trying to contain a unruly mob with a human chain, there's no point of arguing with you. How is that even supposed to work? Big strong temps keep back hundreds with their locked arms and crowd gets bored and walks away? Sure. Great plan. That's why all the big shot security and police agencies do it.

    Dear Mr. Superlibertarian Pinhead: managers are generally not allowed to send employees to their possible deaths or dismemberment. Not one of those temps showed up to work thinking their life was on the line. "Hey, Jack. Is Jack your name? Hey, go stop that mob." Might as well have sent him to jump on a grenade.

  • Fluffy||

    Joe is right that the presence of unions enhances workplace safety.

    My only question with joe's workplace safety claim in this thread is how the types of safety a union concerns itself with would have contributed to greater safety in this particular incident.

    Joe thinks that a union would have demanded, and gotten, greater staffing levels and greater security for an event like this. I think he's overestimating the effect a union would have in this exact circumstance, but it's at least arguable.

    Always remember that the right to "combine" would be unlimited in libertopia, so libertopia would have unions. There is no need to always argue against the existence of unions in order to keep your libertarian card.

  • Seward||

    joe,

    Just because something is non-controversial doesn't make it so (having never read the literature on the subject I cannot even say whether it is non-controversial or not). At the very least it doesn't seem to be a necessary consequence of unionization. Indeed, one of the things that libertarians (liberals) do is to argue as contrarians against "received wisdom." So testing assumptions isn't something we have a problem with.

    As for my statements, these are the things that organizations of labor have always done; be it under the guild system or something else. Indeed, the history of unionization in the U.S. illustrates this very nicely; see efforts to unionize skilled vs. so-called unskilled labor.

  • Tubgirl||

    If I were in a union, the activity of coprophagia would be safer. Or, at the very least, it would be performed in order of seniority.

  • ||

    I, personally, am partisan as hell; it's just that that fact has nothing to do with anything I've written on this thread.

    I am continuously amazed by joe's ability to top himself.

    Give Fluffy a job.

    Seconded.

  • ||

    I, personally, am partisan as hell; it's just that that fact has nothing to do with anything I've written on this thread.



    Where's that moron, concerned observer? Maybe he could finally learn what "cognitive dissonance" is. Text. Fucking. Book.

  • How many Teamsters does it tak||

    26.

    You gotta problem wit' dat?

  • ||

    I didn't write that. The fact that it was a quote might have tipped you off. "Spontaneous order" is a central concept to libertarian theory, and the person who wrote the comment I quoted was spitballing about what I just gotta believe, and that I just gotta be arguing here a proxy battle against his beloved political theory.

    My point, exactly; "spontaneous order" is meaningless to me, but you see it (hear the "dog whistle") and promptly set yourself on fire and backflip through the hoop.

  • ||

    I see, sage, I let the verbal parallel trip me up.

    Pro Lib,

    Who says that what the union would work for is irrelevant? Unions tend to look very hard at the risks their members face. Backbelts, wrist rests - these things get written into union contracts. People get hurt at big box stores by rushing crowds, pretty frequently. I'll also note that unions are certainly not adverse to negotiating for staffing requirements and security details.

  • ||

    I just don't see how you get to criminal activity here.

    Employees are assaulted and murdered by the general public every day. I don't see what management did here to encourage that.

    I'm not about to take a job working late night at a 7/11 anytime soon, but I don't know how you go after a business owner if one of his employees is murdered in a robbery.

    Some jobs have inherent risks, but being a greeter at Wal*Mart, or whatever this poor soul did for a living, that shouldn't be one of those jobs, and I don't see why Wal*Mart management should have treated as his job as if it were one. ...or else face criminal prosecution?

    I mean, postal workers have to face people's dogs when they're delivering the mail, firemen train like crazy for the dangerous situations their jobs put them in. You can't promise a cop he'll never get shot in the line of duty...

    But Wal*Mart management has to protect its employees from the worst of the nuts in the general public or face criminal prosecution?

    Something's missing in that chain there somewhere.

  • ||

    Only if you assume, as you do and I don't, that this is an isolated incident.

    Where are the other Walmart trample deaths? I await the links with breathless anticipation.

  • ||

    Re: Foreseeable v. Predictable; "Not to nag, and only in case you overlooked my question, which is just for information's sake; no agenda here."

    A skier hits a bump on a ski run, falls and breaks his leg. This is a foreseeable risk of skiing, though not necessarily predictable (unless he has a history of falling, or otherwise sucks as a skier).

  • ||

    I, personally, am partisan as hell; it's just that that fact has nothing to do with anything I've written on this thread.

    Hilarious.

    ****

    I suspect Fluffy already has a pretty good job.

  • ||

    We have joe in this thread arguing that Wal-Mart personnel are better crowd control experts than the police,

    What I actually argued was that WalMart corporate are experts on the behavior of crowds in their stores, and even went so far as to say that the lack of training and resources that could have allowed the local management to act on this knowledge may have been a contributing factor.

    But because that point is inconvenient for Fluffy, who chooses to pretend I claimed that WalMart greeters and clerks are crowd-control experts.

    Here Max Hats argues that Wal-Mart personnel are helpless in the face of crowds, and it was negligent to have Wal-Mart employees in the path of the crowd. Right, stating that the WalMart corporation is knowledgeable about crowds in their stores, and that a line of WalMart clerks and temps forming a human chain is a bad idea, are completely contradictory.

    Um, what?

  • joe\'s true self||

    mew mew! My pro-union and anti-Wal*Mart stance is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with my politics!

  • MAX HATS||


    Where are the other Walmart trample deaths? I await the links with breathless anticipation.



    That is exactly the point. I could show a lot of examples of mobs on Black Fridays - many, many, many. And WalMart was aware of this, and prepared for it. But almost none of those result in causalities. Why?

    Because of how this particular mob was dealt with.

    Conduct grossly deviant from accepted or standard practice. Isn't that roughly the legalese mentioned upthread?

  • ||

    Hi, I am new to this site, but after reading your criticism of my favorite author I felt compelled to see what libertarians actually beleive.

    I am shocked. SHOCKED!

    You really think Walmart is better off non-union? Don't you realize how they treat women?
    In unions everything get's better for everyone, and management is not allowed to sent people to their death.

    You have taken this joe character's arguments and instead of acting like "reasonable adults", you stoop to name calling and dismiss him. HORRIBLE!

    I am glad your dangerous political ideas are stuck here in your echo-chamber and brave people like joe have the courage to try to show the error of your ways.

  • The Angry Optimist||


    I am continuously amazed by joe's ability to top himself.


    Well, you've seen how flexible his logic is; I suppose that "topping" himself is pretty straightforward from there.

  • Fluffy||

    If you can't see the problem of trying to contain a unruly mob with a human chain, there's no point of arguing with you. How is that even supposed to work?

    Ask joe. He's the one who thinks that having more staff engaging the crowd would have kept the situation under control.

    I am the one arguing that once the mob started to riot, there was no way to contain it and there was nothing the company could have done. One employee, twenty employees in a human chain, it wouldn't matter.

    The point of my post was not to say that a human chain was a good idea. The point of my post was to point out if there are people arguing for liability based on completely opposite visions of what the company should have and shouldn't have done, that the company is fucked if their jury is made up of such people.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Hi, kleinfan. Thanks for showing up with an open mind and logical arguments and rational refutations of libertarianism.

    you and joe should get right along.

  • Other Matt||

    (unless he has a history of falling, or otherwise sucks as a skier).

    Which I strongly resemble, hence, I don't ski downhill.

    What I fail to see, and what Fluffy said much more eloquently, is how me being a union skier would somehow make that better. WalMart may actually be judged liable, they probably shouldn't, but there's enough joe's in the world that get irrational when you mention WalMart that it's possible. Union or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.

  • ||

    joe,

    OSHA, workers' comp insurers, good sense, and concern for ones fellow man (or, at least, in maintaining an effective work force) all contribute to companies providing safe work environments, without any union involvement whatsoever. I'll table the question of whether a lot of government regulation is necessary in the safety arena, but it is another reason that a union's likely contribution to a net improvement in safety is negligible, something I expect you'll acknowledge.

    Also, worker safety is surely at an all-time high, despite unions being a much smaller part of the workforce than in most of the preceding century.

    I think another major fallacy with your reasoning here is the idea that employees have no voice or no influence without a union. That's simply not true.

  • ||

    how me being a union skier would somehow make that better.

    The mountain would pay your medical bills.

  • ||

    Man, my fanclub just can't stop writing about me.

    Kiss kiss, Episiarch. Kiss kiss, Other Matt.

    Aren't I just so incredibly fascinating? Sarah Palin, you could at least see her rack. All I'm doing is typing text, and these losers can't get enough me. They can't even remember what the thread is about.

    I missed my calling. I should have been one of those WWF bad guys.]

    Boooo! You suck!

    Awesome. I'm the best troll ever, and I don't even try!

  • ||

    MAX HATS,

    If we use that standard, then we circle back around to my zombie/triffid attack hyperbole.

    NOW, Walmart has to take into consideration trampling deaths. They didn't have a crystal ball Thursday night. They took precautions that weren't enough. The police looked at the crowd and left. Walmart has an affirmative defense against gross negligence.

    And nothing about this would have been solved by making hundreds of thousands of Walmart employees union.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Awesome. I'm the best troll ever, and I don't even try!

    That's actually the really sad part.

  • ||

    Awesome. I'm the best troll ever, and I don't even try!

    Who accused you of not trying hard?

  • Other Matt||

    They can't even remember what the thread is about.

    Look! Over there! My last post!

    What I fail to see, and what Fluffy said much more eloquently, is how me being a union skier would somehow make that better. WalMart may actually be judged liable, they probably shouldn't, but there's enough joe's in the world that get irrational when you mention WalMart that it's possible. Union or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.

    I know exactly what the thread's about, you just happen to be a convenient example of an irrational idiot.

  • ||

    Angry optimist, you're welcome. Anyway I think I've seen enough here to write my report for my politics class. I don't have the time to read all the comments, but I have a pretty good sample.

    Btw, I'm writing a report comparing the different political websites for different beleifs. You'll all be happy to know I chose this one for libertarians.

    You guys will provide the comic relief.

  • Other Matt||

    Awesome. I'm the best troll ever, and I don't even try!

    Aw, shit, now I'm going to have to agree with joe, but just this once.

  • ||

    Ken Shultz,

    If one guy had walked into this WalMart and shot the deceased in the head, there is no way WalMart could have culpability.

    But what happened here was that the employee was trampled by a stampede of shoppers, after WalMart created the conditions to let loose a stampede of shoppers.

    The stampede element is important, because it involves people running and stomping not of their own free will, but as something they are forced to do in order to avoid their own bodily injury. In other words, what killed this man was not just the result of decisions individuals in the crowd made, but actions they took because of the circumstances they were in. WalMart helped create those circumstances.

    Please note, I'm NOT saying that means everyone in the crowd is blameless. The people who set off the stampede, as opposed to those who were just caught in it, are responsible.

    And I'm NOT saying that WalMart's guilt in clear-cut here, either, just that they might be partially responsible.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Anyway I think I've seen enough here to write my report for my politics class...You guys will provide the comic relief.

    The fact that you're in a "politics class" and are using message board comments in a paper is all the comic relief we need, thanks.

    Like your namesake, you're not terribly intellectual or serious, are you?

  • ||

    You guys will provide the comic relief.

    Well, at least you're an impartial observer. Evenhanded.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    after WalMart created the conditions to let loose a stampede of shoppers.

    Because the store broke its own doors down, doncha know.

  • ||

    Awesome. I'm the best troll ever, and I don't even try!

    I can't believe you said this without self-awareness. You are truly amazing. Never stop. Please.

  • ||

    Because the store broke its own doors down, doncha know.

    They sawed away at the hinges. Right after they tied up Mary Sue and left her on the railroad tracks.

  • ||

    Where are the other Walmart trample deaths? SugarFree asks.

    The law doesn't require the first body to recognize that a situation is hazardous.

    kleinfan92,

    Thanks. Sometimes it's just me agains the mob here.

  • Paul||

    438 comments? Holy crapshait! You'd think someone had been killed in a WalMart store or something, and a Union thug was blaming it on corporate greed...

  • The Angry Optimist||

    get off the cross, joe. we need the wood to reinforce Wal-Mart's doors.

  • ||

    Fluffy continues to misstate my arguments:

    Ask joe. He's the one who thinks that having more staff engaging the crowd would have kept the situation under control.

    I am the one arguing that once the mob started to riot...


    What I've actually written was that more security and better crowd control in the parking lot could have kept the crowd from turning into a mob. I even wrote some things about instigators and keeping things calm.

    Too difficult, apparently. Much better to pretend I said I wanted a bunch of WalMart greeters to march like a phalanx after the crowd started to stampede.

  • ||

    Like your namesake, you're not terribly intellectual or serious, are you?

    Are you seriously doubting the intellectual and academic rigor of Naomi Klein?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Thanks. Sometimes it's just me agains the mob here.

    In all seriousness, you revel in that fact, don't you?

  • ||

    I'm gonna have to admit to bias here. With everything I've seen come out of Detroit over the past few months, I'm having a real hard time taking any pro-union arguments seriously.

    It's like tryin to sell me a shit flavored snowcone in the dead of winter.

  • Kolohe||

    If one guy had walked into this WalMart and shot the deceased in the head, there is no way WalMart could have culpability.

    I think there are frequently wrongful deaths suits against the employer (e.g. 7-11) when an employee (or a customer) gets shot by a criminal. IIRC there are some such suits against Va Tech. (and there was already pre-emptive settlement among the majority of the families)

    And I'm NOT saying that WalMart's guilt in clear-cut here, either, just that they might be partially responsible.
    Wow, this is some mighty goalpoast shifting, and I've been following your arguments across two different sites.

  • ||

    joe,

    I think kleinfan92 is setting you up, like Fredo.

  • Hogan||

    awwwww! kleinfan is adorable! ...or being facetious?

  • Other Matt||

    Wow, this is some mighty goalpoast shifting, and I've been following your arguments across two different sites.

    That's classic joe.

  • ||

    Thanks. Sometimes it's just me agains the mob here.

    And now we have the delusions of grandeur. The cycle is nearly complete.

    Oh, and I think people might want to consider that kleinfan is almost undoubtedly a "Neil"-style sockpuppet.

  • ||

    joe | December 2, 2008, 4:24pm | #
    Where are the other Walmart trample deaths? SugarFree asks.

    The law doesn't require the first body to recognize that a situation is hazardous.


    So then there aren't any? Color me shocked.

  • Paul||

    Thanks. Sometimes it's just me agains the mob here.

    Just like that guy in the WalMart store. Eerie...

  • ||

    Oh, and I think people might want to consider that kleinfan is almost undoubtedly a "Neil"-style sockpuppet.

    The handle totally gives it away.

    C-

  • ||

    Has Reason taken steps to prevent joe from getting trampled by the unreasoning, crazed libertarian mob that is eager to buy $0.05 six-packs of Coke?

  • Paul||

    Are you seriously doubting the intellectual and academic rigor of Naomi Klein?

    Speaking for myself, I tend to doubt the intellectual veracity of most writers named Naomi. Just something about that name...

  • ||

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Clearly, nothing builds site traffic like Wal-Mart related deaths.

  • ||

    I'm writing this section now, but what do you mean by "sock-puppet"? That post above wasn't mine I know you guys dont respect Naomi Klein. I didn't expect you to.

  • ||

    Pro Libertate | December 2, 2008, 4:12pm | #

    joe,

    OSHA, workers' comp insurers, good sense, and concern for ones fellow man (or, at least, in maintaining an effective work force) all contribute to companies providing safe work environments, without any union involvement whatsoever. I'll take the self-interest of unionss, and the self-interest of employers seeking to avoid union problems, over the "good sense" and "concern for ones fellow man," thanks.

    I'll table the question of whether a lot of government regulation is necessary in the safety arena, but it is another reason that a union's likely contribution to a net improvement in safety is negligible, something I expect you'll acknowledge. Pass. The safety practices mandated in union contracts didn't get there because of the common sense and concern for ones fellow man and the perceived self-interest of employers who had no worries about their workers.

    Also, worker safety is surely at an all-time high, despite unions being a much smaller part of the workforce than in most of the preceding century. Yes, the safety practices that were originally mandated by unions became widespread. Yay, unions! Also, the growth of office-jobs and decline of manufacturing, mining, and other manual labor played quite a role, too. Safer work is safer.

    OtherMatt

    I don't know how me being a union skier would somehow make that better. Wow, you are a stupid individual. How many times have I written about working conditions and practices?

    Maybe if it put it into a skiing metaphor, the World's Dumbest Troll can even understand it: if you were a union skier, and your management was sending you down their mountain, you could negotiate to make the run safer, for better bindings, and for a well-equipped and -staffed ski patrol.

  • MAX HATS||


    If we use that standard, then we circle back around to my zombie/triffid attack hyperbole.



    They knew it was coming, it was handled in a nonstandard, extremely dangerous way, and the way someone chose to handle it resulted in an employee's death. Mob scenes happened all over the country last friday. There was generally no red rover, and there was generally no death because of it.

    Fluffy,

    If they hadn't formed a human chain, no one would have died - we wouldn't be hearing about this, and it would never end up in front of a jury. I don't see the "damned if you do, damned if you don't." God knows how many WalMarts there are in the US, and all but one went through last friday without managing to have anyone on their staff killed. Must be doing something right. This one WalMart did something different. An employee got killed there, in a stupid, preventable way. That is a problem.

  • ||

    I disagree that it was unforeseeable. I hope the victim's surviving family gets a hefty payment from the criminal negligence lawsuit out of this.

    Right. The management of the store was looking out the window at a Black Friday crowd, same as in previous years, and thinking, "this time, unlike all the other years in all the thousands of other WalMarts, they're going to break the law and knock down the doors and trample an employee to death. Ho-hum. Time to get coffee and simply do nothing while waiting for bad shit to happen, resulting in damage to my store, huge losses in revenues, and corporate breathing down my neck about the lawsuits and bad publicity, ruining if not ending my career."

    Riiight. That's what store managers do when they perceive an imminent threat.

    I suspect WalMart will get sued and settle out of court without admitting guilt. I would hope that WalMart would win the baseless lawsuit(s), but that doesn't seem like the way juries generally behave when there is a dead person and deep pockets to blame, however baselessly.

  • Other Matt||

    Maybe if it put it into a skiing metaphor, the World's Dumbest Troll can even understand it:

    You need a break joe? You sound tired.

  • Paul||

    Clearly, nothing builds site traffic like Wal-Mart related deaths.

    Walmart has box office draw. Liberals have been building global conspiracies around it for years now.

    Nothing gets a liberal going like WalMart. Conversely, nothing gets a libertarian going than a liberal going on WalMart.

  • ||

    Oh, good, more "you're awesome" comments. Thanks, guyz!

    Back to people with points:

    TAO:

    Because the store broke its own doors down, doncha know. What part of "created conditions" are you failing to understand? Does it mean, in your mind, "committed every single act that contributed to the death," up to and including the particular stomp that stopped his heart?

    Here, let's consider you, personally, and your property. Libertarians think of everything in terms of property. If I open your front door and walk away, and somebody else steals your television, do I bear any responsibility for that at all?

  • ||

    joe, i still think you're awesome

  • ||

    joe,

    I think you're engaging in a tautology. Unions make things safer because unions made things safer. You're also evading the fact that I listed a number of other factors that influence employers to provide a safe work environment. Unions are hardly an unalloyed good, nor are they always necessary.

  • ||

    Kolohe,

    Wow, this is some mighty goalpoast shifting, and I've been following your arguments across two different sites.

    Well, they haven't shifted on this thread. Like all decent people, I was outraged when I first heard about this event, and may have spouted off with more certainty over at MY than I should have.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    What part of "created conditions" are you failing to understand?

    So, Wal-Mart created conditions wherein it could reasonably foresee people would break down their doors?

    In the example of "you opening my door", it would be reasonably foreseeable that someone would come through an open door. I'm failing to see how "having a sale = Wal-Mart should have anticipated the breaking in of its doors."

  • ||

    You need a break joe? You sound tired.

    He'll just crack open another SoBe Adrenalin Rush, and if he has to piss in an empty bottle, so be it.

    joe, i still think you're awesome

    My new favorite.

  • MAX HATS||

    I just don't get this. Is the idea that it's impossible for a company to be responsible for decisions its managers make, when those decisions are negligent? Is it the idea that negligence can exist?

    If a construction company oversaw employees stand in a pit they knew was going to be filled with gravel, would the commentators on this site scoff at the idea of management responsibility?

    "No one knew the gravel was going to fall!"

    "Sure, blame management. It was the gravel that killed them!"

    "Look at how many construction sites don't have their employees stand in pits that are going to be filled with gravel. Therefore, this particular company is also above rebuke."

    What?

    I get it: instinctive anti-union. I get it: instinctive anti-joe. What I do not get: how any of that translates to making the company, via its management on the scene, blameless in this case.

  • ||

    Pro Libertate,

    No, no tautology. Unions make things safer because unions negotiate for changes in workplace conditions to address hazards faced by their employees, whether that means staffing levels and breaks, or safety equipment, or different techniques to carry out the task in a safer manner.

    Unions make things safer by changing how workplaces operate, in order to address threats faced by their members.

  • Urkobold™||

    IS THE URKOBOLD ALONE IN THINKING THAT THE ONE KNOWN AS KLEINFAN92 IS HOT, YOUNG, FEMALE AND LIKELY POSTING IN THE NUDE?

  • Other Matt||

    You're also evading the fact that I listed a number of other factors that influence employers to provide a safe work environment. Unions are hardly an unalloyed good, nor are they always necessary.

    To which joe has no response, because his brain can't wrap around the thought that "unions may not be good." Again, way way back upstream, I stated that the only reason the unions were making a deal of this was because it was WalMart. Had it been a unionized store, you'd hear the typical platitudes and then silence, despite joe's feigned outrage of late.

    The reason the unions are making a big deal about it is out of a political agenda. joe shares that agenda. Therefore, they're being kind of shitty, but as I said I'm not really surprised as I expect that from unions, and joe.

    I don't see any change whatsoever if you put the guy with a union card in his pocket, unless you assume a whole bunch of stuff happens perfectly, which joe will argue "That's all I'm saying, of 4,352,689,433 things go exactly right, it would make a difference! I'm victory on a hoof!"

    It's ridiculous. joe's simply gone so rabid at this point that it's like watching a slow motion train wreck, you just can't look away. I'm glad he's showing his ass so well, so everyone knows who he is.

  • MAX HATS||

    Next time I interview, I'm going to ask if anyone who would supervise me posts to Reason threads, because if so, apparently they think it is okay to send me to die.

  • hotsauce||

    Btw, I'm writing a report comparing the different political websites for different beleifs. You'll all be happy to know I chose this one for libertarians.



    I hope your professor isn't a regular reader of this blog, because if I were him, you'd be in danger of failing. Do yourself a favor and figure out which of the commenters are actually libertarian, and of those, what flavor of libertarianism.

  • Other Matt||

    IS THE URKOBOLD ALONE IN THINKING THAT THE ONE KNOWN AS KLEINFAN92 IS HOT, YOUNG, FEMALE AND LIKELY POSTING IN THE NUDE?

    I think so. Anyone second?

  • ||

    If workplace safety is solely or principally attributable to unions, then what about all of the workplaces that are not unionized? There are, after all, entire regions of this country without major union activity, aside from the government unions.

  • ||

    TAO,

    Under the law, "created conditions" also encompasses "allowing conditions to develop." There is an affirmative duty to make sure hazards don't develop in the workplace, to take reasonable and appropriate measures.

    Like I said, what exactly went down still needs to be investigated, but if Wal Mart saw that the crowd was getting ugly - an ugly mob being just as much of a threat to life and limb as an icy floor - and didn't take reasonable precautions like calling in for more help, or paying for a police detail to keep things from getting unruly in the parking lot, they allowed an unsafe situation to develop in their workplace.

    So, yes, in principle, an employer can be responsible for his "sins of omission," not just his "sins of commission."

  • Mike Laursen||

    Capitalists? What an incredibly telling response.

    Ah, come on. You're reading a lot into a smart-assed remark intended to goad you on. (It worked, by the way.)

  • ||

    You're also evading the fact that I listed a number of other factors that influence employers to provide a safe work environment.

    No, I'm not. I replied to it. I don't think those other factors are as reliable methods of keeping workers safe as making sure they have the power to keep themselves and their workplaces safe. I'm sure they all contribute to some degree - and to a greater degree in some companies than in others.

    As for unions not being an "unalloyed good," there are few unalloyed goods in this world. We shouldn't let that paralyze us.

  • kleinfan\'s professor||

    Additionally, kleinfan, compare and contrast with right-libertarian sites.

    C-

  • The Angry Optimist||

    joe, I'm aware of the implications of the law. We both now acknowledge that this requires more investigating, BUT, there is a difference between "ugly mob" and "mob that broke down the doors".

    What I do not appreciate are your constant implications that the union's hobby horse (and your own) of Wal-Mart cutting labor and material costs somehow led directly to this. It just does not follow.

    There are a lot of factors at play, and I think that Wal-Mart is probably going to settle out of court to keep this away from the public eye. However, that does not mean that the union statement isn't blatant bloody-shirt waving NOR do I believe that you're being objective and non-partisan.

  • ||

    OtherMatt, who clearly doesn't bother to find out what anyone he doesn't already agree with is saying, writes Had it been a unionized store, you'd hear the typical platitudes and then silence, despite joe's feigned outrage of late. Uh, yeah. Like how there was no outrage expressed in the media or anywhere over the collapses of those union-staffed mines over the past few years.

    What? Apparently, the anti-union peole who OtherMatt reads told him that unions don't ever make noise when something bad happens as a unions shop.

    WTF? That doesn't even make any sense.

  • ||

    I'm in the school library you perverts

  • ||

    I'm glad he's showing his ass so well, so everyone knows who he is.

    Tee hee hee. OtherMatt is driven to spitting fury by the fact that I'm vastly more respected than he is on these threads, even by people who are much closer to him politically. He can be counted on to write these "See, everybody, you need to stop respecting joe now!" comments every few days.

    LoL, hothead. Keep it up. It's cute.

  • Urkobold™||

    I'm in the school library you perverts

    NOW THAT IS HOT--NAKED IN THE LIBRARY. NO, NO. . .LEAVE YOUR GLASSES ON.

    THE URKOBOLD MUST GO TO HIS BUNK NOW.

  • ed||

    the New York Times would be editorializing about the evil racist Wall Mart calling the cops for the crime of "shopping while black"

    Again, it was Black Friday, after all.

  • Warty||

    joe, was that a non-ironic usage of LOL? I think it was, and I think you should retire from the internet in shame.

  • ||

    TAO,

    I'm glad you've come to see my, and the Sevice Union's, point about the need for an investigation. Seriously, someone gets killed performing his duties in the workplace, specifically in the performance of those duties, OSHA needs to investigate.

    BUT, there is a difference between "ugly mob" and "mob that broke down the doors". I don't know, that sounds like an ugly mob to me. Do you really think there was absolutely no sign that anything was off at one moment, and then at the next, the doors crashed in?

    What I do not appreciate are your constant implications that the union's hobby horse (and your own) of Wal-Mart cutting labor and material costs somehow led directly to this. It just does not follow. Oh, it might. They didn't want to pay for a police detail, they didn't want to pay for more security, they didn't want to pay for more staffing to keep the entry orderly - all of these seem like they could be contributing factors.

    However, that does not mean that the union statement isn't blatant bloody-shirt waving NOR do I believe that you're being objective and non-partisan. Oh, boo-hoo. I trust you'll have the same reaction the next time Moynihan decides we need to know about somebody in England who didn't get good medical treatment.

  • Other Matt||

    What? Apparently, the anti-union peole who OtherMatt reads told him that unions don't ever make noise when something bad happens as a unions shop.

    Actually, joe, I'm pretty much union neutral. I don't particularly like "card check" due to the inherent abuse that it would cause, and I don't see any problem with secret ballots.

    I also believe unions in the past had a lot to do with political views changing enough to pass something such as OSHA. It means well, and has resulted in some safety improvements, but also has resulted in bizarre regulations which increase costs and have no benefits. Further, when OSHA shows up after an accident, their main focus seems to be to institute fines rather than prevent a future accident. Then again, I've dealt with the beast known as OSHA first hand, as well as MOSHA, and various state incarnations thereof. Fortunately it's never been a situation where any of my companies have been on the foul end of it, but I've seen how they work.

    As to the point, I said that if instead of a worker being killed, a shopper was trampled, the union wouldn't give a shit, nor would you. I also said you must agree with this, as you've never given any coherent response.

    If WalMart was union, and the worker killed was union, you wouldn't see this chest beating bullshit either by you or any union about how safe unions make things and how there needed to be investigations. There would be sorrow expressed, which I referred to as typical platitudes.

    As I said, you sound tired, perhaps Ep needs to bring you another Sobe?

  • Ska||

    Five hundredth.

  • Kolohe||

    IS THE URKOBOLD ALONE IN THINKING THAT THE ONE KNOWN AS KLEINFAN92 IS HOT, YOUNG, FEMALE AND LIKELY POSTING IN THE NUDE?

    You remember the 'Sweet Emotion' video, right? That's the *best* case scenario.

  • ||

    Can't we all just take a step back and place the blame squarely where it belongs? It's not Wal-Marts fault for having a sale, it's not the customers' fault for wanting a deal, it's not even the media's fault for making the customers want the deal. This tragedy, just like every other tragedy that happens in America, has two culprits; Muslims and global warming. So go sue them.

  • ||

    *FAVORITE THREAD EVAR*

    Stay classy, H&R, stay classy.

  • Glorified Troll||

    Hi mom,

    I just called to tell you that I can't make it for our diner date tonight. I'm still on this board arguing with Libertarians. Say, could you call sis up and tell her I wont be able to make it to the bowling tournament later? I know she will be disappointed so give her extra hug and kisses for me.

    Yeah, social life and steady job, my ass, you shut in.

  • ||

    Pro Libertate | December 2, 2008, 4:53pm | #

    If workplace safety is solely or principally attributable to unions, then what about all of the workplaces that are not unionized? There are, after all, entire regions of this country without major union activity, aside from the government unions.


    I don't want to parse "solely or principally," but I'll note that practices and conditions achieved first by unions have tended to diffuse throughout the economy and become standard practice.

    Also, I brought up the issue of the shift from manual to office labor. That's most of your improved safety over the past few decades right there.

  • ||

    Does it strike anyone as strange that the guy who keeps writing about how much I post has been posting exactly as long as I have?

  • stoned observer||

    it does not surprise me in the slightest

  • Glorified Troll||

    joe | December 2, 2008, 5:29pm | #
    Does it strike anyone as strange that the guy who keeps writing about how much I post has been posting exactly as long as I have?


    I just got back you little bitch after running a few errands and grabbing some chow. However, you have not stopped posting after telling us about these plans of yours with your mum and sis. What's the deal, liar?

  • ||

    I'm glad you've come to see my, and the Sevice Union's, point about the need for an investigation. Seriously, someone gets killed performing his duties in the workplace, specifically in the performance of those duties, OSHA needs to investigate.

    P Brooks | December 2, 2008, 3:55pm | #
    I guess I missed it, in all the excitement- did the District Attorney, at the request of WalMart, try to sweep this incident under the rug? Did the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, at great risk to life and limb, expose his nefarious plan?



    Where is there any hint or suggestion, on the part of anyone (other than you, I suppose) that this would have gone completely unnoticed if not for the stalwart Brothers and Sisters of the UFCW, and their unstinting surveillance of WalMart?

  • economist||

    Were the joe posts at the beginning of the thread spoofs? Or the ones made under his handle after someone pointed out that the crowd broke down the doors? Or where out of the blue he calls someone a "racist dickhead"? Or did he eat too much turkey on Thanksgiving and have a stroke?

  • Fluffy||

    I just don't get this. Is the idea that it's impossible for a company to be responsible for decisions its managers make, when those decisions are negligent? Is it the idea that negligence can exist?

    If a construction company oversaw employees stand in a pit they knew was going to be filled with gravel, would the commentators on this site scoff at the idea of management responsibility?

    "No one knew the gravel was going to fall!"

    "Sure, blame management. It was the gravel that killed them!"

    "Look at how many construction sites don't have their employees stand in pits that are going to be filled with gravel. Therefore, this particular company is also above rebuke."

    What?


    This is almost abysmally stupid.

    This situation is in no way even remotely analogous to your hypothetical situation.

    It would be more apt to compare it to a construction company that told its workers to go stand at a given work site - and then terrorists crashed an airliner on to that work site.

    "The company is responsible! They should have stopped that airplane! They should have anticipated that terrorists crash planes into things, and had a plan in place to protect their employees if that happened! Blah blah blah blah blah, whenver anyone is hurt it's always the fault of the guy who can pay the biggest settlement! Wah!"

    Unless your good or service directly deals with protecting people or property from lawbreaking [like a security company or a bank or a safe company or a bodyguard firm] you should have no liability for harms caused by acts undertaken by people committing crimes. That's my first problem with claims of liability for Walmart.

    My second problem, and the one that doesn't require you to be a libertarian like me to accept it [which I can see as a potential problem with my statement about problem #1] is that the police came to the store, spoke to the crowd, decided the situation was in control and wasn't a hazard, and left.

    A finding of criminal negligence requires the state to prove that the store managers should have known that the crowd was a hazard, should have known that one of their employees was about to be hurt, but did nothing. And although joe and I have haggled over the minutaie of this issue, I just don't see how the state can argue that the store managers should have known the crowd was a hazard moments after the state's representatives determined that it wasn't.

    I have this problem with other findings of employer liability. For example, in the area of background checks. In many cases, an employer can be held liable if they hire a parolee and place him in particular employment situations where he commits another crime. I have never understood how this can be, when a grant of parole is a statement by the state that a person is not a hazard and is fit to be released into the population. Why should I be expected to anticipate that a person will be a hazard when there's been an affirmative statement by the state that he is not and will not be?

  • economist||

    Something has pissed joe off. I'm trying to figure it out.

  • spoof-happy queef-king||

    @economist

    we live in a crazy mixed up world; anything is possible

  • economist||

    Fluffy,
    While I agree that the people who knocked down the doors are responsible for the tragedy, comparing them to terrorists is a little extreme. They're more like the kids who TP your house and steal stuff.

  • ||

    Something has pissed joe off. I'm trying to figure it out.


    He keeps making stupid comments and then feels compelled to defend them.

  • economist||

    If this didn't involve a mob busting down a door, if every circumstance was normal for Black Friday except that a guy got trampled, I might understand joe's anger. As it is, I really have to wonder what's going on.

  • economist||

    Hazel,
    It's just that joe usually admits it when he overlooks an important detail that makes his outrage sound stupid. I'm really quite worried here.

  • Paul||

    509 comments on Walmart? What about my needs?

  • Other Matt||

    when a grant of parole is a statement by the state that a person is not a hazard and is fit to be released into the population.

    I don't know if it is, is there someplace that it's defined as such? I'm not trying to be difficult, and I actually agree with the thrust of your argument, I just don't know if this specific statement is the case.

    He keeps making stupid comments and then feels compelled to defend them.

    That's not what has him pissed off, that's just typical joe bullshit. It's that he's had his ass handed to him a few times of late that's got him riled. Or, perhaps the turkey/stroke comment. Either way, he remains his fuckwitted self.

  • ||

    Magnificent indignation.

  • ||

    Wal-Mart is evil and must be destroyed! Don't you understand? All the evil in the world can be traced back to the Wal-Mart.

  • ||

    That's directed at the entire thread, incidentally.

  • Cartman||

    Don't worry, Wal-Mart. I won't let them hurt you.

  • Fluffy||

    While I agree that the people who knocked down the doors are responsible for the tragedy, comparing them to terrorists is a little extreme.

    It's hyperbolic, but it's still closer than Max's example.

    It is a difference only of degree [terrorists crashing a plane are really, really major criminals, and Long Island assholes knocking the doors down early and smashing into the store are rather minor criminals] while Max's is a difference of kind.

  • ||

    Stop spoofing me! I'm not like CO! I'm not acting like CO! I've never acted like CO!

  • ||

    *sucks thumb*

  • Other Matt||

    It's just that joe usually admits it when he overlooks an important detail that makes his outrage sound stupid. I'm really quite worried here.

    I haven't seen him admit any such thing, what I'm seeing here is typical of him.

    While I agree that the people who knocked down the doors are responsible for the tragedy, comparing them to terrorists is a little extreme. They're more like the kids who TP your house and steal stuff.

    No, actually, I agree with Fluffy on that. To say that WalMart is criminally liable is the same thought process, that they should have foreseen a murderous group wanting to stomp the life out of someone, or terrorists dropping a plane on construction workers (notwithstanding getting a "group" of construction workers to do anything together is basically impossible).

  • Other Matt||

    *sucks thumb*

    Oh, that's a thumb? Sorry, my mistake.

  • ||

    Sigh. The official rules for the joe-spoofing contest were clearly posted. Please post as Joe'cuse, using some identifying information in the e-mail or URL fields. Otherwise, the judges may disqualify your entry.

  • ||

    My indigestion, while above average, is not actually magnificent.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't know if it is, is there someplace that it's defined as such? I'm not trying to be difficult, and I actually agree with the thrust of your argument, I just don't know if this specific statement is the case.

    It is my understanding that the paperwork process for getting a parole is that the inmate signs an affirmation that they will obey all laws and do all sorts of nice things, and the state accepts that affirmation and issues a certificate of parole.

    Accepting the inmate's affirmation, to me, indicates that the state believes it. If they can believe it, I should be able to believe it, too.

  • economist||

    I think joe might just have realized that he was starting to sound insane and has slinked off somewhere to reflect on his psychotic episode.

  • ||

    Magnificent indigestion may be better.

    Oh, I have one. How about "Magnificent defamation"?

  • economist||

    After this thread, I am rethinking my assumption that joe is unspoofable.

  • economist||

    Then again, in the past certain things have gotten to joe. If you want to set him off, ask him about Mitt Romney. Go ahead.

  • ||

    "Bloodied, but unbowed, joe scanned the room frantically for some sort of tool. He needed something to type with; something he could clench in his teeth, or perhaps hold with his prehensile toes. His fingers had been reduced to agonizing, bloody pulp from hours of frenzied commenting.

    "He spied a pencil under the desk. Painfully, using his elbows to steady himself, he stretched to retrieve the pencil with his toes. The chair slid away from him, its wheels squealing, and joe fell awkwardly to the floor. The blow to his head may not have appeared to an observer to be particularly severe, but the cold, hard concrete floor of the basement was unforgiving.

    "Later that evening, his mother found his slowly stiffening body. A thin trail of blood ran from his left ear, along the line of his clenched jaw."

  • @P Brooks||

    Are we supposed to guess who's liable?

  • ||

    Jesus. Maybe if we'd unionized, joe'd still be with us. We are, after all, entitled to a safe blogspace.

    I blame myself.

  • ||

    "As he breathed his last, ragged breaths, joe looked up in horror. On the bottom of the chair, there was a sticker, partially torn away, which read, 'Made in China, for WalMart.'

    "Bastards," he wheezed.

  • Crow Eating Dumbass||

    Wow, 500+ posts on a union topic and me working all day and missing it!

    I think it's reasonable to see Wal-Mart as negligent here, in fact several pretty hard core libertarians agreed with joe on this they just think it should stay a civil matter and not involve OSHA or the like. It's highly foreseeable that massive crowds could cause a ruckus in an understaffed store and employers owe a duty to their employees to take reasonable steps to protect them from such a ruckus and it is clear that this place did not take reasonable steps in that direction.

    Somehow making things a civil matter is supposed to appeal to libertarians because the courts are run and backed by privately owned mediating companies or something.

    NOT!

    Regulations regulate the same thing that civil suits did, but they don't have to operate after the fact.

    I also agree with joe that if the union made this charge before anyone got hurt the same people here saying they are waving the bloody shirt would be blowing them off as whiny crybabies.

  • Crow Eating Dumbass||

    Has any hard core libertarian mentioned that this poor guy should have just exercised his God-given rights of association to just quit before he was killed? I mean nobody forced him blah blah blah.

    Or surely someone has pointed out that "life ain't fair" by now?

  • ||

    MNG,

    Aren't you free from your curs-ed name, yet?

    Incidentally, I doubt the guy who got killed actually thought he was in that sort of danger. I mean, as great as greeting is as a career, I think he might choose life over that particular job, even assuming that Wal-Mart would've threatened him with dismissal.

  • GILMORE||

    OK guys, I think we can tell him now.

    The thing about the unions, and wal mart, joe? We made all that up.

    This is actually an intervention.

  • Mister Nice Guy||

    Oh, it is December!

    Free, free at last, thank God Almighty I am free at last!

  • MAX HATS||

    Fluffy,


    Human chain. To stop a mob. With temps.



    Have fun defending that. Have fun arguing that is not negligence.

  • BDB||

    Hey MNG, do you wanna bet on the Georgia run-off race?

  • ||

    I just got back you little bitch

    Neener neener neener, I trolled the troll!

  • MNG||

    You think Chambliss could possibly lose? I'd take that bet.

  • ||

    P Brooks,

    Where is there any hint or suggestion, on the part of anyone (other than you, I suppose) that this would have gone completely unnoticed if not for the stalwart Brothers and Sisters of the UFCW, and their unstinting surveillance of WalMart?

    Was there any suggestion by me that it wouldn't? Take you time, it's a long thread, and you're going to have to look awfully hard to find one.

    OK, I'll give you a break: no, there is no such suggestion. There was an awful lot of whining about the fact that there was going to be an investigation, and an awful lot of outrage that the union would dare suggest such a thing. Those bastards.

  • BDB||

    I'm kidding MNG. Actually you said thirty days, so not until the 4th, but whatever. You're out early. I can't take anything you say seriously under that ridiculous moniker anyway.

  • ||

    It would be more apt to compare it to a construction company that told its workers to go stand at a given work site - and then terrorists crashed an airliner on to that work site.

    Now THAT is abysmally stupid. A crush of people at the opening of a rush sale is about as foreseeable, and about as related to the operations of the business, as an airplane being crashed into a construction site by terrorists?

    Dude, easy on the "yoor stoopid" comments.

  • ||

    economist | December 2, 2008, 5:45pm | #

    Something has pissed joe off. I'm trying to figure it out.


    Maybe it has something to do a large body of people being more outraged that a union guy got mouthy than at the death of a human being?

  • MNG||

    fluffy

    I don't think it's an apt analogy. It's not foreseeable that an airplane will crash into the construction site. I think it is very foreseeable that a large mob of people who have been waiting intensely to get in (in fact, Wal-Mart was counting on that) might lead to stampeding. Shit, I see that every Black Friday on the news. Then the question is, did they take any reasonable steps to address this foreseeable danger to their employees and others? And I think it sounds like from the facts, nope.

  • phalkor||

    Is there a libertarian case for crazy stampeding mobs? I see the freedom for people to congregate in crazed and hostile hordes that mangle and overwhelm locked storefronts to be the problem.

    The negligence and union bloody shirt thing aside, is this crazy violent consumer violence paralleled in any other country? China, when their Disneyland opened, perhaps, but that was an import of a fairly American thing. Can the United States claim to have invented massive scale rabid consumers?

    2000 people at 5 AM. on a Friday? It's pretty fuckin-Astounding. It's more like a natural disaster than a homicide, the perfect storm for a human stampede-o-death.

  • ||

    a murderous group wanting to stomp the life out of someone

    Some people will believe anything to avoid getting their little world shattered. For example, that stampedes happen because several thousand people get it into their heads that it would be kewl to stomp somebody.

    Of course it's a ridiculous statement, but a drowning man will grab even the blade of a sword.

  • MAX HATS||

    And the terrorists aren't there to kill people - they just want stuff from the "FREE WOOD" pile. And they terrorists have bombs and guns - they really want the free wood. So you send the guys you have on site who work for minimum wage to go stop them, telling them to hit the terrorists with shovels. So a bunch of your guys die due to a bad call, while defending nothing more than a product and the good order of a store.

    There, I fixed it.

  • MNG||

    It amazes me the libertarian and conservative hate for unions. I always like the guy who worked for a union who has to extol on their evils. I imagine like a lot of hard core libertarians he thinks "if only I and my beloved employer were not so constrained by the weak parasites of the union and the government he could reward my exceptional work and see my lazy co-workers as the good for nothing asses they really are. Then I would get mine and they would get theirs!"

    Dude, EVERYONE thinks they are smarter better workers than their co-workers. Everyone. The union ain't holding back your Horatio Alger story in the making. You just might not be so special.

    Whatever happened to Tiktax? He once told us how very possible it was for him to become a millionaire soon. Got to seven figures yet bro?

  • MAX HATS||

    Almost forgot: and the terrorists show up every year on the same day, to construction sites around the country.


    Great analogy.

  • economist||

    joe,
    How exactly are they supposed to "foresee" a mob breaking down the doors? I can see being worried about a stampede when they're let in, but I think we'll group breaking down the doors of a store to shop there with the "didn't see that coming". And could it be that some here are genuinely bothered that the union guy decided to, on fairly flimsy evidence, turn this into a union grandstanding moment? And joe, you have to admit you were getting a little insane back there. You were claiming that because Wal-Mart didn't have security to keep the crowd from breaking down the doors, and the cops didn't think that the crowd was a threat, that the case was analogous to the cops not recognizing Jeffrey Dahmer as a murderer. You all but called for their heads. Only when everybody started calling bullshit on you did you change your tone to "Well, they might be partially, but not completely responsible".
    Once again, I ask: Did you eat too much turkey and have a stroke? Have you considered a CAT scan?

  • economist||

    "a murderous group wanting to stomp the life out of someone"
    Not really. Just a bunch of dickheads who can't wait for the store to open, so they BROKE DOWN THE DOORS. This is the key point. They didn't stampede going in, they went wild and broke down the doors, and then stampeded in. Frankly, joe and Max Hats need to get off their high horse and look at the truth: The death was caused by some asswipes at the front of the crowd. This wasn't a case of Wal-Mart "encouraging" a stampede.

  • MAX HATS||

    Hey economist -

    Once the mob broke through the doors, why do you have to risk your employees lives to stop them?

  • Glorified Troll||

    joe | December 2, 2008, 7:33pm | #
    economist | December 2, 2008, 5:45pm | #

    Something has pissed joe off. I'm trying to figure it out.

    Maybe it has something to do a large body of people being more outraged that a union guy got mouthy than at the death of a human being?


    Versus someone who is in an advocate of destroying the lives of people (which Federal criminal probes without exception do) who had nothing to do with the incident for no other reason than they are members of a corporate body unpopular with the groupthink mob you belong to.* Take the sanctimony and shove it up your ass, shut-in.

    * So you can't get away with your typical tactic of denying prior statements:

    An investigation by "all levels of government", joe? Really? That's what you want to defend? God damn motherfucking right, except I'll replace "defend" with "demand." Am I being clear enough? Local, state, and federal.

  • MNG||

    economist

    You can't foresee that a mob of people whipped into a state of intensity might engage in a stampede that would result in things like broken doors and injured people? I mean, have you seen the yearly footage of these people pushing, shoving and looking like maniacs rushing into stores and the frequent stories of people getting hurt in such nuttiness? C'mon!

  • economist||

    MNG,
    Maybe, just maybe, libertarians and conservatives hate unions for being corrupt and violent, as well as for pushing (through their political arms) for leftist economic policies. Just a thought.

  • MAX HATS||

    Basic principle: if you aren't allowed to kill for something, you generally aren't allowed to send someone to die for it either.


    I'm not allowed to kill people to preserve the good order of my store, so. . .


    Human chain versus mob. Of temps. To save the good order of a WalMart. Defend that, because that is the issue.

  • economist||

    "You can't foresee that a mob of people whipped into a state of intensity might engage in a stampede that would result in things like broken doors and injured people?"
    MNG, this might be surprising to you, but I don't hang out in crowds of people who get impatient for stores to open and break down the doors. I know, I've lived a sheltered life.

  • economist||

    Max Hats,
    Where exactly did Wal-Mart order the employee in question to stop the crowd?

  • ||

    "economist,"

    How exactly are they supposed to "foresee" a mob breaking down the doors? By looking at the window at the angry mob? Listening to people shout "break down the doors?"

    I know, how about "by paying attention to what was going on among the people they invited onto their property, and sent their employees out to confront?" You think?

    And could it be that some here are genuinely bothered that the union guy decided to, on fairly flimsy evidence, turn this into a union grandstanding moment? Yes, I think people here lose their heads whenever the issue of a union comes up - but like I said, the presence of British National Health Service threads demolishes pretty quickly the idea that there is some principles objection to grandstanding for political purposes.

    My tone? Fuck my tone. People get upset about my, and only my, tone? boo fuckity hoo.

    Once again, I ask: Did you eat too much turkey and have a stroke? Have you considered a CAT scan?

    I had a wonderful Thanksgiving. I was in a wonderful mood before I read Moynihan's piece. Right libertarians are shit.

  • Youtube Hit||

    LEEEEAVVEEEE WALLLMAAAAARTTT ALLOOOOOOOONNNNEEE

  • MNG||

    Wal-mart doesn't have to "encourage" the stampede. If there is a risk they could reasonably foresee they simply have to take reasonable steps to address it. And it seems like they did not here.

    Look, if you worked at a warehouse in a bad neighborhood that was too cheap to pay for a lock on its doors, and several bad apples had recently walked in, stole stuff and assaulted co-workers and nearby several break ins had resulted in killings and then one day someone walked in and killed you, certainly that company was negligent, right? I mean certainly the killer was criminally culpable and liable, but certainly the company was negligent as well.

  • economist||

    Up too late last night. Turning in early. Good night.

  • MNG||

    economist-But surely you have access to this thing called television where these Black Friday scenes are shown every year? Or to books and newspapers?

  • MAX HATS||

    http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/11/28/2008-11-28_worker_dies_at_long_island_walmart_after.html

    Sensing catastrophe, nervous employees formed a human chain inside the entrance to slow down the mass of shoppers.



    Either management ordered this, or they didn't stop it, or they weren't near the entrance.

    Which of those three options is least likely?

  • ||

    Versus someone who is in an advocate of destroying the lives of people (which Federal criminal probes without exception do) who had nothing to do with the incident Uh, yeah, nothing at all. We can tell, without an investigation, that WalMart had absolutely nothing to do with this because...uh..something something something about unions, Democrats, and me.

    Take the sanctimony and shove it up your ass, shut-in. Up yours, fringe-cult loser. I'm a married man with a life, a family, and a good job. How about you, Cheetos-boy?

    And I'm not denying shit. Here, let me write it again:

    An investigation by "all levels of government", joe? Really? That's what you want to defend? God damn motherfucking right, except I'll replace "defend" with "demand." Am I being clear enough? Local, state, and federal.

    Boo-Yah! Federal, state and local!



  • economist||

    joe, Max Hats, MNG,
    Your indignation is duly noted. I will consider the question of whether stores are responsible for injuries that occur when rioting assholes break into them when I am better-rested. Good night.

  • economist(encore)||

    "Boo-Yah! Federal, state and local!"
    joe just excited and pissed himself.

  • ||

    Versus someone who is in an advocate of destroying the lives of people (which Federal criminal probes without exception do) who had nothing to do with the incident

    Yes, you fucking prick, a human being with a conscience is more upset by a 35-year-old man being trampled to death on the floor of a WalMart than by suggestions that the employer be investigated to see if they were responsible for an unsafe work place.

    What is wrong with you?

  • ||

    That's not even a remotely close call.

    Yeah, I'll see your WalMart legal bills, and raise you this guy's family.

    What is wrong with you?

  • MAX HATS||

    I will consider the question of whether stores are responsible for injuries that occur when rioting assholes break into them when I am better-rested.



    Yes indeed, all stores are responsible for everything that happens inside them. That is exactly what I have been arguing.

    For the tenth time: human chain. to stop. a mob.

    If you don't want to have an honest argument, that's fine. But leave me out of it. It's been a long and trying day of demolishing petty strawmen, reposting the same news article and reposting the relevant issues. I've learned that there is absolutely no way most posters on this board will ever consider management accountable for an employee's death - even if the death was preventable, unnecessary, and happened on orders in total violation with accepted industry practice. Lesson learned, I'm moving on. This is a great place, but like most libertarian discussions, the glorious and virtuous John Galts of the world are above and beyond rebuke - even and especially if they've actually done something wrong.


    If you want to come back and either justify sending a human chain of temps to stop a mob, or admit that maybe that was kind of a fucked up thing to do, that's great. Otherwise, peace. I've no interest in making the 29th restatement of the relevant facts, hoping someone could move past strawmen, and I'm well past hope.

  • Pac||

    Wow this is still going. That's it...it's so fucking obvious i have to say something.


    Why are people with no jobs bitching about Unions...LOL.

    I feel for ya Mr. Joe guy, but i fear your arguing with people who have a shaky relationship with reality.

    Yes, definitely obvious

  • Pac||

    I would also like to add that this story is several days old, and the only reason this is being posted here is just to admonish unions. This has nothing to do with unions, reason twisted their words and ignorance keeps on coming. I don't know what's wrong with some of the people here, but if i was in a union I'd steer clear away from some of you people.

    Since it's is sorely missing, I'll also state the obvious.

    Reason sucks

  • phalkor||

    After seeing some youtube videos of relatively sane Black Friday openings I think it is fair to say that this mob was not expected to stampede into the store. In most circumstances the shoppers process rather than stampede. Trampling, breaking, and general bedlam do not seem to be common, probably occurring about once a year at some different location across the country.

    The door breaking and the utter violence and pushing from this 2000 person mob are a freak thing that could not have been predicted. Talking about creating a red rover like chain is cute, but most likely the employees were fucking scared, which makes sense. Once they smash in, no amount of reasonable preparation is going to control or contain the situation.

    This is a tragedy that I really don't think you can put the blame solely to rest on any one entity. An investigation is usually called for when someone is killed, but being somewhat familiar with OSHA codes, this isn't something that there is an applicable code for. There is no violation.

    A civil suit will likely happen, but its a shitty case for negligence unless there is a history of violent crowd at this particular store. It's a screwed up event but at least you can bet that this store will have security out the ass next year.

    There really isn't much of a larger issue here, but since I've already typed this I may as well send it.

  • Glorified Troll||

    joe | December 2, 2008, 8:10pm | #
    Versus someone who is in an advocate of destroying the lives of people (which Federal criminal probes without exception do) who had nothing to do with the incident

    Yes, you fucking prick, a human being with a conscience is more upset by a 35-year-old man being trampled to death on the floor of a WalMart than by suggestions that the employer be investigated to see if they were responsible for an unsafe work place.

    What is wrong with you?

    joe | December 2, 2008, 8:10pm | #
    That's not even a remotely close call.

    Yeah, I'll see your WalMart legal bills, and raise you this guy's family.

    What is wrong with you?


    Joe, you have never given a shit about anything besides satiating your piece of shit ego. You don't give a damn about that man, and you don't give a damn about his family. How do I know this? It is obvious by the way you approach the topic as a means of berating Libertarians to gain smug little victories in your fucked up pea sized head that twist the logic of the law as many here like John, Fluffy and others have patiently explained to you about its proper application in this case. Nothing gets through your skull because there is nothing in your skull that can contribute to a a better understanding of our common circumstances. You are a cancer upon this board. You constantly derail discussions with backhanded shit to make yourself the center of attention. Well, you want it, you got it.

  • Glorified Troll||

    Take the sanctimony and shove it up your ass, shut-in. Up yours, fringe-cult loser. I'm a married man with a life, a family, and a good job. How about you, Cheetos-boy?

    Nice going there. You come up with that all by your lonesome, or like every other thing that comes off of your finger tips, 'FAIL, buh-bye, deal with it', it's been approved and tested by a million other dimwits with no imagination?

    As for wife and family? That little lie you stated above around mid afternoon about having to leave to spend time with your mum and sister, and then to find you had been posting for two hours straight after that kind of makes it obvious you are being less than truthful. Admit it, you are a shut-in with no life. What woman would put up with your life on these boards, except a less than attractive woman that no one would envy?

    Funny your wife and kids never comes up in casual conversation here where you spend the vast majority of your time. It is almost as if they are, props.

  • Fluffy||

    Once the mob broke through the doors, why do you have to risk your employees lives to stop them?

    Did you even take maybe 3 seconds to read even the most basic accounts of the event before talking about it?

    The guy who died was hit and knocked down by the falling doors. And was then trampled as the crowd surged forward.

    No one was ordered to charge the crowd after it surged. The guy was injured and killed precisely because he approached the doors BEFORE they came down.

    If you want to come back and either justify sending a human chain of temps to stop a mob, or admit that maybe that was kind of a fucked up thing to do, that's great. Otherwise, peace. I've no interest in making the 29th restatement of the relevant facts, hoping someone could move past strawmen, and I'm well past hope.

    That is not the issue we have been arguing about at all, you stupid cunt.

    The only issue at hand is whether you should be criminally liable for not anticipating that other people would break the law and act violently. There is no other issue.

    My position is that I have a right to operate a business while assuming that other citizens will obey the law, and that the police will stop them if they break the law. That means that if someone breaks the law and attacks my business, it's their fault and not mine. [Unless I am specifically selling a good or service that promises protection against criminals.] And it doesn't matter what you think I should have "foreseen". If terrorists crash a plane into my business, they are the ones responsible and not me. If robbers come into my business and start shooting people, they are the ones responsible and not me. And if assholes break down the doors of my business and trample people, they are the ones responsible and not me. Our system of jurisprudence doesn't always see it that way, but that's because our system of jurisprudence has been corrupted and degenerated by cunts like you.

    I don't think it's an apt analogy. It's not foreseeable that an airplane will crash into the construction site. I think it is very foreseeable that a large mob of people who have been waiting intensely to get in

    The relative foreseeability of the two events is irrelevant. Max Hats tried to say that a company deliberating murdering its employees by having them stand in a hole while other employees dumped company gravel on their heads using company equipment was the same as watching helplessly as third party criminals attacked the store and hurt employees. Max utterly changed the nature of the event; I just changed the identity of the criminals.

  • Glorified Troll||

    Another entity that doesn't give a damn about Damour, the UFCW, who view him and his unfortunate circumstances as just another cracked egg to build their glorious omelet. What rattles the liberals about Moynihan posts is that it shines a light on that twisted and empty mind set.

  • Will||

    "Why are people with no jobs bitching about Unions...LOL." I have a job, and I usually don't bitch about unions unless I hear somebody extolling their virtues, in which case I feel obligated to knock them off their pedestal.

  • sol||

    Aresen | March 23, 2008, 2:07pm | #


    former joe fan | March 22, 2008, 11:32pm #

    joe, now I get why you sometimes atract such vitriol from your opponents. Even when I sometimes disagreed with you, I thought you made some good or at least interesting points. Here, you just seem like a snotty little 12 year old. I lost of lot of respect for you in this thread.



    Been there, done that. You must be fairly new here.

    joe is very intelligent and a good debater. However, he uses many debating tricks like red herrings, suggesting but not saying things, attributing opinions to others, wilfully misinterpreting others, and sneers that get people riled up. He is also hypersensitive to the slightest perceived insult and immediately retaliates at a shrill maximum.

    If you choose to debate joe, keep your arguments strictly to the point and avoid any kind of humorous snark. joe cannot take a joke.

    Otherwise, do as the rest of us do and try to ignore him when you can't agree.

  • Glorified Troll||


    If you choose to debate joe, keep your arguments strictly to the point and avoid any kind of humorous snark. joe cannot take a joke.

    Otherwise, do as the rest of us do and try to ignore him when you can't agree.


    Good advice. I have ignored him for many months until today. I read the forum daily, but only post when there is time to kill. However, this seemed an opportune time to screw with him.

    Unfortunately, another aspect of the Joe SOP is to say a few reasonably sounding things to draw a few of the more well meaning posters into conversation. You learn over time, it is just a tactic so you become just another conduit of all-things-joe on this board.

  • ||

    Why are people with no jobs bitching about Unions

    Is there something more ironic about non-wealthy people defending rich corporations than there is about non-powerful people defending the government?

    Some people aspire to become rich, buy a yacht, and live in a mansion.
    Other aspire to become powerful and entertain themselves by screwing over people they imagine have oppressed them in some way.
    Such as the cigarette companies, or the oil companies, or take your pick.

    This might explain why there are so few libertarians in power. Given the whole live and let live attitude, we just tend not to get off on ass-raping people that we've decided are Teh Evil.

  • Pac||

    I hope that made sense in your head, because a simple retort would have sufficed.

    Sorry i don't get off on the union boogie man like some people here. I can form an opinion based on the relevant issue, instead of cramming it into my personal echo chamber.

    This may be unrelated, but Matt Welch needs to be fired. This magazine has gone down the tubes since he took over. THe tone, depth of conversation, and topics have all gone down in quality since he took over. Can we have Nick back.

  • economist||

    "If you choose to debate joe, keep your arguments strictly to the point and avoid any kind of humorous snark. joe cannot take a joke."
    It's kind of funny to watch people who lack a sense of humor. They are often the most humorous individuals to watch. Of course, for that CO is the best commenter to watch.

  • MAX HATS||

    SEE, I DID MY HANDLE IN REALLY BIG LETTERS. THAT MEANS I'M REALLY SMART. SCREW YOU GUYS.

  • ||

    I don't think you quite get this "trolling thing," G.T. You're not supposed to write longer comments than me, or get a lot more upset.

    And everyone who's been on this board for any length of time knows I have a wife and kid.

    Head's up, chief: when you see a comment saying someone is going to have a three-way with his mother and sister, it's a spoof. Regular Einstein, aren't you?

  • Glorified Troll||

    joe | December 2, 2008, 2:45pm | #
    Another day, another victory.

    I'm out of here, I got a double-header with my sister and my mother tonight.


    What ever you do with you mother and sister is your business (you sick fuck), but you clearly stated you were leaving as if you had better things to do than hang around on this board. Admit it, you don't.

    Everybody doesn't know you have a wife and kids as alluding vaguely to wife and kids means nothing. You never even bother to put any contextual info for us, 'I'm stuck here today as FuckTrophy #2 had to come home from school due to a lice infection. Oh, the pharmacist was a bitch about it when I asked her what I should get for it . . .'

    See, what you are not getting here is, you no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.

  • ||

    Oh, boo hoo, a guy who calls himself "Glorified Troll" doesn't think I've provided enough detail about my personal life.

    I don't care if you give me the benefit of the doubt. You're too effing stupid to realize that the comment about having sex with one's own sister and mother is a spoof. Who cares what you think?

  • ||

    The group has had only marginal success in organizing Wal-Mart workers in the United States and Canada, citing aggressive anti-union efforts by Wal-Mart.

    You know what's awesome about card check? WalMart can't close 1/4 of their stores at the same time, and they know it.

    Oh, there is power in a union! Have a great year, everybody. I know I will.

  • Glorified Troll||

    joe | December 3, 2008, 11:11am | #
    Oh, boo hoo, a guy who calls himself "Glorified Troll" doesn't think I've provided enough detail about my personal life.

    I don't care if you give me the benefit of the doubt. You're too effing stupid to realize that the comment about having sex with one's own sister and mother is a spoof. Who cares what you think?


    Look, I said I didn't care how close you, your mother and your sister are, not my cup of tea, but not worth getting excited about. Yesterday, you felt some urge to reveal more about it than necessary and now you are embarrassed by the original post and you are now calling it a 'spoof'. It is barely relevant, except this relationship proves you are not a shut-in, but just a creep. Shut-in or creep, your choice.

  • MAX HATS||

    Should I post the same news article for the third time that states he died making a human chain after the doors had been opened?

    No. Fuck it. What is the point.

  • MAX HATS||

    Clearly, the workplace is not responsible for this preventable and senseless workplace death, because

    1) it's impossible for a workplace to be responsible for dead employees

    2) made up "facts"

    3) both 1 and 2


    Lesson learned.

  • ||

    joe has a point, if Wal-Mart allowed unionization, then that anti-Wal-Mart advocacy groups would evaporate over night. They could open stores anywhere and never bepermitted to close them. Like the Big Three, they would be guarenteed a perpetual government gravy train. Unions: The perfect passport to corporate welfare under a Democratic administration.

  • BDB||

    I don't think GT understands. The mother/sister post wasn't made by joe. It was made by someone else impersonating joe, which is really easy to do on this forum cause there is. Is n o registration.

  • Glorified Troll||

    BDB | December 3, 2008, 1:08pm | #
    I don't think GT understands. The mother/sister post wasn't made by joe. It was made by someone else impersonating joe,


    False dichotomies, mis-attribution, who does that sound like, BDB, anyone familiar? Joe is being joe-ed.

    which is really easy to do on this forum cause there is. Is n o registration.

    And I hope they keep it that way. In the ego based world of joe where this is all a contest about 'kicking ass', the most defenseless position he has is against someone who doesn't give a shit if anyone knows who he is or not.

  • ||

    "Were any OSHA rules even arguably involved in this? OSHA regulates things like ergonomics, hazardous substances, safety equipment, and the like. Its all very nice to say OSHA should investigate, but I'd like to see even one OSHA regulation that could have prevented this before they get called in."

    Well, I can't quote the specific OSHA regulation, but it's probably something along the lines of "Don't let your employees DIE at work." OSHA will have to investigate because there was a death and one of the questions asked is "What could have been done differently to prevent the injury or death?" There are many things that could have been done and Wal-Mart is responsible for any and all of them. The customers were acting like caged animals, but ultimately the buck stops with Wal-Mart when an employee's injury or death is involved.

  • Turtles||

    The only thing this confirms is that New Yorkers, despite 9/11, are only rude, inconsiderate assholes. This wouldn't have happened on the Pacific Coast, in the South, or in the real MidWest.

  • Glorified Troll ||

    Turtles | December 3, 2008, 2:16pm | #
    The only thing this confirms is that New Yorkers, despite 9/11, are only rude, inconsiderate assholes. This wouldn't have happened on the Pacific Coast, in the South, or in the real MidWest.


    The last time I read an article and muttered, 'only in California,' guess what, it happened in my city soon after. Count your blessings you live somewhere nice, just don't take it for granted.

  • ||

    Oh, for crying out loud people. Here is the, simple, bottom line. Who is responsible for the inadequate security? A) the store manager, and; B) the police for not acting proactive when it saw the huge, fucking crowd outside the store. Who is responsible for the death of the security guard? The huge, fucking crowd of water buffalo who wouldn't let a small matter of murder get in the way of their stampede to get to their precious items on sale, which must never have occured to them would be on sale again before Christmas.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement