no, but we did define different degrees of murder and manslaughter, so that every single person who ends someone's life isn't sentenced to death. And Walmart is arguing that "opening the store" is not a situation that was considered hazardous.
Again, just because there are no bright lines doesn't mean that things are being changed after the fact. You have heard of the "reasonable person" standard, right?
This is what Walmart is arguing though, that up to this incident a reasonable person wouldn't have considered "opening the store" a hazard. That it didn't fit the regulation in place, yet OSHA fined them.
Which is what makes Walmart's position so ludicrous. It's not that "opening the store" is a hazard, it's that "sending one person to open the doors when there's a large crowd pushing against them without any plans for controlling said crowd" is a hazard. You can't ignore the totality of the situation.
Edit: And as pointed out, the $7K fine is a fucking rounding error on Walmart's books.
Except they didn't "send one person", as in Shadowfire's post. The crowd broke the doors down, and bypassed barricades.
OSHA's inspection found that the store's employees were exposed to being crushed by the crowd due to the store's failure to implement reasonable and effective crowd management principles. This failure includes providing employees with the necessary training and tools to safely manage the large crowd of shoppers.
Walmart can add all the extra personnel they want - it won't do a bit of good if they don't know what they're doing. The hazard was caused by a lack of preparation by Walmart.
A lack of preparation for what? People literally breaking into the store? Does this mean if a WalMart gets robbed it's their fault because they don't have impenetrable security? This was in no way a normal situation, and WalMart is arguing the fact.
But Matt, it is a common situation at these type of events at retail stores, and Walmart knew there was going to be a large rabid crowd. And the argument is that Walmart should have prepared its employees beyond "let's form a chain of people holding hands".
A lack of preparation for what? People literally breaking into the store? Does this mean if a WalMart gets robbed it's their fault because they don't have impenetrable security? This was in no way a normal situation, and WalMart is arguing the fact.
You're not this much of a silly goose, so stop acting the part.
Was it a normal situation? No.
Was it a foreseeable situation? You're damn right it was.
The hazard was caused by a lack of preparation by Walmart.
I can see how Wal-Mart should have added some sort of extra security, or some sort of ANYTHING to help make this safer for their employees. There was a danger present.
What upsets me is that these mouth-breathing, asshole-sucking, fucking-sad-sack excuses for humans KILLED someone and TRAMPLED multiple others because they wanted to get a deal on something, and there's really not a damn thing we can do about it. We can impede their progress, making them move more slowly, and in a more organized fashion in the future, but their behavior is INEXCUSABLE. I really really really wish there was some way to punish the person that delivered the killing stomp, but also EVERY OTHER ASSHOLE in that crowd that was pushing, hurrying and otherwise helping to make this situation into what it was. :x
I should wager that the people in front where pushed by the people in the back and the people in the back didn't see how dangerous the situtation in the front was getting.
A Wal-mart manager should have canceled the sale when the crowd got to dangerous levels and said so through a loudspeaker.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
A lack of preparation for what? People literally breaking into the store? Does this mean if a WalMart gets robbed it's their fault because they don't have impenetrable security? This was in no way a normal situation, and WalMart is arguing the fact.
You're not this much of a silly goose, so stop acting the part.
Was it a normal situation? No.
Was it a foreseeable situation? You're damn right it was.
A giant corporation not understanding that its stores would be swamped on a notorious shopping day in the United States?
Its just a fact that they shouldve been prepared and failed really hard to do so because their midlevel management is incompetent.
True. With a careful exercise of discretionary powers, the absence of a bright line is an actively good thing.
But I would rather have the power of such discretion reserved to positions where the public might actually pay attention.
And so you would turn every regulatory agency into a machine. What would be the purpose of having them in the first place under your system? Amazingly, our regulatory system does a pretty good job. And when you look at when it's failed, oftentimes it's not the regulations or the regulators that failed, but that they've had their hands tied by the politicians with conflicts of interest.
I don't mind giving discretion to the executive, but then again, I believe that the vast majority of civil servants are good, honest people there trying to do what's right.
A lack of preparation for what? People literally breaking into the store? Does this mean if a WalMart gets robbed it's their fault because they don't have impenetrable security? This was in no way a normal situation, and WalMart is arguing the fact.
Except that Black Friday is a situation that stores explicitly create to make more money, and not an unpredictable accident, and therefore WalMart does deserve blame for not adequately protecting its employees when it knew that massive irrational crowds exist at that time.
The hazard was caused by a lack of preparation by Walmart.
I can see how Wal-Mart should have added some sort of extra security, or some sort of ANYTHING to help make this safer for their employees. There was a danger present.
What upsets me is that these mouth-breathing, asshole-sucking, fucking-sad-sack excuses for humans KILLED someone and TRAMPLED multiple others because they wanted to get a deal on something, and there's really not a damn thing we can do about it. We can impede their progress, making them move more slowly, and in a more organized fashion in the future, but their behavior is INEXCUSABLE. I really really really wish there was some way to punish the person that delivered the killing stomp, but also EVERY OTHER ASSHOLE in that crowd that was pushing, hurrying and otherwise helping to make this situation into what it was. :x
I should wager that the people in front where pushed by the people in the back and the people in the back didn't see how dangerous the situtation in the front was getting.
A Wal-mart manager should have canceled the sale when the crowd got to dangerous levels and said so through a loudspeaker.
Which likely would have made the situation even more dangerous. Instead of one person inside getting killed, multiple people get killed either outside or in as the anger takes hold and people turn violent. These fucking people were stupid assholes already. You think the store telling them "hey, you guys are being dicks, so we're not selling you crap!" would make the situation better?
The hazard was caused by a lack of preparation by Walmart.
I can see how Wal-Mart should have added some sort of extra security, or some sort of ANYTHING to help make this safer for their employees. There was a danger present.
What upsets me is that these mouth-breathing, asshole-sucking, fucking-sad-sack excuses for humans KILLED someone and TRAMPLED multiple others because they wanted to get a deal on something, and there's really not a damn thing we can do about it. We can impede their progress, making them move more slowly, and in a more organized fashion in the future, but their behavior is INEXCUSABLE. I really really really wish there was some way to punish the person that delivered the killing stomp, but also EVERY OTHER ASSHOLE in that crowd that was pushing, hurrying and otherwise helping to make this situation into what it was. :x
I should wager that the people in front where pushed by the people in the back and the people in the back didn't see how dangerous the situtation in the front was getting.
A Wal-mart manager should have canceled the sale when the crowd got to dangerous levels and said so through a loudspeaker.
Which likely would have made the situation even more dangerous. Instead of one person inside getting killed, multiple people get killed either outside or in as the anger takes hold and people turn violent. These fucking people were stupid assholes already. You think the store telling them "hey, you guys are being dicks, so we're not selling you crap!" would make the situation better?
Here's a hint - the fact that the situation got to that point is prima facie evidence that Walmart fucked up.
True. With a careful exercise of discretionary powers, the absence of a bright line is an actively good thing.
But I would rather have the power of such discretion reserved to positions where the public might actually pay attention.
And so you would turn every regulatory agency into a machine. What would be the purpose of having them in the first place under your system? Amazingly, our regulatory system does a pretty good job. And when you look at when it's failed, oftentimes it's not the regulations or the regulators that failed, but that they've had their hands tied by the politicians with conflicts of interest.
I don't mind giving discretion to the executive, but then again, I believe that the vast majority of civil servants are good, honest people there trying to do what's right.
I also believe that most civil servants are good, honest people who are trying to do what they think is right, but they are still fully capable of being wrong or misguided. And the ability of the current system to remove people who turn out to be wrong or misguided on a regular basis is frankly shoddy.
Someone still needs to collect the statistics that the rules specify should be controlled, or check whether those who the regulations apply to are bullshitting on said statistics, or whatever. Bureaucracies are very good are making sure every last checkbox is ticked. Deciding what the checkboxes should be, not so much.
I'm frankly surprised that you characterize the US regulatory system as having done a good job; I thought the European regulatory tendency to collaboratively hammer out details more explicitly has done better. Because US politicians are shielded from most of the mistakes they make, their broad regulatory sweeps tend to be driven by the panic of the day; in the meanwhile, devolving the details to an adversarial judicial process encouraged costly and slow series of suits and countersuits.
Wal-Mart paying the fine is an admission that they were negligent and failed to follow a rule that wasn't on the books in 2008. Ex post facto. I do believe the trampling death in 2008 could have been prevented considering 2009's Black Friday crowds were orderly and only smaller groups were allowed inside the store at any given time. But negligence? This occurrence is rare - adding 'stampedes' to the OSHA handbook wouldn't be an issue had that employee not died. From Matt's linked NYT article:
OSHA officials acknowledge that the agency is seeking to establish for the first time that an unruly crowd is an occupational hazard that can cause death or serious injury — and that employers must therefore develop plans to protect workers against such a hazard.
Comparing regrettable incidents: A couple arrested for human trafficking in Wal-Mart parking lot.
If the child was actually sold in a Wal-Mart parking lot, no one's going to say that preventable action is Wal-Mart's fault. No government entity is going to push for regulation or employee training for Wal-Mart to better protect their customers from themselves. It's too rare.
Wal-Mart paying the fine is an admission that they were negligent and failed to follow a rule that wasn't on the books in 2008. Ex post facto. I do believe the trampling death in 2008 could have been prevented considering 2009's Black Friday crowds were orderly and only smaller groups were allowed inside the store at any given time. But negligence? This occurrence is rare - adding 'stampedes' to the OSHA handbook wouldn't be an issue had that employee not died. From Matt's linked NYT article:
OSHA officials acknowledge that the agency is seeking to establish for the first time that an unruly crowd is an occupational hazard that can cause death or serious injury — and that employers must therefore develop plans to protect workers against such a hazard.
Comparing regrettable incidents: A couple arrested for human trafficking in Wal-Mart parking lot.
If the child was actually sold in a Wal-Mart parking lot, no one's going to say that preventable action is Wal-Mart's fault. No government entity is going to push for regulation or employee training for Wal-Mart to better protect their customers from themselves. It's too rare.
There's really no defense for Walmart's inaction here. Is this still unclear to people?
Wal-Mart is using the $2 million and the law to keep justice and good sense away. I still don't believe OSHA should have fined Wal-Mart. OSHA should have put the rules and training on the books and then fined the bejeezus out of the store chain if it happened at another sale.
A lack of preparation for what? People literally breaking into the store? Does this mean if a WalMart gets robbed it's their fault because they don't have impenetrable security? This was in no way a normal situation, and WalMart is arguing the fact.
You're not this much of a silly goose, so stop acting the part.
Was it a normal situation? No.
Was it a foreseeable situation? You're damn right it was.
Here's the thing. I'm a regular Black Friday participant. Not once in the past 12 years of standing in line at 3AM have I seen a crowd break down the doors to get into a store on Black Friday. Yes, large crowds are to be expected. No, a crowd that attacks the store to the point they break the doors open, mount barricades and trample employees is not something to be expected. This was a riot. This was people so besieged by greed they were willing to destroy property and kill someone. And Walmart did take precautions to handle the crowd that they expected, but the precautions weren't enough to handle the unexpected crowd that showed up. There wasn't any precedent for this. Walmarts haven't been attacked every year by people desperate for deals. The crowds show up, people rush in, nobody dies.
A riot is pretty much an occupational hazard when your business involves a large group of tense and excited people waiting in line for hours. This might be different if the crowd was unexpected, but an expected crowd becoming overly excited and violent isn't so unusual as to be something that shouldn't be prepared for.
Couscous on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
Seems to me that Wal*Mart is more fighting the assertion that groups like OSHA can decide, without pre-notice, that certain things are fineable.
You'd be stupid to think this is about cash. I'm sure Wal*Mart has spent millions already to victims and whatnot.
The point is they don't want groups being able to do the first bit and I actually agree. Now, if there was something on the books but due to a word or a phrase being 'ambiguous' and them splitting hairs, well, yeah that's a dick move (though I doubt they'd do it for something as small as 7K).
I'm in no way a pro-corp person, but I think it's reasonable to not want to be punished for something that was not, at the time, a law/rule.
Well, that, and spending $2 million to avoid a peanut fine is not far off from one warrior eating an enemy warrior's heart for intimidation purposes. It sends the message, "Don't fuck with us. We're crazy and we will bury you under paperwork."
Wal-Mart’s all-out battle against the relatively minor penalty has mystified and even angered some federal officials. In contesting the penalty, Wal-Mart has filed 20 motions and responses totaling nearly 400 pages and has spent at least $2 million on legal fees, according to OSHA’s calculations. The dispute has become so heated — and Wal-Mart’s defense so vigorous — that officials at OSHA, an arm of the Labor Department, complain that they have had to devote huge numbers of staff time to the case, including 4,725 hours of work by employees in the legal office. The company has made so many demands that Labor Department officials said they would not discuss the case except on condition of anonymity because they feared being subpoenaed about their discussions with a reporter ... Labor Department officials complain that over the last five months 17 percent of the available attorney hours in the department’s New York office have been devoted to the case, consuming the equivalent of five full-time lawyers.
OSHA can't do this in a vaccuum. There is a general rule they are referring to somewhere. There doesn't appear to be a specific rule about crowds at Walmart, no. That doesn't mean another rule can't be interpreted to cover that situation.
Not taking reasonable precautions to avoid employee injury or death has been a rule for a very long time. Stampedes specifically haven't been on the books, no, but they shouldn't have to be. The nature of the incident isn't what matters, it's the knowledge possessed beforehand. Freak accidents are one thing, and predictable accidents are another.
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
Well, from the sound of it this is the first time it's ever happened.
If you think of all the sales they've done, and all the Wal*Marts there are, statistically isn't it actually a freak accident?
Also, I'm a reasonable person and I sure as hell wouldn't expect people to bash down doors (which is illegal BTW) and destroy barricades to save 200 bucks on a laptop.
Well, from the sound of it this is the first time it's ever happened.
If you think of all the sales they've done, and all the Wal*Marts there are, statistically isn't it actually a freak accident?
Also, I'm a reasonable person and I sure as hell wouldn't expect people to bash down doors (which is illegal BTW) and destroy barricades to save 200 bucks on a laptop.
This is probably the first time a corp has decided to spend that much money to defend the piddly fine, so now we're hearing about it. I am positive OSHA has fined people before without a rule that specifically talks about the situation the company was fined for.
Not taking reasonable precautions to avoid employee injury or death has been a rule for a very long time. Stampedes specifically haven't been on the books, no, but they shouldn't have to be. The nature of the incident isn't what matters, it's the knowledge possessed beforehand. Freak accidents are one thing, and predictable accidents are another.
How was this stampede not a freak accident? I mean, this employee Jdimytai Damour would not have approached the front doors to open them if he thought he'd be trampled to death, right? No one was expecting the crowd to be so unruly.
emnmnme on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
If I was OSHA, I'd let it go, put it on the rulebooks in plain english (tm) so as to avoid this situation and hope it's never actually needed again.
Like, I understand the way people feel, but as long as Wal*Mart paid for the recovery of the injured people and a suitable sum to the family of the poor victim, I'm not really gonna be all that hard on them.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
I really hate saying this, but "be on the look out for getting trampled by a crowd" isn't actually something you expect to run into at just about any job. Don't get me wrong, something could have been done in regard to preventing the employee's death and all, but sometimes shit happens that goes out of hand.
If OSHA wants to make it a future regulation to adhere to, that's gravy. But trying to fine for it retroactively is a little iffy. And it's iffy because it's like, holy shit, someone can get trampled to death in a retail job?
Make official steps to prevent it from happening again, yes.
On the topic of money spent though, that's kind of funny in a sad way. I sort of agree - and god this feels bad saying it - that paying the $7k fine would enable OSHA. Regulation in and of itself doesn't automatically qualify as a good thing. The regulation has to make sense.
I really hate saying this, but "be on the look out for getting trampled by a crowd" isn't actually something you expect to run into at just about any job. Don't get me wrong, something could have been done in regard to preventing the employee's death and all, but sometimes shit happens that goes out of hand.
If OSHA wants to make it a future regulation to adhere to, that's gravy. But trying to fine for it retroactively is a little iffy. And it's iffy because it's like, holy shit, someone can get trampled to death in a retail job?
Make official steps to prevent it from happening again, yes.
On the topic of money spent though, that's kind of funny in a sad way. I sort of agree - and god this feels bad saying it - that paying the $7k fine would enable OSHA. Regulation in and of itself doesn't automatically qualify as a good thing. The regulation has to make sense.
And setting precident for post-facto regulation is an INCREDIBLY dangerous thing.
If Walmart hadn't already spent money on settlements here, this would be different, but it's not liek Walmart is completely ignoring their responsibility. They are pretty clearly trying to fight the concept of psot-facto regulation (otherwise they wouldn't pay such a high price.)
I really hate saying this, but "be on the look out for getting trampled by a crowd" isn't actually something you expect to run into at just about any job. Don't get me wrong, something could have been done in regard to preventing the employee's death and all, but sometimes shit happens that goes out of hand.
If OSHA wants to make it a future regulation to adhere to, that's gravy. But trying to fine for it retroactively is a little iffy. And it's iffy because it's like, holy shit, someone can get trampled to death in a retail job?
Make official steps to prevent it from happening again, yes.
On the topic of money spent though, that's kind of funny in a sad way. I sort of agree - and god this feels bad saying it - that paying the $7k fine would enable OSHA. Regulation in and of itself doesn't automatically qualify as a good thing. The regulation has to make sense.
Yeah, that's what I find really silly. Defining getting trampled to death as an "occupational hazard" at a retail job is fucking retarded. Walmart already took steps to prevent it from happening again (unlike some other companies - I'm looking at you BP). That's good enough for me.
In May 2009, OSHA accused Wal-Mart of failing to provide a place of employment that was “free from recognized hazards.” Specifically, the agency said the company violated its “general duty” to employees by failing to take adequate steps to protect them from a situation that was “likely to cause death or serious physical harm” because of “crowd surge or crowd trampling.”
It falls under a general rule that was in place at the time this happened, according to OSHA. The court's job is to interpret that general rule and see if it applies. Walmart is saying it doesn't apply. That's it.
Well, from the sound of it this is the first time it's ever happened.
If you think of all the sales they've done, and all the Wal*Marts there are, statistically isn't it actually a freak accident?
Also, I'm a reasonable person and I sure as hell wouldn't expect people to bash down doors (which is illegal BTW) and destroy barricades to save 200 bucks on a laptop.
No, not really, considering that they've had injuries in past years - 2008 just marked the first year where there was an honest to goodness fatality.
Second, the fact that the mob got that unruly shows that Walmart had screwed the pooch - you don't let things get to that point.
I really hate saying this, but "be on the look out for getting trampled by a crowd" isn't actually something you expect to run into at just about any job. Don't get me wrong, something could have been done in regard to preventing the employee's death and all, but sometimes shit happens that goes out of hand.
If OSHA wants to make it a future regulation to adhere to, that's gravy. But trying to fine for it retroactively is a little iffy. And it's iffy because it's like, holy shit, someone can get trampled to death in a retail job?
Make official steps to prevent it from happening again, yes.
On the topic of money spent though, that's kind of funny in a sad way. I sort of agree - and god this feels bad saying it - that paying the $7k fine would enable OSHA. Regulation in and of itself doesn't automatically qualify as a good thing. The regulation has to make sense.
Yeah, that's what I find really silly. Defining getting trampled to death as an "occupational hazard" at a retail job is fucking retarded. Walmart already took steps to prevent it from happening again (unlike some other companies - I'm looking at you BP). That's good enough for me.
Only after someone died. It's nice how everyone's ignoring how you would hear stories about people (shoppers and staff alike) would get injured at retail stores on Black Friday. I guess that someone actually getting killed makes it different.
Not related, but hundreds of people making the hajj are trampled to death annually in Mecca. Walking around that courtyard sounds terrifying.
emnmnme on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
Getting trampled by a crowd is not a recognized habit of working a retail / grocery store, man.
If you're working at a concert venue or soccer match, maybe it is.
But trampled at retail being a recognized hazard? That's what I'm calling into question. It's a freak fucking accident is what it was. Shit man, is someone gonna get struck by lightning in the parking lot and Wal-Mart getting fined for that?
Getting trampled by a crowd is not a recognized habit of working a retail / grocery store, man.
If you're working at a concert venue or soccer match, maybe it is.
But trampled at retail being a recognized hazard? That's what I'm calling into question. It's a freak fucking accident is what it was. Shit man, is someone gonna get struck by lightning in the parking lot and Wal-Mart getting fined for that?
Getting trampled by a crowd is not a recognized habit of working a retail / grocery store, man.
If you're working at a concert venue or soccer match, maybe it is.
But trampled at retail being a recognized hazard? That's what I'm calling into question. It's a freak fucking accident is what it was. Shit man, is someone gonna get struck by lightning in the parking lot and Wal-Mart getting fined for that?
Except by 2008, there had been several documented cases of tramplings at retail stores in large crowd situations. In other words, retailers knew that this could happen.
Getting trampled by a crowd is not a recognized habit of working a retail / grocery store, man.
If you're working at a concert venue or soccer match, maybe it is.
But trampled at retail being a recognized hazard? That's what I'm calling into question. It's a freak fucking accident is what it was. Shit man, is someone gonna get struck by lightning in the parking lot and Wal-Mart getting fined for that?
Employees being struck by lightning is not preventable (well, at least in this context). Letting a crowd rush into your store and trample your employees to death is.
To expand upon my parenthetical statement, if WalMart sent an employee to hang signs during a thunderstorm watch, you'd better fucking believe they'd be fined.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Getting trampled by a crowd is not a recognized habit of working a retail / grocery store, man.
If you're working at a concert venue or soccer match, maybe it is.
But trampled at retail being a recognized hazard? That's what I'm calling into question. It's a freak fucking accident is what it was. Shit man, is someone gonna get struck by lightning in the parking lot and Wal-Mart getting fined for that?
Employees being struck by lightning is not preventable (well, at least in this context). Letting a crowd rush into your store and trample your employees to death is.
To expand upon my parenthetical statement, if WalMart sent an employee to hang signs during a thunderstorm watch, you'd better fucking believe they'd be fined.
Well, we know it now that trampling is a hazard. Which is why I think it's one thing to announce, "In light of this, OSHA is expecting everyone to prevent future cases from happening." But then to jump back and retro-enforce it seems weird.
What year did OSHA make it a recognized hazard, and what year did this event occur (that second part I already know, 2008, since I was working at Wal-Mart at the time)? I'm not asking about known cases that have occurred prior to 2008. I'm asking when OSHA officially had their foot down on the issue. If it was prior to the case, fine, Wal-Mart should've paid the fine. If it was after the case, Wal-Mart shouldn't be fined by OSHA.
OSHA doesn't need to have their foot down. The company has to be aware it's a problem then they have to mitigate the problem under the general rule that's been referenced by OSHA here. Which has been pointed out - these things had already happened before the death of an employee in this case. That's the whole point.
Posts
But I would rather have the power of such discretion reserved to positions where the public might actually pay attention.
You're not this much of a silly goose, so stop acting the part.
Was it a normal situation? No.
Was it a foreseeable situation? You're damn right it was.
I should wager that the people in front where pushed by the people in the back and the people in the back didn't see how dangerous the situtation in the front was getting.
A Wal-mart manager should have canceled the sale when the crowd got to dangerous levels and said so through a loudspeaker.
A giant corporation not understanding that its stores would be swamped on a notorious shopping day in the United States?
Its just a fact that they shouldve been prepared and failed really hard to do so because their midlevel management is incompetent.
XBLGT:Banzeye SC2: Apollo.394
And so you would turn every regulatory agency into a machine. What would be the purpose of having them in the first place under your system? Amazingly, our regulatory system does a pretty good job. And when you look at when it's failed, oftentimes it's not the regulations or the regulators that failed, but that they've had their hands tied by the politicians with conflicts of interest.
I don't mind giving discretion to the executive, but then again, I believe that the vast majority of civil servants are good, honest people there trying to do what's right.
Except that Black Friday is a situation that stores explicitly create to make more money, and not an unpredictable accident, and therefore WalMart does deserve blame for not adequately protecting its employees when it knew that massive irrational crowds exist at that time.
Which likely would have made the situation even more dangerous. Instead of one person inside getting killed, multiple people get killed either outside or in as the anger takes hold and people turn violent. These fucking people were stupid assholes already. You think the store telling them "hey, you guys are being dicks, so we're not selling you crap!" would make the situation better?
Here's a hint - the fact that the situation got to that point is prima facie evidence that Walmart fucked up.
XBLGT:Banzeye SC2: Apollo.394
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I also believe that most civil servants are good, honest people who are trying to do what they think is right, but they are still fully capable of being wrong or misguided. And the ability of the current system to remove people who turn out to be wrong or misguided on a regular basis is frankly shoddy.
Someone still needs to collect the statistics that the rules specify should be controlled, or check whether those who the regulations apply to are bullshitting on said statistics, or whatever. Bureaucracies are very good are making sure every last checkbox is ticked. Deciding what the checkboxes should be, not so much.
I'm frankly surprised that you characterize the US regulatory system as having done a good job; I thought the European regulatory tendency to collaboratively hammer out details more explicitly has done better. Because US politicians are shielded from most of the mistakes they make, their broad regulatory sweeps tend to be driven by the panic of the day; in the meanwhile, devolving the details to an adversarial judicial process encouraged costly and slow series of suits and countersuits.
Comparing regrettable incidents: A couple arrested for human trafficking in Wal-Mart parking lot.
If the child was actually sold in a Wal-Mart parking lot, no one's going to say that preventable action is Wal-Mart's fault. No government entity is going to push for regulation or employee training for Wal-Mart to better protect their customers from themselves. It's too rare.
You are the king of irrelevant analogies.
Wal-Mart is using the $2 million and the law to keep justice and good sense away. I still don't believe OSHA should have fined Wal-Mart. OSHA should have put the rules and training on the books and then fined the bejeezus out of the store chain if it happened at another sale.
EDIT:
And you're the queen of silly geese.
You'd be stupid to think this is about cash. I'm sure Wal*Mart has spent millions already to victims and whatnot.
The point is they don't want groups being able to do the first bit and I actually agree. Now, if there was something on the books but due to a word or a phrase being 'ambiguous' and them splitting hairs, well, yeah that's a dick move (though I doubt they'd do it for something as small as 7K).
I'm in no way a pro-corp person, but I think it's reasonable to not want to be punished for something that was not, at the time, a law/rule.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
If you think of all the sales they've done, and all the Wal*Marts there are, statistically isn't it actually a freak accident?
Also, I'm a reasonable person and I sure as hell wouldn't expect people to bash down doors (which is illegal BTW) and destroy barricades to save 200 bucks on a laptop.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
This is probably the first time a corp has decided to spend that much money to defend the piddly fine, so now we're hearing about it. I am positive OSHA has fined people before without a rule that specifically talks about the situation the company was fined for.
How was this stampede not a freak accident? I mean, this employee Jdimytai Damour would not have approached the front doors to open them if he thought he'd be trampled to death, right? No one was expecting the crowd to be so unruly.
Like, I understand the way people feel, but as long as Wal*Mart paid for the recovery of the injured people and a suitable sum to the family of the poor victim, I'm not really gonna be all that hard on them.
Does make me hate humanity more, though.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
If OSHA wants to make it a future regulation to adhere to, that's gravy. But trying to fine for it retroactively is a little iffy. And it's iffy because it's like, holy shit, someone can get trampled to death in a retail job?
Make official steps to prevent it from happening again, yes.
On the topic of money spent though, that's kind of funny in a sad way. I sort of agree - and god this feels bad saying it - that paying the $7k fine would enable OSHA. Regulation in and of itself doesn't automatically qualify as a good thing. The regulation has to make sense.
And setting precident for post-facto regulation is an INCREDIBLY dangerous thing.
If Walmart hadn't already spent money on settlements here, this would be different, but it's not liek Walmart is completely ignoring their responsibility. They are pretty clearly trying to fight the concept of psot-facto regulation (otherwise they wouldn't pay such a high price.)
Yeah, that's what I find really silly. Defining getting trampled to death as an "occupational hazard" at a retail job is fucking retarded. Walmart already took steps to prevent it from happening again (unlike some other companies - I'm looking at you BP). That's good enough for me.
It falls under a general rule that was in place at the time this happened, according to OSHA. The court's job is to interpret that general rule and see if it applies. Walmart is saying it doesn't apply. That's it.
No, not really, considering that they've had injuries in past years - 2008 just marked the first year where there was an honest to goodness fatality.
Second, the fact that the mob got that unruly shows that Walmart had screwed the pooch - you don't let things get to that point.
Only after someone died. It's nice how everyone's ignoring how you would hear stories about people (shoppers and staff alike) would get injured at retail stores on Black Friday. I guess that someone actually getting killed makes it different.
If you're working at a concert venue or soccer match, maybe it is.
But trampled at retail being a recognized hazard? That's what I'm calling into question. It's a freak fucking accident is what it was. Shit man, is someone gonna get struck by lightning in the parking lot and Wal-Mart getting fined for that?
Yeah uh, I don't think those are analogous.
Except by 2008, there had been several documented cases of tramplings at retail stores in large crowd situations. In other words, retailers knew that this could happen.
Employees being struck by lightning is not preventable (well, at least in this context). Letting a crowd rush into your store and trample your employees to death is.
To expand upon my parenthetical statement, if WalMart sent an employee to hang signs during a thunderstorm watch, you'd better fucking believe they'd be fined.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Well, we know it now that trampling is a hazard. Which is why I think it's one thing to announce, "In light of this, OSHA is expecting everyone to prevent future cases from happening." But then to jump back and retro-enforce it seems weird.
What year did OSHA make it a recognized hazard, and what year did this event occur (that second part I already know, 2008, since I was working at Wal-Mart at the time)? I'm not asking about known cases that have occurred prior to 2008. I'm asking when OSHA officially had their foot down on the issue. If it was prior to the case, fine, Wal-Mart should've paid the fine. If it was after the case, Wal-Mart shouldn't be fined by OSHA.
That's all I want to say on it.