Bowen doesn't go out on black Friday because bowen knows what the shit happens on black Fridays and has known for pretty much all of his life since his childhood.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Customer mayhem at post-Thanksgiving Day sales has been a fairly common occurrence in the last 15 years, but the casualties were fairly minor. The crowd in front of the Long Island store was unruly before the doors opened and Wal-Mart had called the police. They left minutes before the stampede, leading legal experts to ask: If this was a foreseeable incident, why did the police leave?
which neatly explains why AngelHedgie's quoted account says that there were no police officers in sight, despite having used a bullhorn earlier. The police came came. Then they left!
Yeah, this seems to be far more of a police issue than anything else. They're capable of controlling crowds, have the equipment and training to do so. The Wal*Mart store did the right thing in calling them, and the police clearly dropped the ball when they left.
This could have been a bloodless teachable moment, had the police done their job, but instead it turned into a tragedy and the store has to pay the price for police negligence. This is not right, and it's not right that people are putting this on the store rather than the cops.
I am honestly amazed what some people will do to save $10 on a $200 coat. Or get 8 toasters for the price of 4! Like... what. Is that worth dealing with the crowds? Or fucking dying? Or fighting with some fat goose because you got the last can of salt and vinegar pringles? No. It's not.
I've seen a guy get elbowed in the face and loose fucking teeth because of a particularly good deal when I was a kid. From that point on I was fucking terrified. I find it hard to believe it's taken this long to come up with a regulation for black Friday, honestly.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Perhaps it was the police department's fault then, I don't know. What I do know is that it's a good thing that OSHA is finally making this an issue. Maybe Wal-Mart shouldn't be fined by them, but this definitely needs to be on the books
Yes, it should be on the books, and as a regulation, not a "guideline" which is all the OSHA has issued on crowd control even now.
I weep for society that it even has to be a regulation
Fuck's sake people, saving $20 on a toaster isn't worth it
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
I am honestly amazed what some people will do to save $10 on a $200 coat. Or get 8 toasters for the price of 4! Like... what. Is that worth dealing with the crowds? Or fucking dying? Or fighting with some fat goose because you got the last can of salt and vinegar pringles? No. It's not.
I've seen a guy get elbowed in the face and loose fucking teeth because of a particularly good deal when I was a kid. From that point on I was fucking terrified. I find it hard to believe it's taken this long to come up with a regulation for black Friday, honestly.
i think generally most places handle black friday well
its the few walmarts and mega malls around the country that love to get on tv for massive crowds that kinda ruin it for everyone (orderly lines don't look good on tv cameras compared to unruly masses)
i've participated in black friday openings at my local best buy, frys, toys r us and home depot and have never witnessed violence during them, its really simple to avoid if stores/cops would just put in the effort to instill some basic order in the process
Perhaps it was the police department's fault then, I don't know. What I do know is that it's a good thing that OSHA is finally making this an issue. Maybe Wal-Mart shouldn't be fined by them, but this definitely needs to be on the books
Yes, it should be on the books, and as a regulation, not a "guideline" which is all the OSHA has issued on crowd control even now.
I weep for society that it even has to be a regulation
Fuck's sake people, saving $20 on a toaster isn't worth it
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
We had this discussion in the thread after this happened: crowd dynamics are very different to the actions of any small group of human beings.
I am honestly amazed what some people will do to save $10 on a $200 coat. Or get 8 toasters for the price of 4! Like... what. Is that worth dealing with the crowds? Or fucking dying? Or fighting with some fat goose because you got the last can of salt and vinegar pringles? No. It's not.
I've seen a guy get elbowed in the face and loose fucking teeth because of a particularly good deal when I was a kid. From that point on I was fucking terrified. I find it hard to believe it's taken this long to come up with a regulation for black Friday, honestly.
i think generally most places handle black friday well
its the few walmarts and mega malls around the country that love to get on tv for massive crowds that kinda ruin it for everyone
i've participated in black friday openings at my local best buy, frys, toys r us and home depot and have never witnessed violence during them, its really simple to avoid if stores would just put in the effort to instill some basic order in the process
Probably typical to the area you're in too.
Still, more than 2 decades to see a potential problem with how it's been escalating? Mmm. That's worrying itself.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Customer mayhem at post-Thanksgiving Day sales has been a fairly common occurrence in the last 15 years, but the casualties were fairly minor. The crowd in front of the Long Island store was unruly before the doors opened and Wal-Mart had called the police. They left minutes before the stampede, leading legal experts to ask: If this was a foreseeable incident, why did the police leave?
which neatly explains why AngelHedgie's quoted account says that there were no police officers in sight, despite having used a bullhorn earlier. The police came came. Then they left!
Yeah, this seems to be far more of a police issue than anything else. They're capable of controlling crowds, have the equipment and training to do so. The Wal*Mart store did the right thing in calling them, and the police clearly dropped the ball when they left.
This could have been a bloodless teachable moment, had the police done their job, but instead it turned into a tragedy and the store has to pay the price for police negligence. This is not right, and it's not right that people are putting this on the store rather than the cops.
Why exactly should our tax dollars subsidize WalMart's retail's publicity stunts every year? I mean wouldn't it be a better idea to keep your own goddamn store, customers, and employees safe by not having bullshit dangerous cocktease sales every year?
thats true too most people i see in line at my local stores generally aren't under the illusion that they need something to live and rather approach the whole thing like a giant flea market and sometimes you get something sometimes you don't and its more 'fun shopping experience' than the 'uber competitive, i will kill someone for this laptop' mentality
Bowen doesn't go out on black Friday because bowen knows what the shit happens on black Fridays and has known for pretty much all of his life since his childhood.
Honestly, I haven't been in North America that long (six years), and I'm very reluctant to leave my apartment on Black Friday period (outside of work obligations, since there's no class that day). I'm terrified about the idea of going anywhere where anything is sold in the morning.
Then again, I've never actually witnessed Black Friday. And I live in a town with two Wal-Marts and a Target, where it's stunning enough that we can fill even one. And yet, we do.
Bowen doesn't go out on black Friday because bowen knows what the shit happens on black Fridays and has known for pretty much all of his life since his childhood.
Honestly, I haven't been in North America that long (six years), and I'm very reluctant to leave my apartment on Black Friday period (outside of work obligations, since there's no class that day). I'm terrified about the idea of going anywhere where anything is sold in the morning.
Then again, I've never actually witnessed Black Friday.
generally a black friday crowd is noticeable from several blocks away
endless hordes of cars, the occasional distant scream
Bowen doesn't go out on black Friday because bowen knows what the shit happens on black Fridays and has known for pretty much all of his life since his childhood.
Honestly, I haven't been in North America that long (six years), and I'm very reluctant to leave my apartment on Black Friday period (outside of work obligations, since there's no class that day). I'm terrified about the idea of going anywhere where anything is sold in the morning.
Then again, I've never actually witnessed Black Friday.
generally a black friday crowd is noticeable from several blocks away
endless hordes of cars, the occasional distant scream
I'm fairly certain, my first few years in the United States, I'd seen the consequences of Black Friday (usually driving by said consequences at 60 mph on Atlanta Highway). That's as close as I've gotten. I think I stopped going out when traffic got really bad on that day too.
Customer mayhem at post-Thanksgiving Day sales has been a fairly common occurrence in the last 15 years, but the casualties were fairly minor. The crowd in front of the Long Island store was unruly before the doors opened and Wal-Mart had called the police. They left minutes before the stampede, leading legal experts to ask: If this was a foreseeable incident, why did the police leave?
which neatly explains why AngelHedgie's quoted account says that there were no police officers in sight, despite having used a bullhorn earlier. The police came came. Then they left!
Yeah, this seems to be far more of a police issue than anything else. They're capable of controlling crowds, have the equipment and training to do so. The Wal*Mart store did the right thing in calling them, and the police clearly dropped the ball when they left.
This could have been a bloodless teachable moment, had the police done their job, but instead it turned into a tragedy and the store has to pay the price for police negligence. This is not right, and it's not right that people are putting this on the store rather than the cops.
Why exactly should our tax dollars subsidize WalMart's retail's publicity stunts every year? I mean wouldn't it be a better idea to keep your own goddamn store, customers, and employees safe by not having bullshit dangerous cocktease sales every year?
Why should we use our tax dollars from keeping Neo-Nazi marches from being stoned? Controlling unruely people is the job of the police. Better them than Billy-Bob from sporting goods with a few cans of bear mace.
Ehhhhhh, protecting your freedom of speech/expression/association/assembly is just a teense different than protecting your right to sell goods at lower prices, everyday.
Ehhhhhh, protecting your freedom of speech/expression/association/assembly is just a teense different than protecting your right to sell goods at lower prices, everyday.
Does the store being open/people going there not count as free assembly?
Ehhhhhh, protecting your freedom of speech/expression/association/assembly is just a teense different than protecting your right to sell goods at lower prices, everyday.
Does the store being open/people going there not count as free assembly?
I don't know. I'm not really a constitutional scholar. Though my armchair opinion would be that you don't have a right to assemble on private property in order to get a really good price on a laptop.
From a strict reading of the definition of "freedom of assembly" though, it could possibly meet the criteria of "to come together and collectively [...] pursue [...] common interests." As shopping in this case is the common interest, and the shoppers are coming together. I dunno. I feel like that'd really be stretching it. Plus, again, private property.
I am honestly amazed what some people will do to save $10 on a $200 coat. Or get 8 toasters for the price of 4! Like... what. Is that worth dealing with the crowds? Or fucking dying? Or fighting with some fat goose because you got the last can of salt and vinegar pringles? No. It's not.
I've seen a guy get elbowed in the face and loose fucking teeth because of a particularly good deal when I was a kid. From that point on I was fucking terrified. I find it hard to believe it's taken this long to come up with a regulation for black Friday, honestly.
I think most people line up for black friday sales to get big ticket items like $300 off some big LCD TV. For people living pay check to paycheck $200-300 is a lot and I can understand why they would want to wait in line to get that big of a discount. Then again those people probably shouldn't be spending even $700 on a tv instead of $1000.
Edit: I understand why people would wait in line really early to get that much money off something. However I don't see why people start shoving and trampling each other to save that much money.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I don't know. I'm not really a constitutional scholar. Though my armchair opinion would be that you don't have a right to assemble on private property in order to get a really good price on a laptop.
From a strict reading of the definition of "freedom of assembly" though, it could possibly meet the criteria of "to come together and collectively [...] pursue [...] common interests." As shopping in this case is the common interest, and the shoppers are coming together. I dunno. I feel like that'd really be stretching it. Plus, again, private property.
Private property just means that if Walmart says fuck off, I have to fuck off. the position of "don't sell stuff, so your customers don't act like idiots" just doesn't seem tenable to me. If the cops were called because the crowd was being unruly, its their job to respond to that call effectively.
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
Tin, that county has about 3000 total police officers and covers a decently sized area. I can name off the top of my head a dozen other Big Box stores that had black friday sales as well as 3 fairly large malls. They would have to have the entire force activated and on overtime (hours after thanksgiving dinner) in order to be able to respond to all of this shit.
Why exactly should tax payers have to shoulder the burden of the overtime because some silly fucking goose troll stores decide it's awesome marketing to sell 3x 50" TVs for $100, first shove, first serve?
These stores should take some goddamn responsibility for their foolish actions.
Tin, that county has about 3000 total police officers and covers a decently sized area. I can name off the top of my head a dozen other Big Box stores that had black friday sales as well as 3 fairly large malls. They would have to have the entire force activated and on overtime (hours after thanksgiving dinner) in order to be able to respond to all of this shit.
Why exactly should tax payers have to shoulder the burden of the overtime because some silly fucking goose troll stores decide it's awesome marketing to sell 3x 50" TVs for $100, first shove, first serve?
These stores should take some goddamn responsibility for their foolish actions.
It's not hard to imagine how someone will act in that situation either. Take someone who has recently won a shopping spree and put them in a store, and they have to pick whatever they can get in 5 minutes.
Then, take that same person and multiply that times a few thousand.
I can't imagine who would think that's a good idea. Hell all you'd need to do is remember those old shopping spree game shows from the 70s and 80s to figure that one out.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I wonder if pickpocketing is a problem as BF crowds show up. Stuffed in a line like a can of sardines and everyone has brought their wallets and purses and such to get the good sales.
I don't know. I'm not really a constitutional scholar. Though my armchair opinion would be that you don't have a right to assemble on private property in order to get a really good price on a laptop.
From a strict reading of the definition of "freedom of assembly" though, it could possibly meet the criteria of "to come together and collectively [...] pursue [...] common interests." As shopping in this case is the common interest, and the shoppers are coming together. I dunno. I feel like that'd really be stretching it. Plus, again, private property.
Private property just means that if Walmart says fuck off, I have to fuck off. the position of "don't sell stuff, so your customers don't act like idiots" just doesn't seem tenable to me. If the cops were called because the crowd was being unruly, its their job to respond to that call effectively.
That position seems rather extreme to me as well. Good thing nobody's advocating it, at all. What's with the strawman? It's not like no stores manage to handle Black Friday acceptably, so WalMart could just adopt their procedures.
Why exactly should tax payers have to shoulder the burden of the overtime because some silly fucking goose troll stores decide it's awesome marketing to sell 3x 50" TVs for $100, first shove, first serve?
These stores should take some goddamn responsibility for their foolish actions.
Why exactly should tax payers have to shoulder the burden of the overtime because some silly fucking goose political parties decide it's awesome to have a huge, televised convention where they know there will be thousands of irate (a small few violent) protesters?
These parties should take some goddamn responsibility for their foolish actions.
Why exactly should tax payers have to shoulder the burden of the overtime because some silly fucking goose troll stores decide it's awesome marketing to sell 3x 50" TVs for $100, first shove, first serve?
These stores should take some goddamn responsibility for their foolish actions.
Why exactly should tax payers have to shoulder the burden of the overtime because some silly fucking goose political parties decide it's awesome to have a huge, televised convention where they know there will be thousands of irate (a small few violent) protesters?
These parties should take some goddamn responsibility for their foolish actions.
Forgive me if I've missed your point, but do you not see a difference between political speech and "OMG salez?"
Also, you know who need to take some goddamn responsibility for their foolish actions? People who shove first to get served first, thereby jeopardizing other people's safety. These shoppers shouldn't get a fucking pass because that 50" TV is half off. I don't care how good a goddamn deal it is. Have some fucking respect.
Let me point out that WalMart is being fined for committing a "serious violation" of workplace safety, because someone died. The fact there was a death is proof enough that WalMart screwed up somehow.
Had it been a "willful violation", the fine would be $70,000. In other words, OSHA is saying that WalMart didn't knowingly put the employee in harm's way, but that they did UNKNOWINGLY put him in danger, a danger which directly resulted in his death. THEY told him to stand in front of the doors, THEY decided not to implement more stringent methods of crowd control, all in pursuit of the almighty dollar. That makes WalMart responsible.
Unless you're saying there is no way whatsoever that WalMart could have prevented this death, claiming they shouldn't be fined is plugging your ears, covering your eyes, and shouting, "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Also, let me nip this right in the bud: just because OSHA is fining WalMart doesn't mean we let the stampeders off scott fucking free. We can punish both, you know; it's not an either-or situation.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Let me point out that WalMart is being fined for committing a "serious violation" of workplace safety, because someone died.
Had it been a "willful violation", the fine would be $70,000.
Unless you're saying there is no way whatsoever that WalMart could have prevented this death, claiming they shouldn't be fined is plugging your ears, covering your eyes, and shouting, "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Other employers have had at least one trampling occur on their property. This is the first time OSHA is attempting to levy this fine against an employer.
Also, the crowd BROKE DOWN THE DOORS. This is not an expected situation. Never ever ever in fucking holiday sales shopping SHOULD it be an expected situation. Which, to me, is another point in favor of Wal-Mart. The crowd acted in a manner that one would not expect them to. That is the behavior of RIOTERS not of people waiting for a sale.
[ed] Well thanks for nipping that in the bud. I'm not sure anyone's said it's an either-or situation regarding who we punish.
Let me point out that WalMart is being fined for committing a "serious violation" of workplace safety, because someone died.
Had it been a "willful violation", the fine would be $70,000.
Unless you're saying there is no way whatsoever that WalMart could have prevented this death, claiming they shouldn't be fined is plugging your ears, covering your eyes, and shouting, "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Other employers have had at least one trampling occur on their property. This is the first time OSHA is attempting to levy this fine against an employer.
Also, the crowd BROKE DOWN THE DOORS. This is not an expected situation. Never ever ever in fucking holiday sales shopping SHOULD it be an expected situation. Which, to me, is another point in favor of Wal-Mart. The crowd acted in a manner that one would not expect them to. That is the behavior of RIOTERS not of people waiting for a sale.
[ed] Well thanks for nipping that in the bud. I'm not sure anyone's said it's an either-or situation regarding who we punish.
This has been edited a few times now. :P
1) Yes, it's not the first instance of a Black Friday trampling. It is the first time someone's died from it, though. This is an example of OSHA punishing someone not for what might happen, but what did happen. If no one got hurt and OSHA was still fining WalMart, your arguments would be valid. Unfortunately, that simply is not the case.
2) Yes, the crowd broke down the doors. However, WalMart directed the crowd to congregate there, and WalMart directed its employees to stand right in the middle of where the crowd would be coming through, even after the crowd starting breaking down the doors.
3) Several people have stated, "We shouldn't be going after WalMart; we should be going after the crowds!" That's very much an either-or statement.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
The message I'm getting from OSHA is that it's A-OK for tramplings* to occur, as long as it doesn't result in death and as long as you're not Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart directed the crowd to WAIT at the door. The crowd BROKE THE DOOR DOWN. That's simply unacceptable, and is not a foreseeable event. It is not realistic to expect people to effectively break and enter for a fucking sale! Do you have a source that I can read that states that Wal-Mart directed it's employees to CONTINUE to stand in front of (and I'd like "in front of" to be defined. 2'? 10'? 50'?) the doors once the riotous mob had broken them down? 'Cause that might actually change my opinion of this somewhat. I apologize in advance if it was in a link right in front of my face and I've missed it.
I've not seen these posts that say we should go after the crowd INSTEAD OF Wal-Mart.
* Apparently my English sucks! "A trampling" seems valid. What's the plural form?
The message I'm getting from OSHA is that it's A-OK for tramplings* to occur, as long as it doesn't result in death and as long as you're not Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart directed the crowd to WAIT at the door. The crowd BROKE THE DOOR DOWN. That's simply unacceptable, and is not a foreseeable event. It is not realistic to expect people to effectively break and enter for a fucking sale! Do you have a source that I can read that states that Wal-Mart directed it's employees to CONTINUE to stand in front of (and I'd like "in front of" to be defined. 2'? 10'? 50'?) the doors once the riotous mob had broken them down? 'Cause that might actually change my opinion of this somewhat. I apologize in advance if it was in a link right in front of my face and I've missed it.
I've not seen these posts that say we should go after the crowd INSTEAD OF Wal-Mart.
* Apparently my English sucks! "A trampling" seems valid. What's the plural form?
The employee's saw the crowd breaking down the doors and then formed a human chain in the entrance to slow down the crowd. Even if Walmart had no way to know that the crowd would breakdown the doors, the problem for Walmart is when it started happening it didn't get it's employees out of danger. Even if the employees had not been directed to stand there but did it on their own and managers/supervisors saw them and did nothing Walmart is still liable.
And this is without dealing with the issue that Walmart knew that a large crowd would be coming that morning.
The message OSHA is trying to portray is that stampeding customers are sometimes an unavoidable aspect of retail business, and so employers have a duty to their employees to safeguard them from possible injury in such an instance.
Businesses are mandated by OSHA to protect their employees from any injury, and if they fail to do so, even in unforseeable circumstances, they have failed to abide by that mandate.
There are several articles linked and quoted in this thread that speak of the fact that WalMart instructed its employees to stand in front of the door as a human chain once the doors began to buckle.
Edit: The right of an employee to not be killed on the job outweighs the right of a company to make a profit, and so the burden lies on WalMart to prove their innocence, not on OSHA to prove WalMart's guilt.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
I wonder if pickpocketing is a problem as BF crowds show up. Stuffed in a line like a can of sardines and everyone has brought their wallets and purses and such to get the good sales.
Generally no, as there are too many possible witnesses standing around doing nothing better than watch the other people in line. Armed robbery, on the other hand...
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
The blame the crowd thing fails pretty badly simply because of how massive crowds going through a relatively tight space work. If you end up at the front of a crowd like that not only do you have very little choice, if any at all, in what happens next but you're in an incredible amount of danger yourself.
The blame the crowd thing fails pretty badly simply because of how massive crowds going through a relatively tight space work. If you end up at the front of a crowd like that not only do you have very little choice, if any at all, in what happens next but you're in an incredible amount of danger yourself.
^ This.
A few thousand people getting bumped and pushed with minimal amount of force adds up to an incredible amount of slow moving force at the front of the crowd.
Posts
Yeah, this seems to be far more of a police issue than anything else. They're capable of controlling crowds, have the equipment and training to do so. The Wal*Mart store did the right thing in calling them, and the police clearly dropped the ball when they left.
This could have been a bloodless teachable moment, had the police done their job, but instead it turned into a tragedy and the store has to pay the price for police negligence. This is not right, and it's not right that people are putting this on the store rather than the cops.
I've seen a guy get elbowed in the face and loose fucking teeth because of a particularly good deal when I was a kid. From that point on I was fucking terrified. I find it hard to believe it's taken this long to come up with a regulation for black Friday, honestly.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
i think generally most places handle black friday well
its the few walmarts and mega malls around the country that love to get on tv for massive crowds that kinda ruin it for everyone (orderly lines don't look good on tv cameras compared to unruly masses)
i've participated in black friday openings at my local best buy, frys, toys r us and home depot and have never witnessed violence during them, its really simple to avoid if stores/cops would just put in the effort to instill some basic order in the process
We had this discussion in the thread after this happened: crowd dynamics are very different to the actions of any small group of human beings.
Probably typical to the area you're in too.
Still, more than 2 decades to see a potential problem with how it's been escalating? Mmm. That's worrying itself.
Why exactly should our tax dollars subsidize WalMart's retail's publicity stunts every year? I mean wouldn't it be a better idea to keep your own goddamn store, customers, and employees safe by not having bullshit dangerous cocktease sales every year?
Honestly, I haven't been in North America that long (six years), and I'm very reluctant to leave my apartment on Black Friday period (outside of work obligations, since there's no class that day). I'm terrified about the idea of going anywhere where anything is sold in the morning.
Then again, I've never actually witnessed Black Friday. And I live in a town with two Wal-Marts and a Target, where it's stunning enough that we can fill even one. And yet, we do.
generally a black friday crowd is noticeable from several blocks away
endless hordes of cars, the occasional distant scream
I'm fairly certain, my first few years in the United States, I'd seen the consequences of Black Friday (usually driving by said consequences at 60 mph on Atlanta Highway). That's as close as I've gotten. I think I stopped going out when traffic got really bad on that day too.
Why should we use our tax dollars from keeping Neo-Nazi marches from being stoned? Controlling unruely people is the job of the police. Better them than Billy-Bob from sporting goods with a few cans of bear mace.
amazon.com: we have 100% less trampling!
Nope, it's private property.
From a strict reading of the definition of "freedom of assembly" though, it could possibly meet the criteria of "to come together and collectively [...] pursue [...] common interests." As shopping in this case is the common interest, and the shoppers are coming together. I dunno. I feel like that'd really be stretching it. Plus, again, private property.
I think most people line up for black friday sales to get big ticket items like $300 off some big LCD TV. For people living pay check to paycheck $200-300 is a lot and I can understand why they would want to wait in line to get that big of a discount. Then again those people probably shouldn't be spending even $700 on a tv instead of $1000.
Edit: I understand why people would wait in line really early to get that much money off something. However I don't see why people start shoving and trampling each other to save that much money.
Private property just means that if Walmart says fuck off, I have to fuck off. the position of "don't sell stuff, so your customers don't act like idiots" just doesn't seem tenable to me. If the cops were called because the crowd was being unruly, its their job to respond to that call effectively.
Why exactly should tax payers have to shoulder the burden of the overtime because some silly fucking goose troll stores decide it's awesome marketing to sell 3x 50" TVs for $100, first shove, first serve?
These stores should take some goddamn responsibility for their foolish actions.
It's not hard to imagine how someone will act in that situation either. Take someone who has recently won a shopping spree and put them in a store, and they have to pick whatever they can get in 5 minutes.
Then, take that same person and multiply that times a few thousand.
I can't imagine who would think that's a good idea. Hell all you'd need to do is remember those old shopping spree game shows from the 70s and 80s to figure that one out.
That position seems rather extreme to me as well. Good thing nobody's advocating it, at all. What's with the strawman? It's not like no stores manage to handle Black Friday acceptably, so WalMart could just adopt their procedures.
Why exactly should tax payers have to shoulder the burden of the overtime because some silly fucking goose political parties decide it's awesome to have a huge, televised convention where they know there will be thousands of irate (a small few violent) protesters?
These parties should take some goddamn responsibility for their foolish actions.
Also, you know who need to take some goddamn responsibility for their foolish actions? People who shove first to get served first, thereby jeopardizing other people's safety. These shoppers shouldn't get a fucking pass because that 50" TV is half off. I don't care how good a goddamn deal it is. Have some fucking respect.
Had it been a "willful violation", the fine would be $70,000. In other words, OSHA is saying that WalMart didn't knowingly put the employee in harm's way, but that they did UNKNOWINGLY put him in danger, a danger which directly resulted in his death. THEY told him to stand in front of the doors, THEY decided not to implement more stringent methods of crowd control, all in pursuit of the almighty dollar. That makes WalMart responsible.
Unless you're saying there is no way whatsoever that WalMart could have prevented this death, claiming they shouldn't be fined is plugging your ears, covering your eyes, and shouting, "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Also, let me nip this right in the bud: just because OSHA is fining WalMart doesn't mean we let the stampeders off scott fucking free. We can punish both, you know; it's not an either-or situation.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Other employers have had at least one trampling occur on their property. This is the first time OSHA is attempting to levy this fine against an employer.
Also, the crowd BROKE DOWN THE DOORS. This is not an expected situation. Never ever ever in fucking holiday sales shopping SHOULD it be an expected situation. Which, to me, is another point in favor of Wal-Mart. The crowd acted in a manner that one would not expect them to. That is the behavior of RIOTERS not of people waiting for a sale.
[ed] Well thanks for nipping that in the bud. I'm not sure anyone's said it's an either-or situation regarding who we punish.
This has been edited a few times now. :P
1) Yes, it's not the first instance of a Black Friday trampling. It is the first time someone's died from it, though. This is an example of OSHA punishing someone not for what might happen, but what did happen. If no one got hurt and OSHA was still fining WalMart, your arguments would be valid. Unfortunately, that simply is not the case.
2) Yes, the crowd broke down the doors. However, WalMart directed the crowd to congregate there, and WalMart directed its employees to stand right in the middle of where the crowd would be coming through, even after the crowd starting breaking down the doors.
3) Several people have stated, "We shouldn't be going after WalMart; we should be going after the crowds!" That's very much an either-or statement.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Wal-Mart directed the crowd to WAIT at the door. The crowd BROKE THE DOOR DOWN. That's simply unacceptable, and is not a foreseeable event. It is not realistic to expect people to effectively break and enter for a fucking sale! Do you have a source that I can read that states that Wal-Mart directed it's employees to CONTINUE to stand in front of (and I'd like "in front of" to be defined. 2'? 10'? 50'?) the doors once the riotous mob had broken them down? 'Cause that might actually change my opinion of this somewhat. I apologize in advance if it was in a link right in front of my face and I've missed it.
I've not seen these posts that say we should go after the crowd INSTEAD OF Wal-Mart.
* Apparently my English sucks! "A trampling" seems valid. What's the plural form?
The employee's saw the crowd breaking down the doors and then formed a human chain in the entrance to slow down the crowd. Even if Walmart had no way to know that the crowd would breakdown the doors, the problem for Walmart is when it started happening it didn't get it's employees out of danger. Even if the employees had not been directed to stand there but did it on their own and managers/supervisors saw them and did nothing Walmart is still liable.
And this is without dealing with the issue that Walmart knew that a large crowd would be coming that morning.
Businesses are mandated by OSHA to protect their employees from any injury, and if they fail to do so, even in unforseeable circumstances, they have failed to abide by that mandate.
There are several articles linked and quoted in this thread that speak of the fact that WalMart instructed its employees to stand in front of the door as a human chain once the doors began to buckle.
Edit: The right of an employee to not be killed on the job outweighs the right of a company to make a profit, and so the burden lies on WalMart to prove their innocence, not on OSHA to prove WalMart's guilt.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Generally no, as there are too many possible witnesses standing around doing nothing better than watch the other people in line. Armed robbery, on the other hand...
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
^ This.
A few thousand people getting bumped and pushed with minimal amount of force adds up to an incredible amount of slow moving force at the front of the crowd.