Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I do not accept that premise.
My own beliefs concerning Wal Mart do not necessitate any of the action specified. They are simply observations into how the business is run. I have no intention of opening any type of business, nor attempting to compete for their customer base.

I am simply noting that their intentions may not be as noble as some would believe. Of course, their intent may not be truly evil either. Their prime motive is the bottom line, and morality does not play a part in that. Owning and running a competitor business is not necessary to see that.

Ah but you are making a judgment with out any true knowledge. Something that we as Christians are called not to do. We can judge actions and this action that Wal-Mart has decided upon is a good thing.

We can not judge how they came to chose this action over all the others that they could have possibly made.

There is no way to know 100% what their prime motive is.

 

[rpp]

Ah but you are making a judgment with out any true knowledge. Something that we as Christians are called not to do. We can judge actions and this action that Wal-Mart has decided upon is a good thing.

We can not judge how they came to chose this action over all the others that they could have possibly made.

There is no way to know 100% what their prime motive is.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Judging mean consigning someone to Hell. That is very different from drawing a reasonable conclusion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ah but you are making a judgment with out any true knowledge. Something that we as Christians are called not to do. We can judge actions and this action that Wal-Mart has decided upon is a good thing.

We can not judge how they came to chose this action over all the others that they could have possibly made.

There is no way to know 100% what their prime motive is.

We have only to have some experience in business to understand it.

First of all, businesses have to have standards and rules. Let’s take something simpler – shoplifting. A business must take measures to minimize shoplifting – because, aside from being morally wrong, it runs up costs costs that are passed on to the customer.

Now, suppose a Wal-Mart emplopyee catches someone shoplifting, what does the local manager do? He prosecutes.

Now, let’s support there is some heart-wrenching story behind the shoplifting. The upper management – which isn’t involved in the orginal decision – may reverse that decision.

That’s what happened here. Wal-Mart was in the right, and the corporate lawyers acted in accord with the law. Later, when they became aware of the case, higher management reversed the decision.

And this somehow shows – to Wal-Mart haters – that Wal-Mart is the Anti-Christ.

 

[vz71]

Ah but you are making a judgment with out any true knowledge. Something that we as Christians are called not to do. We can judge actions and this action that Wal-Mart has decided upon is a good thing.

Were I not to have come by my own belief through my employment with the organization, I would concede the point.
However, this opinion was formed from what is, in fact, true knowledge.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Were I not to have come by my own belief through my employment with the organization, I would concede the point.
However, this opinion was formed from what is, in fact, true knowledge.

True knowledge can only be had if you know exactly what is in the mind of those who made the decision which is totally impossible.

To play devil’s advocate. Maybe your experience has colored your view in such a way that nothing they can do is right. Being close to something sometimes can be a hindrance rather then a help in these sort of things.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We have only to have some experience in business to understand it.

First of all, businesses have to have standards and rules. Let’s take something simpler – shoplifting. A business must take measures to minimize shoplifting – because, aside from being morally wrong, it runs up costs costs that are passed on to the customer.

Now, suppose a Wal-Mart emplopyee catches someone shoplifting, what does the local manager do? He prosecutes.

Now, let’s support there is some heart-wrenching story behind the shoplifting. The upper management – which isn’t involved in the orginal decision – may reverse that decision.

That’s what happened here. Wal-Mart was in the right, and the corporate lawyers acted in accord with the law. Later, when they became aware of the case, higher management reversed the decision.

And this somehow shows – to Wal-Mart haters – that Wal-Mart is the Anti-Christ.

Amen!

They do something good so there must be an ulterior motive that shows that they are really not doing something good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

True knowledge can only be had if you know exactly what is in the mind of those who made the decision which is totally impossible.

To play devil’s advocate. Maybe your experience has colored your view in such a way that nothing they can do is right. Being close to something sometimes can be a hindrance rather then a help in these sort of things.

Bingo!

 

[vz71]

To play devil’s advocate. Maybe your experience has colored your view in such a way that nothing they can do is right. Being close to something sometimes can be a hindrance rather then a help in these sort of things.

This actually makes me question if you have read through this thread at all.

I have never stated that they cannot do anything right, not have I implied such.

 

[vz71]

On the 5th of February, my town, Mountain View, Arkansas was hit by a tornado. This tornado was a record for the state and tore a 123-mile long swath across the state. Our hospital and ambulance services were destroyed. All electric power was knocked out. Highways to the south, east and north were blocked by downed trees and live electric lines.

Before dawn, before telephone communications were restored, a Wal-Mart truck arrived with a huge generator. Without being asked, Wal-Mart went into action. They powered up the Murphy gas station – which was the only place in the county where people and emergency vehicles could get gasoline.

They started cooking in the dining section – feeding people for free. More and more Wal-Mart trucks rolled in, with generators, chain saws, propane heaters – exactly what we needed in this emergency. Yes, they sold those things – but for the same price they’d have charged had there been no tornado, and they didn’t add on the cost of the generator and other things needed to get up and running.

True knowledge can only be had if you know exactly what is in the mind of those who made the decision which is totally impossible.

To play devil’s advocate. Maybe your experience has colored your view in such a way that nothing they can do is right. Being close to something sometimes can be a hindrance rather then a help in these sort of things.

Bingo!

:ehh:

Of course, now we have to ask ourselves which of all of the opinions stands the best chance of being the more accurate.
All I can say is that I have not accused of wrong or right.

I have simply stated that they do not subscribe to any behavior other then the motivation of the bottom line.

 

[vz71]

I think what I see here is someone who views a particular corporation as one that engages in heroic activities, others who view it like any other corporate citizen, and a few others who view them a villain.

Only the second of the three perspectives allows a person to see activites in fair light.

You are in error – I view Wal-Mart like any other good corporate citizen. I do have a tendency to rebut hatred and bigotry, whether directed against Catholics, Blacks, Jews, or corporations with a good record.

Why make the assumption that you were being referred to here?
Why the assumption of exactly how your opinion was being viewed?

Seems to me a tremendous leap here to make the assumptions.
Perhaps you know something no one else here knows?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

:ehh:

Of course, now we have to ask ourselves which of all of the opinions stands the best chance of being the more accurate.
All I can say is that I have not accused of wrong or right.

I have simply stated that they do not subscribe to any behavior other then the motivation of the bottom line.

Actually you said…

I am simply noting that their intentions may not be as noble as some would believe. Of course, their intent may not be truly evil either. Their prime motive is the bottom line, and morality does not play a part in that. Owning and running a competitor business is not necessary to see that.

That sure comes off as you saying that they are doing a good thing for the wrong (immoral) reasons.

Not to mention the fact that you are ascribing a motivation that you have no way of knowing is a fact or not.

Rather than talk down someone or something for doing what is right for a motivation that you are assigning to them, why not just be happy that they did something good?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Judging mean consigning someone to Hell. That is very different from drawing a reasonable conclusion.

No, this is wrong.

We are free to judge the actual actions of others but we are never free to judge what we think are their thoughts and motivations behind those actions. For when we do so we are will have the same criteria we used to form our judgment applied to us.

Hence the scripture…

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that you may not be judged.
Mat 7:2 For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Mat 7:3 And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of *detraction *who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
• of *calumny *who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. **2479 **Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

This could be a case of rash judgment as many are judging this good act in a bad light or it could be calumny as some may be doing this to paint Wal-Mart as a bad thing. Either way it is not the Christian thing to be doing.

 

[vern_humphrey]

:ehh:

Of course, now we have to ask ourselves which of all of the opinions stands the best chance of being the more accurate.
All I can say is that I have not accused of wrong or right.

How about the opinion of the disinterested observer, over the disgruntled employee?

I have simply stated that they do not subscribe to any behavior other then the motivation of the bottom line.

Did you know Sam Walton personally? Do you sit on the Board of Directors?

 

[distracted]

It is quite possible to maintain the duty to the bottom line and also be considerate of the common good.

Wal Mart, in my estimation, fails miserably at this.
They follow only the bottom line. Welfare of any individual is not a consideration beyond PR.
Working for them proved this beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Thanks for depositing… You past experience, along with your sharing it here, is, to me, worth far more than :twocents:

 

[vz71]

Did you know Sam Walton personally? Do you sit on the Board of Directors?

At what point did knowing someone or serving on a board of directors become requisite to observing and commenting upon the behavior of a company?

 

[vern_humphrey]

At what point did knowing someone or serving on a board of directors become requisite to observing and commenting upon the behavior of a company?

Actually, you commented on motivation, not behavior.

I was the one commenting on behavior – pointing out the many good things they do. You were the one who psychoanalyzed the Board of Directors and found that when they do the right thing, they do it for the wrong reason.

 

[vz71]

That sure comes off as you saying that they are doing a good thing for the wrong (immoral) reasons.

Not to mention the fact that you are ascribing a motivation that you have no way of knowing is a fact or not.

Rather than talk down someone or something for doing what is right for a motivation that you are assigning to them, why not just be happy that they did something good?

I can be happy they did something good. And I am pleased with the outcome.
But I am not going to fool myself into believing that it was done for completely noble reasons.
It was observed earlier on this thread that they have a duty to the bottom line. If this is truly the case, then anything less then the bottom line as a reason for this neglects completely that duty.

Wrong reasons does not necessarily mean immoral reason. It may simply mean amoral. Something I have said (although not in these specific words) over and over.
And as far as not knowing the motivations, one can readily observe the behavior to gain a fairly good understanding.

 

[vz71]

Actually, you commented on motivation, not behavior.

I was the one commenting on behavior – pointing out the many good things they do. You were the one who psychoanalyzed the Board of Directors and found that when they do the right thing, they do it for the wrong reason.

I see.
Perhaps I have misspoke…

But I am left to wonder.
If a company behaves a specific way consistantly over a long period of time, does this not give a fair assessment of motivation?

Also, it is not an analysis of the BOD. It is an analysis of the company. Unless we wish to argue the company as actual extensions of the individuals.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I see.
Perhaps I have misspoke…

But I am left to wonder.
If a company behaves a specific way consistantly over a long period of time, does this not give a fair assessment of motivation?

So when Wal-Mart hires people who would not otherwise be employable, holds down prices, establishes a policy of providing a charitable contribution budget for local managers, sends in survival supplies and equipment (with no extra charge), then we can say there is a streak of altruism and good neighborliness in their motivation.

Also, it is not an analysis of the BOD. It is an analysis of the company. Unless we wish to argue the company as actual extensions of the individuals.

I am at a loss to understand this – the BOD makes the decisions. Absent the BOD and lower management, who makes the decisions – the trucks and warehouses?

If Wal-Mart is motivated, the motivation comes from the BOD.

 

[vz71]

So when Wal-Mart hires people who would not otherwise be employable, holds down prices, establishes a policy of providing a charitable contribution budget for local managers, sends in survival supplies and equipment (with no extra charge), then we can say there is a streak of altruism and good neighborliness in their motivation.

That would be a valid view.
But there are those of us that recognize their duty to the bottom line. And given their persistant work towards it, realize that altruism may not play as big a part in those efforts as PR.
I can bear witness to similar action as you described in this thread being considered.
Said the manager (paraphrasing, I cannot remember the exact words)…Not a move without higher approval; and they generally don’t move unless there is something to be gained.

I am at a loss to understand this – the BOD makes the decisions. Absent the BOD and lower management, who makes the decisions – the trucks and warehouses?
If Wal-Mart is motivated, the motivation comes from the BOD.

My differentiation there is between the individuals on the Board, and the corporate entity itself.
No one individual on the BOD controls the actions of the corporate entity.