Will you boycott walmart now?

sharkey said:

...I never allow any store to look at my receipt when I exit. I have even asked if they plan on unlawfully detaining me. I don't think it would be "reasonable" to detain me for refusing to provide my receipt but "reasonable" is always subject to interpretation.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

...IF someone referred to "any store" that has been answered several times quite clearly - continued reference is no less OT than are those posts about religion on this thread.

Click to expand...

The bolding is mine.

Someone did. That expanded the topic in a not unusual and out of line way. I pointed out a case that refuted the "any" store comment.

Moving on.

Grapeshot said:

So what do they accomplish by asking to see your receipt? IMO, nothing other than convincing the uninformed that they are trying to keep losses down this way.... and by providing part time, no benefits low pay, to those in need of work.

Click to expand...

The greeter is not there to stop shoplifters, they are there to provide work for the elderly and handicapped. The policy of greeters to ask for receipts is not to stop shoplifters, but to prevent them.

OC for ME said:

If the store policy is to check your receipt when you exit and it is not done consistently (every customer checked) then you may have a case. If every customer is checked, you may refuse and walk out and they may (will) call a cop and have him detain you until your receipt is checked. Remember, if they check everyone expect to get a cop on you. They, the business, is engaged in theft prevention.

Just because Costco does not check very well does not mean that your case could be made to a LEO.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you say will. My local WalMart only checks in the later hours and Fry's Electronics checks everyone (everyone that complies anyways). None have ever called the cops on me. I always say no and either add "Do I look like a thief to you?" or Do you plan on unlawfully detaining me?".

BTW, in answer to the forum question, no I will not boycott WalMart. They are fine with OC and have decent prices. I understand where they're coming from on the relevant policies as I believe the 98 double killing I mentioned prior is responsible for them. It was foolish and unfortunate of those employees to lose their lives over a TV.

If I was to boycott them it would be more because of my union background than anything else.

I do wish they had better selection though.

utbagpiper said:

Some stores seem to think it does and if they want to implement such a policy do they not have some right to set the terms or conditions on which patrons enter their property?

Click to expand...

Sorry I took this forum off topic but I have to respond.

NO ONE has the right to set the terms or conditions on which I EXIT their property.

When a non-club store "checks" your receipt they aren't really looking to see if the items on the receipt match the items in your cart.

They are marking your receipt with a stamp or pen. They do this to help reduce a common type of theft where someone finds a receipt on the ground or a trashcan in the parking-lot, then they enter the store, grab the same items off the shelf and walk out the door.

When a thief finds a receipt that is marked it is a bit of a deterrent and they may not try to do it. Some stores only mark receipts if you bought a high dollar item especially if you didn't buy a lot of other stuff with it.

How effective this is is debatable.

Me personally sometimes I will show a receipt sometimes I wont, it just depends on my mood and if I am in a hurry that day or not.

sharkey said:

......If I was to boycott them it would be more because of my union background than anything else..........

Click to expand...

That's funny, there willingness to stand up against union pressure and not cave in to the abusive tactics unions use is one of the things I admire them for.

I can honestly say I have felt more abuse, arrogance, harassment, usurpation of rights, from my "union" then I have from any company I have worked for.





EDIT:
After reflecting on my comments above, I realized that they may have come off as an attempt to bait you into an argument.
That is not my intention. I am more just looking for opinions from the "other side" so I can greater understand that point of view.
No disrespect was intended.

sharkey said:

Sorry I took this forum off topic but I have to respond.

NO ONE has the right to set the terms or conditions on which I EXIT their property.

Click to expand...

That has a nice, sound bite or bumper sticker kind of ring to it. But I think it fails the practicality test.

A store certainly has a right to set conditions on you entering their property and those conditions may well include having your receipt and merchandise checked on your way out. Is this a condition on your exiting the property? At the practical level, Yes it is. If you don't like the terms, don't enter.

It seems quite reasonable to me for a business to have some terms for exit that offer some minimum level of deterrence against theft.

I'm pretty sure that most amusement parks will not allow you to get up and leave their property mid-ride, even if it were possible for you to do so without getting killed. You may end up leaving the property. I expect you might find yourself facing some kind of criminal trespassing other charge for climbing down off the roller coaster or other ride rather than waiting for the ride to complete and exiting via the accepted path.

More mundanely, if you choose to exist through emergency only doors, or by breaking a window I would expect you to face some charges and/or civil suit for damages in the absence of some actual emergency the justified not using the normal exits.

Now, does this extend to a regular store being able to detain you for refusing to allow them to check your receipt against the merchandise you are carrying? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But I think a case can be made that if one has merchandise in hand and refuses to provide a receipt that might just be probable cause that a theft is taking place. Whether the statutes in any particular jurisdiction support this, I do not know. I do not believe it would be a violation of your rights, however, if the statutes did support it in at least some cases.

Let's not even consider how demands to exit a commercial airplane sitting on the tarmac with the door closed might be received. Someone else's property; they most decidedly set the conditions upon which you may exit.

That is the problem with sound bites and absolutes: they are so easy to prove demonstrable false in at least some not really very extreme cases. Generally speaking, you have every right to leave an area when you deem fit. But there are enough non-extreme examples to make clear that a wide swath of exceptions do exist.

Again, if a business has policies I find onerous or not to my liking, I will voluntarily take my business elsewhere. I do not believe I have any natural right to force anyone to associate with me contrary to whatever mutually agreeable terms we might set. If we cannot arrive at mutually agreeable terms, the only moral course is to peacefully disassociate leaving each to conduct our private business as we see fit.

Current statutes do not fully respect this principle. And some can make a strong case of the greater good or necessity of such non-discrimination statutes. I don't care to debate those one way or the other. But I defy anyone here to make a case that he has some right to force association contrary to the terms that a business owner is willing to voluntarily accept.

Back directly on topic, no I don't intend to boycott Walmart. I've never had a problem with my gun in a Walmart. I respect how they stand up to union thuggery. And as much as I disagree with the outcome in this particular case, I don't see that their employment policies are particularly worse than another major corporation in this nation today. While their customer service is sub-par, their selection and quality/price point generally make up for it.

I do as much of my grocery shopping as possible at Macey's to reward them for closing on Sunday. I like that option and so do my part to keep that chain in business. I do my bulk shopping at Costco for the prices and convenience. I shop on line a lot. But Walmart fills a need for me and I haven't found a better option.

Charles

Dang it, Charles! There ya go being all logical and stuff again.

utbagpiper said:

But I defy anyone here to make a case that he has some right to force association contrary to the terms that a business owner is willing to voluntarily accept.

Click to expand...

See 4th Amendment U.S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act 1983 as amended to name two.

Grapeshot said:

See 4th Amendment U.S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act 1983 as amended to name two.

Click to expand...

If I may quote myself in full context:

bagpiper said:

Current statutes do not fully respect this principle [of individual rights.] ... But I defy anyone here to make a case that he has some right to force association contrary to the terms that a business owner is willing to voluntarily accept.

Click to expand...

--emphasis added.

The 4th amendment is a limitation on government, NOT on private citizens. Just like the 1st and 2nd amendment. Government cannot constitutionally infringe on your right to worship, speak, publish, or bear arms. But I have every right to deny you the use of my property for any of those reasons if I so choose. Government cannot prevent Heffner and other pornographers from creating and selling their magazines. I have every right to prevent others from bringing those magazines into my home. Government cannot prevent you from praying to whomever you see fit. I don't have to invite you into my property for your worship services. And so it is with the 4th amendment. Government is limited in what it can require you to do. I however, can set pretty much what terms I will for entering my property. You remain free to reject my terms and not enter my property.

The civil rights acts are some of those statutes that do not fully respect pure rights theory. It is application of majority force against an unpopular, minority opinion. Again, I don't care to debate whether it serves a greater good than pure respect for rights, but let's be accurate about what it is. It is force, plain and simple.

If your position is, "I can force association because the majority supports me in doing so" then just say that and be done. But don't pretend you have any natural right to do so. You may have a statutory ability to do so, just as Chicago and DC can and will throw our back sides into jail just for exercising our rights to peacefully possess a self-defense firearm. There is a difference between "ability", "might", or "force", and an actual "right" to do something.

I defy you to point to any recognized aspect of pure rights theory that allows you to force association with another person, a private citizen, on terms he finds disagreeable.

Beyond that, I defy you to point to any statutory language in the civil rights act that allows you to force association based on not wanting to allow a check of receipt and merchandise upon exiting the store. Direct citation welcome. I'm sure there are various local or State statutes, and myriad store policies that support your desire not to submit to a receipt/merchandise check. But I'm fairly certain you won't find any such thing mentioned in any federal civil rights acts. Show me a citation to the contrary and I will have learned something new today.

Now, if a store only wants to check the receipts of black customers, or refuses to do business with Jews, or denies access to the handicapped, that business will find itself sideways with various civil rights acts and the ADA. No doubt. But to check receipts of every customer? Or even a random sampling of customers not based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, etc? I don't think federal civil rights laws are going to prevent that.

I get it. You don't like someone asking to check your receipt. That is fine. You are fully entitled to your opinion in this regard. But let's be clear that it is your opinion. It may be supported by certain local or State statutes that, I contend, would be operating in violation of pure rights theory. I do not believe any federal civil rights statute prevents a store from checking receipts. If it did, it too would be operating in violation of pure rights theory. And maybe that is a greater good. You may believe it is. I would argue that denying a business the practical legal ability to check receipts and merchandise exiting the store imposes an unjust, undue burden on business owners in addition to being a violation of the owner's rights. A majority vote of the correct body (legislative, or public) can make such limits on others' rights legal. I don't believe it can change the fundamental nature of what is or is not a natural right.

It is the misuse of the word "right" that has me bothered. Tell me that no non--membership store (in your city or State) has the statutory ability to require a receipt check and I won't argue with you. Tell me you find such checks offensive and I will offer my contrary opinion, but otherwise not argue; you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. But so long as you assert that a business owner has no "right" to require a receipt/merchandise check I will push back on what is or is not really a "right" as that term was properly understood by those who framed our second amendment.

In failing to properly understand what is or is not a right, we get ourselves all wrapped up in all kinds of false dilemmas. Once we clearly understand what is or is not a right, we can then move forward with some firm footing on principle. There are times when we may deliberately decide to allow majority rule to violate individual rights based on some calculation of the greater good. But we should do so carefully and deliberately, fully understanding what we are doing, rather than deluding ourselves into thinking we are not violating rights. Otherwise we are no different than those who would (or do) use majority vote to violate our RKBA simply because they find that disagreeable.

Charles

I'll leave you with your opinions - you stop and show the nice lady your receipt, and I won't.

Said my piece succinctly, have read your book before. We agree on most things, that is enough.

I'm with you GS. I'll keep my receipt in my pocket.

Taken to the extreme, what next 2A and nukes?

utbagpiper said:

I'm pretty sure that most amusement parks will not allow you to get up and leave their property mid-ride, even if it were possible for you to do so without getting killed. You may end up leaving the property. I expect you might find yourself facing some kind of criminal trespassing other charge for climbing down off the roller coaster or other ride rather than waiting for the ride to complete and exiting via the accepted path.

Click to expand...

Fully expected this one, as much as I expect shouting fire in a crowded theater.

BTW, my existence starts to get too philosophical for this forum.

utbagpiper said:

More mundanely, if you choose to exist through emergency only doors, or by breaking a window I would expect you to face some charges and/or civil suit for damages in the absence of some actual emergency the justified not using the normal exits.

Click to expand...

I find this offensive given the "thuggery" quote. There are good unions and bad unions just like anything else. Considering how well thought out most of your statements are I'm actually shocked you would lump them all together in a blanket statement.

utbagpiper said:

I respect how they stand up to union thuggery.

Click to expand...

I'm not offended by your comment as you refer to a personal experience. My experience with unions have been good. I live in a right to work state and I feel it puts the pressure on them to make the best decisions for the membership. We have freedom to join or not. If they upset us we can leave (granted only on x date of the year, but we have that power).

I don't want to take this thread off topic again (damn, I'm good at that) so I'll just encourage anyone pro, anti, or neutral on the subject to do open minded research on their own what unions have done. There is a lot of history. Some of the history has been violent and corrupt, some has been beneficial to all. It's a lot like government.

END_THE_FED said:

That's funny, there willingness to stand up against union pressure and not cave in to the abusive tactics unions use is one of the things I admire them for.

I can honestly say I have felt more abuse, arrogance, harassment, usurpation of rights, from my "union" then I have from any company I have worked for.





EDIT:
After reflecting on my comments above, I realized that they may have come off as an attempt to bait you into an argument.
That is not my intention. I am more just looking for opinions from the "other side" so I can greater understand that point of view.
No disrespect was intended.

Click to expand...

sharkey said:

............. I live in a right to work state and I feel it puts the pressure on them to make the best decisions for the membership............

Click to expand...

I feel this would solve a lot of the issues I have. The simple freedom to decide if I want to represent myself or delegate that authority to another.

It is rare that I advocate for things to be done on a federal level, but I think we need a Federal "right to work" law. I feel it's is an issue of fundamental rights.

That being said, you are right this is off topic and though this is a valid debate it is better left for another thread.

sharkey said:

I... I'll just encourage anyone pro, anti, or neutral on the subject to do open minded research on their own what unions have done. There is a lot of history. Some of the history has been violent and corrupt, some has been beneficial to all. It's a lot like government.

Click to expand...

I will freely admit that unions had their day. That passed about 40 years ago near as I can tell. With OSHA and other safety regs going too far all by themselves, with minimum wage laws, and easy nationwide communications and travel, modern unions are little more than money funnels to anti-RKBA politicians and a huge parasite on American competitiveness. I've worked for GM. The union is at least as responsible for killing it as is executive level corruption or problems. I've also done work in both right-to-work States and in union States since then. The difference in customer service is night and day.

By and large blue collar workers in non-union areas are good, honorable, hardworking people that I enjoy working with. Union members tend to be a bunch of lazy, entitled thugs. My personal experience.

And as government employees are about the only market segment where union numbers are growing current problems get worse. Even FDR knew it was a terrible idea to allow government employees to unionize. Here in right-to-work Utah we still allow the teachers' union to engage in exclusive bargaining for all teachers. So while teachers can choose not to join the union, they are not allowed to negotiate their own terms of employment. The union gets to negotiate those terms.

Our union supported, excessive child labor laws may make for slightly higher wages for some adults in some sectors. But they make it very difficult for teenagers to get any real work experience. We have a host of social problems as a result. Nobody wants kids back in coal mines or heavy factories. But let's stop pretending that there is some grave harm done if a 14 year old works at a fast food joint later than 9 pm on a school night a couple times a week.

At this point, unions should be routinely investigated for RICO violations and any union motivated attack (including against independent workers who are derided as "scabs") should get the same "hate crime" enhancements as any other bias motivated crime.

The single largest, best funded organization in Utah that consistently attacks my RKBA is the teachers' branch of the teamsters: the deceitfully named "UEA".

So not only is this not off topic, it is directly on topic for a discussion about boycotting.

Walmart may have the same lousy gun policies as almost every other employer these days. But I haven't heard of Walmart spending money or organizing its people to work against my RKBA.

But the Utah teachers' union consistently donates money to anti-RKBA candidates. It consistently opposes pro-RKBA candidates. It is a major force against allowing even free, gun-safety education into Utah public schools. And it routinely uses it organizational power to encourage its members and supporters to attend Utah's republican caucus meetings (regardless of whether those members actually support the GOP) and to help sway the system toward anti-RKBA delegates and candidates.

Walmart has lousy employment policies relative to RKBA. But the unions actively attack my RKBA via the political process.

Now, which one should we really be boycotting?

Charles

sharkey said:

I find this offensive given the "thuggery" quote. There are good unions and bad unions just like anything else. Considering how well thought out most of your statements are I'm actually shocked you would lump them all together in a blanket statement.

Click to expand...

Name the "Good union."

I've worked for GM. I've seen union thuggery. I couldn't move my own computer and desk to a better location in my cube. That was a union job. Never mind it meant having my office shut down for 2 days as a union electrician unplugged the computer. A few hours later a union teleco guy unplugged the network cable. Then the next day the union movers moved the desk. Then the teleco guy returns. And finally the electrician comes back to plug the computer back in.

Or, I stay late one evening and do the whole thing myself in about 10 minutes.

I've seen grown men afraid to drive their wife's foreign car to work lest it be vandalized.

I've seen union workers "accidentally" let a fork lift run away from them and drive through a display booth at a convention because engineers set the booth up themselves rather than waiting for the lazy, slow union workers to do the job.

And year after year at the legislature the Utah teachers' union (and sometimes public employee union) shows up to attack my RKBA.

Musicians' unions in Cali have helped pressure members of my church out of their jobs simply because they donated to support Prop 8.

Again I will challenge you. Name the good union in this nation. Or name the union that has done any material net good anytime in the last 30 years.

Labor unions in this nation are anti-RKBA and anti-freedom. They could not exist in this day and age without massive force from government that requires far too many businesses and taxpayers to associate with those they'd prefer not to.

Find me the union that does not--either directly or at least via association with some national union like the AFL/CIO--donate far more money to anti-RKBA candidates than to pro-RKBA candidates for public office.

No doubt some otherwise decent individuals are members of unions. Some do so out of ignorance. Some do so out of short term self-interest. Many do so because they have no legal choice. Some do so out of fear of reprisal if they do not; they essentially pay protection money to a bunch of thugs.

Name the good union and I'll 10 or 100 that should be outlawed tomorrow as walking violations of RICO.

Charles

Grapeshot said:

I'll leave you with your opinions - you stop and show the nice lady your receipt, and I won't.

Said my piece succinctly, have read your book before. We agree on most things, that is enough.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Charles

My only experience with unions was when I was forced to join one--or be fired. That left a bad taste in my mouth for unions. My impression is that they are anti-Liberty. I can't think of a thing that any union has done to change that impression.

I wouldn't mind the concept of unions if they did not have a monopoly on labor for some industries. Workers should have a choice of which union to belong to (or none) and businesses should be able to dump one union contract in favor of a contract with another union (or have multiple contracts with a selection of unions).

Ain't Liberty and freedom of choice wonderful? Doesn't the lack of choice stink?

This train is already off the rails so what the hell.

Two of my previous employers required variable shifts (we're talking a different start time every day) and 10+ hours of mandatory overtime a week. If it had not been for the rule of double pay after 8 hours we would have lived in those buildings. I paid co-pays for my families health insurance. My first foray into the "real world" cut my pay in half and my insurance cost over $1000 a month. I was not working for a tax-sucking government union, it was private sector. Our stewarts would not go to bat for anyone who was lazy or inept. The problems we had were from the outsourced contractors who didn't have a stake (or future) in the companies. Since they didn't have a pension to worry about and made **** for pay they no loyalty to the companies and would lie their asses off to make a quick buck. The union took pride in our work and the companies financial stability. We were in it for the long run.

I am happy making less money than I used too because I get to spend time with my family. I can finally go my kids schools, watch their plays, and be active in their lives. The ridiculous control from these companies were not because of the union, they were tempered by the union. I find it amazing that most Americans can support themselves with these **** service jobs. Oh wait, they can't, because at companies like Wal Mart most employees are on the government dole for food stamps and health insurance which just bring more fodder to the Democratic machine.

The unions would not be so supportive of the Democrats if the Republicans would work with them instead of against them.

As Eye mentioned, freedom of choice is important. When you can choose your Union you hold them accountable. When your company knows you can unionize it holds them accountable. It would be nice to able to choose which union if any you belong to.

The other problem with unions is there lack of power, not their hold on it. That has more to do with this financial and service economy we're in now. It is actually a lack of American strength as we all sell out to foreign powers. The de-unionization of America has caused my generation to have the lowest buying power since the 50's. You used to be able to support a family on one income (and I still do) but most families need both parents working which shifts child-rearing to the nanny state which encourages more sheeple who are willing to throw their rights down the toilet.

You're well educated Charles and I think you should look at the big picture.

And to further the off-topicness of all of this I don't know where teenagers work anymore. All the jobs I did when I was young (fast food, lawn mowing, etc) are done by illegals! But of course they add to the competitiveness of America so we can compete with a country that manipulates its currency and doesn't have all these regulations.

This right to work state has the same laws for children enrolled in school and unions are quite rare here. I don't think they influenced those laws.

www.ade.state.az.us/.../17ArizonaChildLaborLawsPG120-124RTF.rtf

Did you also know that Americans have the least vacation of any industrialized nation? I had more of that at my union job too but I had to use it all for things like going to the bank or doctor's office.