tlmorg02
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,347
- Reaction score
- 1,078
- Location
- Louisville, Ky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Dirty topic stealer, I already posted this in Weird News! :rofl
*edited cuz I dunt spel guud.
Okay, but do you think they should be held liable? I don't see how Walmart is responsible for the actions of these specific employees. Even if they gave the guards the most basic of guidelines (guard the store) that does not translate into tacit approval of irrational and excessive violence. Does Walmart have to include a beating clause in its security policy?
Walmart Security Policy.
Section 1: Walmart security guards are not permitted to-
a. hastily and wrongly accuse people of stealing and
b. proceed to beat them to death before conducting an investigation which would confrim or disconfirm the veracity of their accusations.
I don't think Walmart (or any company for that matter) should be held liable for what they don't tell people to do; only what they do tell them to do.
In a previous case where Wallmart employee killed a suspected shoplifter, Wallmart paid 750,000 to the guys family. Not sure how Chinese law works or if they have changed their training, but it a precedent against them. I also saw various other articles about people being injured or killed by Wallmart employees in relation to shoplifting. Given Wallmarts size its not statistically that bad, but it doesn't exactly help their case either.
Sprawl-Busters Newsflash Blog - Anti-Sprawl news since 1998.
It's very unclear as to what their internal rules are, but going off of what I know about Wal-Mart's policies, it seems likely that they had strict rules in place to prevent this.
A settlement is not a confession of guilt no matter how much one wants it to be. Its often the most savvy business move as it saves time, money, a negative publicity.
I think there's a very legitimate reason for the policy that Kandahar is getting at - it incentivizes companies to set strict rules about what their employees can or can't do, and gives them a reason to really enforce it.
I can definitely envision a scenario where Wal-Mart would be held liable here. If they had a policy saying things like "preventing shoplifting is the most important part of your job, be diligent, if people get away you will lose pay, etc." and that failed to set strict rules about what they couldn't do, they would probably be liable.
It's very unclear as to what their internal rules are, but going off of what I know about Wal-Mart's policies, it seems likely that they had strict rules in place to prevent this.
How do you expect Walmart to prevent isolated incidents of violence? Why should they be liable?
Hey, she should have known better than to mess with communist security guards.BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Arrests over China Wal-Mart death
Here is the real question! What will WalMart do to prevent a repeat of this incident, and will they be liable for this? Thoughts?
Yeah, because all Chinese are communist. :roll:Hey, she should have known better than to mess with communist security guards.
Okay okay, just in jest.Yeah, because all Chinese are communist. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?