WalMart redux

Page 3 of 5  

You are of course assuming the dumb ass mgr would know what a purchase order LOOKED like. Ever consider that the local store can only accept cash check or credit card. ? It might be easier to log on to the St, petersburg times and read the story as the paper reported it. Someone mentioned attitude in the debate here. Now tell me what your attitude would be if you company comptroller gave you a company check for $13,500 told you to go to such and such wal-mart and pick up the 520 gift cards, You had Id and this dumb ass mgr hold up the transaction for two hrs and you even try to get the check back and you even call your company and tell them what is going on. Now what would you do. You honest has been challenged. Your integrity too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Say what? This is a frigging Wal-Mart, not a machine shop. It's a low to lower quality retail store, not some office supplies outfit. I would assume that the check was issued by GAF's appropriate department. You do NOT mail checks to a retail store unless it's a mail order store. No mention was made of a PO, so I have no idea if one was involved. Delivering a check in person is how we buy at retail stores. It is how probably 50% of Wal-Mart customers buy. The only discordant note here was the size of the check. The product had been ordered and printed for the particular employees.
You mentioned dress: I do not know how the HR manager was dressed, but in IME, HR types tend to dress up a bit more than other corporate employees, some of them being almost as natty as Don Guillard at Woodcraft.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 09:30:04 GMT, "Charles Self"

You're missing my point here Charles. While it is true that most Walmart customers buy via check, it is highly unusual for a *corporation* to issue a check to an individual to go purchase something. Corporations just don't work that way. When I buy something for work, I do it in one of three ways, 1) Tell the admin what I want and she handles all the appropriate orders and paperwork. :-) That's my preferred method, but sometimes circumstances like time or other issues don't let me use that method. 2) Go through one of our buyers who will issue a purchase order and obtain the item or 3) Use a company-issued AMEX card, purchase the item then turn in a receipt for reimbursement. There are no cases of which I am aware that people have actually gotten company checks prior to making a purchase for the purpose of that purchase.

I'm not [by any stretch] trying to make excuses for Walmart here. They bungled this pretty badly. However, I do believe that the circumstances indicated were certainly unusual enough that it is not strange that this situation caused the manager to be suspicious. Especially since it would have been his backside in a sling if he had taken such a large amount and had it truly be a fraudulent transaction. Obviously none of us can see into his thoughts or heart, but I certainly wouldn't go crying racism because of this incident -- the same kind of action could have been taken toward a company employee of any race. Where the manager bungled this was by being so quick to call in the police, it almost smacks of overzealousness with the idea of helping the police capture some notorious criminal rather than insisting that the HR manager return with appropriate company ID.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, if you get a more complete view of the story, it turns out the woman who normally does this particular type of errand, in exactly the same manner, was elsewhere that day. In other words, your idea of who EVERY corporation MUST do something doesn't hold water.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Has anyone ever considered the morons at wal-mart WILL NOT allow a store to accept a PO. Means the store has to mail to corp office , notice that it was not in the normal deposit order. The brains in bentonvill are the ones who screwed this up. They want cash or check. And for the local store not to know who their good loyal customers are is un excusable. And I don't mean the $100 customer. I mean the people who spend 4-5 figure amounts. Are these not the customer you want to protect. Hell they may even want to kiss their ass. Also if the mgr was a thinking man he would maybe have sent someone over to gaf and checked the story out themselves. Hell he had two hrs to screw this up and he took all two hrs. Also do you think a thief would stand there for two hrs. Hell he would grab what was on the counter and took off.But this guy wanted the COMPANY check back or the gift cards. Sounds like you people defending wal-mart would rather have the manager for an employee instead of the gaf employee. Also guess the employees are happy now that they do not have to go to wal-mart. Now how much did wally and the gang loose? I am sure those of you supporting wal-mart will spend a few extra dollars to help the bottom line.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"While that is true, it is also true that the checks issued through purchase orders are issued by the appropriate financial departments of the company issuing the purchase order and generally sent via mail to the financial receiving department of the company with whom the purchase order was placed. In my experience, it would be very unusual for a person to deliver a check in person. "
The check was issued by the company.
Sure, for the average "widgets" a company will send a check. However, when cash or near cash items are involved it is the always the case that a real live human being will deliver payment in person when the transaction involves purchasing items such as this. (Gift cards are like cash) That person will be either a trusted company employee or a bonded messenger. In my 20+ years as a professional financial manager this has ALWAYS been the case. Though I've only seen messengers trusted with securities. Cash or near cash items are always handled by employees. If I were GAF's CFO I would have been damn glad that it was another member of senior management was the one running around with 10k of cash rather than just anyone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

I have to agree. I don't think the article gives the entire story.
As a small business owner, for an order of this size, I would have required that everything related to the purchase was prearranged and approved, including who the authorized person would be that would be picking up the order. It looks like many previous orders were transacted and in this instance the HR manager was a new face. I suspect this had a major impact on what transpired.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That _possibly_ justifies calling the corporate offices to confirm.
There is *NO* excuse for what happened -after- the corporate offices were called, and the check's validity and the bearer's identity were confirmed by corporate.
When the store refused to either produce the ordered gift cards _or_ to return the check, _I_ would have been on the phone to the police, and swearing out a complaint for 'grand theft' against the store manager.
As it is, I hope they nail that manager for 'making a false police report', since said manager *knew* the check was valid/good, having confirmed that with GAF's accounting department by phone. I suspect that his actions meet the legal qualifications for 'actual malice', and he is in *deep* doo-doo, legally. HD, _corporately_, *may* be off the hook for precisely that reason -- that it was the manager's malice, not corporate policy that provoked the incident.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes the st pete times reported that the call was made two weeks prior so wally mart could print up the gift cards. All 520 of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SNIPS

You don't know what you are talking about.
There is no requirement to report anything to do with a $ 13,500, or $ 1,350,000 check transaction to the feds.
Ony cash -- currency -- transactions in excess of $ 10,000 from someone ot already a known customer trigger a CTR. (currency transaction report).
Please engage brain before again putting fingers to keyboard.
--
Jim McLaughlin

Reply address is deliberately munged.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The $10 limit has to do with bank deposits/withdraws not with commercial or even private transactions. No, it would not really have been any more prudent to call ahead. Corporations issue checks in the mega buck range on an hourly basis. Though... I'll admit that my first thought when reading Charlie's post was - why didn't GAF cut a PO? That's more the normal process.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wal Mart would not know what to do with a PO. The are just not set up to do business that way, at least on the local store level.
All of our normal business transactions are by PO but if we have a lunch catered, order pizza, or the local snow plow guy, we cut a check as the local stores do not have billing procedures and the cost associated with them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

These things were ordered earlier--pre-printed, remember? It may well be that a PO was issued then.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[sorry episode snipped]

This requirement applies only to -cash- transactions. And it doesn't prohibt the transaction, it only requires that it be reported.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Retailers don't do that reporting. It's a banking function.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self (in snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com) said:
<pathetic story snipped>
The author of one of my favorite business books opined that there were two classes of business, based on their top management norms.
He said that first-raters hired only first-raters who, in turn, used similar standards to hire the remainder of the business' management.
In the other class of businesses, there were second-raters at the top who hired third raters, who then used similar standards to hire the remainder of the business' management.
The really bad news is that it's nearly impossible to upgrade an "other" class business to a "first" class business - and all too easy for a wormy board of directors and/or heir to spoil a top-notch company.
Wal-Mart's problems are unlikely to be limited to the Tampa operation.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3 Dec 2005 12:52:17 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Charlie

A definite injustice was done, but hoping that a city and a corporation get sued for something that an employee of each did to the poor guy is simply NOT the way to fix it, Charlie. The person who called the cops/got the guy arrested and, if warranted, the cop, should be held responsible, not the companies they work for. That's just downright idiotic.
You shouldn't be able to sue a gun manufacturer for something some asshole might have done with a gun in Boston or 'Bama, either.
Shame on you for that type of thinking. Lawsuits hurt EVERYONE! Well, except for the insurance companies and lawyers who all charge their highest rates for the privilege.
Go wash your mind out with soap.
-- Instant Gratification Takes Too Long! ----------------------------------------------- www.diversify.com Non-Instant Web Development
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's stupid and the "right thing" seems like it would be common sense, but it ain't the way civil tort law works. Years ago, I poured over tombs of civil actions for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and false arrest in both state records and on WestLaw - and you wouldn't believe some of the court and jury decisions. You have cases where criminals caught in the act win judgments, but legitimately damaged innocents receive nothing. It's all a big load of crap - and the courts are inconsistent in application and are totally lacking in reasonable common sense.
And in most jurisdictions (around here, anyway) municipalities are immune from any liability in all but the most egregious cases. Few have the resources to pursue a case beyond the local levels where such things are simply "covered-up".
BTW, Sheriff's departments and other law enforcement and fire officials are generally also considered an arm of the court - in these here parts, anyway...
As one judge told me, we are all "Brothers and Sisters of the Bar". Meaning that they cover each others asses to the detriment of yours. And this includes cronies, contributors, and family members.

Guaranteed! Soulless bastards...
Greg G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques (in snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com) said:
| On 3 Dec 2005 12:52:17 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, "Charlie
| || I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's || legal stove with this one, and sues the living shit out of the || deputy and the municipality for which acts as a paid thug. | | A definite injustice was done, but hoping that a city and a | corporation get sued for something that an employee of each | did to the poor guy is simply NOT the way to fix it, Charlie. | The person who called the cops/got the guy arrested and, if | warranted, the cop, should be held responsible, not the companies | they work for. That's just downright idiotic.
Not so idiotic as you might think - a manager 'speaks with the voice of the corporation' (that's how he can hire and fire and direct the conduct of those reporting to him/her). If that manager makes a legal faux pas, the organization that granted him the authority to do so is responsible for his actions.
| You shouldn't be able to sue a gun manufacturer for something some | asshole might have done with a gun in Boston or 'Bama, either.
Unless the shooter was an employee of that manufacturer and encouraged by them to shoot customers as a part of conducting the company's business. :-)
| Shame on you for that type of thinking. Lawsuits hurt EVERYONE! | Well, except for the insurance companies and lawyers who all charge | their highest rates for the privilege.
Except for the "shame on you" part, I agree. Still, Wal-Mart management issued a false felony accusation (is that libel?) and the Tampa PD fielded an inadequately trained/screened officer who preempted judicial powers by assuming guilt without evidence and spoke falsely of that guilt in a public setting (as an official representative of the City of Tampa).
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:34:50 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,

Although that may be the exact legal definition, there is no such tight communication in a large corporation such as Wally World. And unless the corporation approves of and encourages this kind of stunt, no action should be taken against them. The responsibility should lie with the perps, not the companies.

Rightio!
What, you feel that encouraging bad lawsuits should be praised? Encouraging a change in corporate policy may be in order, though.

?
--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.