Wal*Mart generic drugs plan
Judity
drugs for only $4. This had me again looking at the enclosed bill for
my recent simvastatin 80 mg prescription for 100 tabs from the HMO
Kaiser. Usually a generic had cost me $10, but now it's $20 for
anything over a one month supply because I'm on Medicare. This still
is reasonable for me, especially after I see what the Kaiser retail
price is, $183.25.
Is this really the amount that noninsured people have to pay, or is it
jacked up because it's Kaiser? No wonder people have problems paying
for medication if they are on multiple ones like I am.
Judity
Home of the Gray Dog - written thru Chapter 32
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1131316
If you enjoy reading or writing,
get a free Writing.com account at the link below.
http://judity.Writing.Com/
RaeMorrill
sick, don't need any chronic meds.
Susan Mitchell
touted. It is only a "few" meds not that many, etc. Color me surprised. I
knew there would be a catch.
--
Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
(to reply send to medla...@comcast.net)
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5C0Rg.47708$uH6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
haggis
along with your lisinopril and metformin, you'll also bring those pricey
name-brand prescriptions that run $100 or more a pop--plus, while you're
there, you'll figure you might as well get groceries, have your hair
done, eat at Subway, do your banking, book a cruise, and have your car
serviced. Very insidious place, like falling into a black hole.
jeanne
RaeMorrill
Judity
that
along with your lisinopril and metformin, you'll also bring those
pricey
name-brand prescriptions that run $100 or more a pop--plus, while
you're
there, you'll figure you might as well get groceries, have your hair
done, eat at Subway, do your banking, book a cruise, and have your car
Personally, Jeanne, I think it's an excellent marketing plan, and as a
stockholder I hope it expands from just Florida. Since I'm on both
lisinopril and metformin, I would find Wal*Mart a God send if I
couldn't afford medical insurance. If I also needed the things listed
above, why not stay and shop there? No one would be twisting my arm to
spend my money on anything other than the $4 medications.
Some people are like Oliver Twist and always want more, more, more. It
seems in their minds Wal*Mart can do NOTHING right.
Laura Gibson
me.
Laura
"Susan Mitchell" <medla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5NWdnZoeaNQWConY...@comcast.com...
RaeMorrill
Marsha
> What about their known practices of making people work off the clock?
>
No one can force you to work off the clock, but if it's only 10 or 15
minutes, is that the end of the world? I work off the clock in my
current job, without anyone asking, just because I like to give more
than 100%. It's a work ethics thing. Don't listen to all the union
mantra about Wal*Mart.
Marsha/Ohio
jmorn...@aol.com
Package it anyway you want to. We have all had this discussion before.
There are some of us on here who KNOW Wal-Mat can do no right, and
those who think that Wal-Mart is all about being American and standing
behind our President and closing our eyes to the wrong that they do.
Janice
Marsha
jmorn...@aol.com
Marsha wrote:
> That's not what I said.
I didn't say you did.
Janice
Marsha
In a direct response to my post, although you didn't quote it, you said:
"Package it anyway you want to. We have all had this discussion before.
There are some of us on here who KNOW Wal-Mat can do no right, and
those who think that Wal-Mart is all about being American and standing
behind our President and closing our eyes to the wrong that they do."
IMO, it was a bit of an over reaction. No one said anything about the
President, being American, closing eyes, whatever. It was misleading,
at best, but since you brought politics into the discussion, let's throw
out hyper-partisan (I like that word):
"A hyper-partisan is a person who tailors information to fit a
preconceived political viewpoint. What is actually happening in the
world is not important to these ideological zombies; it's all about
reinforcing their core beliefs. Thus, no matter what President Bush
does for example, he's wrong. There is absolutely nothing the man can do
that would please the hyper-partisans who oppose him. On the opposite
ideological page, Bill and Hillary Clinton are Satan's spawn. They are
evil all day, every day."
Marsha/Ohio
Judity
clock?))
Making them, Rae? Do bosses stand there with a whip forcing them to do
this? I don't think so. I have many relatives who work for Wal*Mart
back in MA and are very happy with their employer. I've never been a
clock watcher or thought too highly of those who are and have often
worked past the time I was expected to go home. This was because I
liked places where I was working and knew they treated me well in
return.
((There are some of us on here who KNOW Wal-Mat can do no right, and
those who think that Wal-Mart is all about being American and standing
behind our President and closing our eyes to the wrong that they do. ))
I'll agree that not all Wal*Mart stores are perfect for everyone, and
there probably are some shitty managers in some stores. However, to
paint all of Wal*Mart with the same brush of disdain that you're doing,
is that in the true American spirit of fairness?
They are like any other business whose main reason for existence is to
make a profit. Otherwise they'd be classified as a nonprofit
organization, wouldn't they? You Wal*Mart bashers know what profit is,
don't you? It's what you do day in and day out, find ways to make
money above and beyond your expenses. Today I've read comments here
against Wal*Mart and Carole of YOG simply because of the way they
handled business.
I'm curious. Let's only consider Wal*Mart. How would you run the
company? Before you answer, remember other stores where you might or
might not have shopped that are either bankrupt, no longer in business,
or not very successful. Does K-Mart ring a bell? Albertsons? Insert
names of companies in your neck of the woods that are fighting to
survive then compare them to Wal*Mart.
Whose employees are taking home a pay check? Whose customers are able
to buy products at a reasonable price and soon will be able to get
their generic medications the same way? Whose shareholders are getting
dividends to help them pay for food, etc.? You want to unionize
Wal*Mart and bring salaries and benefits up to what you consider your
standard of living? Let's see what probably will happen, shall we?
It's happened in other places, so I'm not just blue skying it here.
Okay, prices will inevitably rise at those stores to make up the
difference the store has to pay their employees. If unionized as many
have suggested, people who would have been fired before for
nonperformance will stay now to make customers angry when they find
poor service so that they stop shopping at Wal*Mart and tell their
friends about this. At this point, quarterly dividends will shrink or
become nonexistent so the small shareholders will no longer be able to
afford the higher priced items at Wal*Mart as they can do now.
Who benefits? Well, shucks, golly, gee whiz, the union will with their
dues coming out of the paychecks of Wal*Mart's employees.
jmorn...@aol.com
Judith,
I am not answering your post because for me, it has absolutelly nothing
to do with unions. What happened to the Judith who believed in Ross
Peirot?
Wal-Mart is a cancer on our society and if you really want to know why
I believe this, just reread the past posts.
Janice
RaeMorrill
great work ethic, but that doesn't mean I should work for free just to
be nice to my boss, particularly if it is a multimillion dollar company!
People are afraid to speak up for fear of losing the jobs they need -
so while they can't be forced, they sure can be strong-armed.
RaeMorrill
for any boss - the law says you're to be paid for time worked, why is it
okay?
RaeMorrill
their jobs desperately may be afraid to stand up and complain for fear
of retaliation or being fired. IT's like the workers are somehow to
blame here and that is just wrong.
RaeMorrill
employees fairly. I've stopped going to establishments where the boss
was nasty to his help. There's not need for it.
Marsha
> I guess I just can't get my mind around why anyone should work for free
> for any boss - the law says you're to be paid for time worked, why is it
> okay?
Rae,
As Judity and I said, no one is forcing them to do it. Some may be
under the impression that they would get fired or have some retribution
against them, but if these employees don't want to do it, then they
shouldn't. AFAIAC, there are more important things in life than whining
about a few minutes, even if it is a law. I think it's also important
to not think that every Wal*Mart is the same, because they aren't.
That's like saying every black man is a pimp. Stereotypes are very bad.
Marsha/Ohio
jmorn...@aol.com
Marsha wrote:
I think it's also important
> to not think that every Wal*Mart is the same, because they aren't.
In what way? If the corporate policy is a cancer, who do the
individual stores differ?
> That's like saying every black man is a pimp. Stereotypes are very bad.
Is this like saying Nazi? You win.
Janice
Judity
why
I believe this, just reread the past posts. ))
I have read past posts filled with statements from people who do NOT
work or ever have worked for Wal*Mart and probably don't know first
hand anything about people who do work for the company. I do and they
are happy with Wal*Mart, but evidently that isn't important. Keep
reading articles to get your facts about Wal*Mart since we all know
everything in print has to be true.
A cancer on our society? Okay, if you think this, that's fine. Since
some of you have opinions about Wal*Mart that are so different from
mine, I'm letting it go at that because no one's mind is going to be
changed here. You have had your say while I've had mine. I don't see
evil in this company, just a place that is giving jobs to people who
want them.
As far as Ross Perot goes, he is a hero of mine, true, for many
reasons. However, when he ran EDS while I worked there, he was also a
shrewd businessman. How else could he build $1000 into such a
successful company? Because so many of his people work long hours past
the time they could go home, is or was EDS a bad company to work for?
Because EDS had very strict rules where you could get fired for certain
infractions, isn't that what Wal*Mart is being castigated for at times?
With Wal*Mart, Janice, I mentioned unions only because articles I've
read seem to have people pushing for them. Some people, by the way,
who don't even work for the company. Since it's in print, as I said
above, it must be true.
It seems Wal*Mart is damned if it does something bad and doubled damned
if it tries to do something good. Okay, I've had my say after holding
it in for months and am now going back to my writing. Oh, maybe I'll go
by my local Wal*Mart tomorrow where I'm treated like a valued customer.
Judity
Marsha
> Marsha wrote:
> I think it's also important to not think that every Wal*Mart is the same, because they aren't.
>>That's like saying every black man is a pimp. Stereotypes are very bad.
>
>
> Is this like saying Nazi? You win.
>
> Janice
>
It's not a contest, Janice.
Marsha/Ohio
RaeMorrill
term. I would do a lot of thing I am "against" if my job dependened on
it, i.e., if they said you have to work 15 minutes a day free, and I had
no skills and no understanding of labor law, I probably would. That's
whhat makes me sick - that people who are otherwise kind and sensitive
believe this is a choice.
Second, you got that right - our WM here locally SUCKS. How often you go
in and despite long lines, there are only a few (inadequate number) of
registers open. Yet, when we are at the WM near our home in VA it is
ususually well staffed with enough lanes open.
Judging people on "choosing" to work under these conditions is like
judging an abused woman.
RaeMorrill
I admire you for refusing to shop at WM. I confess to doing so at times.
Of course that is THE closest store of that nature by many miles. If
there was a Target I'd go there first.
RaeMorrill
who don't live up to his standards, i.e, should someone cohabitate with
someone not married to. That changes my opinion. I do not believe any
company should be worried about what you do on your own time,
particularly in activities that have no bearing on your work. It's no
different than saying, Sorry, you're not Catholic (Jewish, Buddhist, or
whatever).
If there are cases on record of WM's being charged in work-related law
breaking - working OT w/o pay - that's not just one person or a few
being happy or not happy.
I have a stellar work ethic. That doesn't mean I should not expect to
be paid for every minute I'm on the clock! That doesn't mean I applaud
those who are in the line at the time clock 10 minutes early.
Marsha
> First, it makes me so sad to hear people say this. "Force" is a relative
> term. I would do a lot of thing I am "against" if my job dependened on
> it, i.e., if they said you have to work 15 minutes a day free, and I had
> no skills and no understanding of labor law, I probably would. That's
> whhat makes me sick - that people who are otherwise kind and sensitive
> believe this is a choice.
>
> Second, you got that right - our WM here locally SUCKS. How often you go
> in and despite long lines, there are only a few (inadequate number) of
> registers open. Yet, when we are at the WM near our home in VA it is
> ususually well staffed with enough lanes open.
>
> Judging people on "choosing" to work under these conditions is like
> judging an abused woman.
Do you really think WalMart has absolutely no redeeming qualities? Why
is it that only the supposedly bad things about them gets in the news?
I really don't want to think that all the bad publicity is being done by
unions, just because they haven't been able to get in there - yet. When
WalMart built three stores in our area, it took a lot of people off the
welfare and unemployment roles and gave them some self respect. I find
their employees courteous and helpful. The stores are clean and well
stocked. It's a competitive market, as we transcriptionists should
know, and they have to fill a need, competitively.
Marsha/Ohio
RaeMorrill
forget who now - I believe claimed to have known the Waltons or their
family had - and that Sam would be spinning in his grave.
I do not think that EVER there is justification for taking advantage of
people. Whether or not it is a function of individual stores or managers
doesn't matter. Was it Truman who said "The buck stops here."? If this
kind of employee treatment is going on, a decent company would bring it
to a screeching halt. Most of us here are probably a bit smarter than
the average bear. We don't all have degree but we have brains. Not all
of these folks know how to make a choice to bring justice for
themselves. THey need to feed their families.
It makes me sad to think that apparently folks with label "Republican"
cotton to this because it is good for business.
jmorn...@aol.com
RaeMorrill wrote:
> Please don't hold back, Janice. Tell us what you really think.
>
> I admire you for refusing to shop at WM. I confess to doing so at times.
> Of course that is THE closest store of that nature by many miles. If
> there was a Target I'd go there first.
>
Actually I was in Walmart myself this afternoon. I had to drive Nina
there, and then I had to walk her in to make sure that she got in a
riding cart before I could go back to the car.
And to answer you Maureen, No, I don't think Wal-Mart has any redeeming
qualities.
Just thought I better admit to being inside a Wal-Mart and today of all
days in case Big Brother caught me and I wouldn't want to lie.
Janice
Phyllis Nilsson
nothing but good things to say about the Waltons and the amount of money
they give to the towns in the way of education, parks, you name it. Seems
to me those who really know are the ones from whom you get the real scoop.
No one is forcing anyone to shop to Wal*Mart. If they don't like it they
can shop elsewhere and should quit complaining about things they
only "hear" about.
Marsha wrote:
> Do you really think WalMart has absolutely no redeeming qualities? Why
> is it that only the supposedly bad things about them gets in the news?
>
> Marsha/Ohio
--
Toledo,Ohio
Maureen Galvin
Maureen
<jmorn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159073107....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
jmorn...@aol.com
Maureen Galvin wrote:
> Hey now, do not bring me into this LOL :) It was Marsha, Marsha, Marsha
>
Maureen,
I most humbly apologize for using the wrong name.
Janice
jmorn...@aol.com
Phyllis Nilsson wrote:
If they don't like it they
> can shop elsewhere and should quit complaining about things they
> only "hear" about.
How silly Phyllis. Is this one of those where I am just supposed to do
what you say, not do what you do?
Janice
Maureen Galvin
Maureen, whose mother was Marcia, but that's as far as the resemblance goes.
<jmorn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159077173.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
jmorn...@aol.com
Maureen Galvin wrote:
> I was kidding :)
>
> Maureen, whose mother was Marcia, but that's as far as the resemblance goes.
>
I knew you were, but the minute I pushed post on the first one, I knew
it was wrong. Couldn't edit, so just had to wait to apologize.
Janice
Susan Mitchell
were personal friends. This is not Sam's Walmat by any means. He paid his
employees better than they are now. He paid for their education, medical
benefits, etc. When her husband got cancer he kept Randy on the payroll and
paid all of his cancer care, put her daughter through college if she wanted,
and took care of Bev and Randy had excellent package when he died that left
Bev and her daughter very comfortable. This absolutely is not his Walmat.
Bev cannot set foot in it as it makes her sick. Sam wanted only made in USA
products in his store. He would be sick that now 88% of their products are
from China. That would break his heart, but most of all the treatment of
the employees would make him sick. In Washington State they are encouraged
to go on state aid for healthcare so everyone who shops there is just stupid
because they are helping a billion dollar business and that is raising their
own property taxes to help pay for their employees health care. How stupid
is that. In our city Lakewood they are getting a Walmat and I am trying to
get the "Big box" store law passed here that was passed in, I believe
Chicago where in a large store over a certain square feet and certain amount
of income, has to pay their employees at least $10 an hour and 30% of their
health care minimum. I think that is what it was. Sounds good to me!
--
Sue -- Firefighter mom -- Still Rabid UW Dawg Fan!
(to reply send to medla...@comcast.net)
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:U0mRg.47797$uH6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Maureen Galvin
a Wal-Mart in Chicago - they are all over the burbs, but not in Chicago.
Many businesses have left Chicago in favor of the burbs denying the city a
lot in the way of taxes. Some the areas that Wal-Mart wants to build are
extremely financially depressed areas and building them would provide jobs
to the area, as well as the construction of the building, etc. and the
people from these depressed areas would have somewhere to shop as many do
not have transportation and have to shop at the overpriced smaller stores or
travel to the burbs.
My area is waiting for a Lowes to be built in a dead shopping center. They
held off construction until this was worked out and vetoed. Part of the
agreement with the Lowes is that a percentage of jobs will be held to the
people who reside within a certain radius of the store. It sure would help
with a lot of the neighborhood kids who cannot get jobs unless they can
travel out to the burbs also.
However the big box ordinance as it was called and it would raise the local
minimum wage (currently $6.50 an hour) to $9.25 an hour and give workers
$1.50 an hour in benefits at stores of at least 90,000 square feet that are
owned by retailers with $1 billion in sales.
Workers would also get an annual increase under the wage proposal to $10 an
hour by 2010 plus $3 an hour in benefits. The federal minimum wage is $5.15
an hour.
While I would like to see the wages increase, I think it would be better to
make this a federal law or at least a state law rather than a city law that
has already seen the limitation of employers.
Where I live, I am within 4 to 8 blocks of 4 different burbs. I grocery
shop in the burbs, do my other shopping in the burbs, buy my gas in the
burbs, etc. With the exception of the gas, the only reason I shop in the
burbs is because of limiting choices and the fact that I have to travel
further into the city than I do to leave it.
I do not think there is a perfect answer to this problem, but I do think had
the Mayor not vetoed it, we would have lost quite a bit of business.
Of course all things in perspective, Chicago was the first city to ban foie
gras so go figure.....
Maureen
"Susan Mitchell" <medla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Yr2dnYtuvb33uovY...@comcast.com...
Romy
Regarding the pharmacy issue, my daughter had a very unpleasant
experience with WalMart. She got a prescription and was unable to fill
it because no chain pharmacies had it in stock. She called around to
half a dozen places before she called WalMart, who told her they DID
have it in stock. So she drives down there (20 minutes), and they took
her prescription, telling her to come back in half an hour. When she
came back they told her they didn't have it after all, and she'd have
to come back in a few days, they could order it. Because this was
finals week for my daughter, to say she was livid would be an
understatement. To say they treat their customers well would be I
suppose only if you don't have any issues, such as problems with a
purchase. There are a lot of these no-customer-service stories, but I
thought I'd relate mine here because it directly relates to the
pharmacy. What do they expect all those new pharmacy customers to do
while they wait for their $4 generic prescrptions? Go and come back or
browse the store. WalMart tries hard to put the face of altruism on
what they do but really it's all about $$$ for Bentonville and nobody
else.
Judity Wrote:
>
>
> It seems Wal*Mart is damned if it does something bad and doubled
> damned
> if it tries to do something good.
>
> Judity
--
Romy
Judity
people
who don't live up to his standards, i.e, should someone cohabitate with
someone not married to.))
I never heard of that, but I wouldn't be at all surprised. He had
strict rules for his employees, all of us, and not just the worker
bees. It was his company, and he had the right to hire only those
people he wanted to work for him and fire those who broke his rules.
As far as some married person sleeping around, I can see how this might
affect their job performance, especially if it was another EDS person.
>From what I've read, Ross Perot is a very moral churchgoing man who is
extremely family oriented. He wanted his company to reflect the type
of man he is, and I see nothing wrong in that.
When I was hired back in the mid 1970s, it was very hard to get into
EDS. The interview phase was rigorous, and the motto of the company
was "Eagles don't flock, you have to find them one at a time." With so
many people wanting to work for this company, he was able to pick and
choose the type of person he wanted to work for him. Again, I see
nothing wrong with that. Don't MTSOs pretty much do the same thing?
One of his rules was no drinking during working hours and at least two
hours before coming to work. There was a story of a high-level
executive getting a promotion, and after work he and some of the other
EDS people went out for drinks to celebrate. For some reason, he was
called back to work to fix something. It was noted he had been
drinking, and he was fired on the spot. This wasn't a clerk or someone
else at the bottom of the working heap but an executive who had worked
for him for quite some time. He broke a rule; he was fired. Simple as
that! I found this very reassuring to be working for someone who
treated everyone equally and didn't just talk about rules but enforced
them. What is that saying? He talked the talk, and he walked the walk.
This was just one of many reasons I admired the man and still do.
On the upside of EDS, a person didn't get by with yearly raises,
slacking off or goldbricking on the job, doing just the barest minimum
to get the job done. It was expected of us to be exceptional with
raises and promotions given on merit alone. Also, just because you got
a promotion didn't automatically mean a raise. You had to prove
yourself in your new job first.
One year, I got three raises and was told I resembled a walking IBM
manual. After my eight hours were over, I'd grab a manual and start
reading it or sign up for and attend classes EDS offered the OPDs
(fancy name for computer operators), this while I was still a clerk and
not really having to take them. Every time an evaluation came up, I'd
write under both short and long term goals, "I will be a programmer."
Not, "I want to be a programmer, but I WILL be a programmer." The head
of the San Francisco branch once told me that the odds against my ever
becoming an SE were astronomical. An SE is what a programer was called
in this company, system engineer.
I don't think in many other companies would I have been given the
opportunities to reach beyond my lowly status of clerk to go from that
to OPD, to create the new position of SE librarian, and finally to SE
on the American President Lines account.
If Ross Perot wanted to have only employees he felt comfortable working
with, all I can say is, "More companies should be like EDS."
Judity
what they do but really it's all about $$$ for Bentonville and nobody
And your point is? Because one person at one Wal*Mart made a mistake
thinking a certain medication was in stock, this means every Wal*Mart
is the devil incarnate? Of course Wal*Mart is about making money; why
should that surprise anyone? It's a business as I stated earlier, not a
nonprofit organization. Wal*Mart started the ball rolling with Target
now following. What are some of the bigger stores doing to help the
poor of this country? Think about it. Sorry, time's up!
If people come in wanting expensive medications for only $4, there is
nothing wrong in waiting for it. I used to have long waits for my
medications to be filled at the Kaiser Pharmacy before I opted for
getting them by mail. At least at the Wal*Mart, people aren't bored
sitting in a crowded cramped department but can relax and combine their
visit with some necessary shopping. There is no one forcing them to
buy anything if they don't want to, however. For those with no will
power to keep their money in their wallets while waiting, why shouldn't
it be spent at Wal*Mart where prices are often lower? To me, it sounds
like a win-win situation.
RaeMorrill
Rae <who has a sister named Marsha>
RaeMorrill
certain people get told what a big problem for society certain "sinful"
things are, but never experienced any problem with the "sinners"
personally, but still need to try to fix the problem?
I've only heard about starving orphans in refugee camps in other
countries, so obviously it really isn't a problem and I shouldn't worry
about it because I haven't seen it.
PS: Not saying certain big businesses are as bad as any other specific
situation, the point is that just because one hears something (over and
over) doesn't mean they should presume it's not true.
Sandi
"Judity" <Judi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159108999.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I find that story very disturbing. I suppose the executive who was called
back to work should have simply refused to go. Firing someone for drinking
before they come to work is one thing. Firing someone for drinking after
work and daring to be responsible enough to return to work on their own time
is something altogether different.
Phyllis Nilsson
do? It doesn't hurt the store, it doesn't hurt the family, and it makes
those who repeat things they've only heard and not seen seem silly.
jmorn...@aol.com wrote:
--
Toledo,Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
(if you never watch the news), but you aren't here complaining about them
either . . . are you?
RaeMorrill wrote:
--
Toledo,Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
Don't know about other states, but here no employer has to provide health
care to any employee. Of course, if they give it to the big shots, they
have to give it to everyone, but there is no law stating someone in
business has to provide health care.
Susan Mitchell wrote:
--
Toledo,Ohio
jmorn...@aol.com
Phyllis Nilsson wrote:
> You can do whatever suits you, but what purpose does carping about Wal*Mart
> do? It doesn't hurt the store, it doesn't hurt the family, and it makes
> those who repeat things they've only heard and not seen seem silly.
>
Phyllis,
Being anti-Wal-Mart is practicing my religion. I don't tell you not to
practcice your religion when you want drugs not to be available in
pharmacies do I.
If you think me pointing our my convictions makes me look silly, I sure
hope that you have all the mirrors and windows in your house covered.
Janice
kath...@comcast.net
drinking AFTER WORK - not against "the rules". So, I guess you could
never have a drink because you just might be called in to work, and
then get fired.
Kathy
kath...@comcast.net
Wal*Mart on this newsgroup I did some research. I won't shop there now.
Of course it helps that I simply don't like their stores anyway.
Kathy
kath...@comcast.net
business has to provide health care.
Well, there is in Oregon. If you have over X-number of employees you
must provide health care benefits.
Kathy
Judity
called
back to work should have simply refused to go. Firing someone for
drinking
before they come to work is one thing. Firing someone for drinking
after
work and daring to be responsible enough to return to work on their own
time
I see. If you work for a company that has a certain set of rules, it's
okay to ignore some. Interesting.
Yes, the executive should have refused to go back to the office until
the two hours to sober up had ended. Do you really think it would be
responsible to work on expensive data processing equipment or accounts
where millions of dollars are involved after a person has been
drinking?
When I worked at another company, namely Bank of America, I actually
saw this happen until the person was finally caught and fired. One guy
who did data entry would go out at lunchtime to have a couple drinks or
smoke marijuana, and the rest of us had to do the verification of that
work in the afternoon. Even one drink can affect one's ability to do
good work, and Ross Perot only wanted the best from his employees at
all times to give the best to his customers. Therefore, there was the
rule about no drinking for two hours before working.
Sandi, and Kathy, next time you looked at a bank statement or hospital
record, do you really want someone who had even a couple drinks (and
this executive I heard had way more than a couple in his celebration)
handling your account? I sure wouldn't.
kath...@comcast.net
work, absolutely I agree. If he could have just said, "I've had a
drink, can you get someone else or wait for two hours" that would have
been fine. I got the impression from your post that he was required to
return to work or else face some disciplinary action for not doing so.
If that is not the case, I misunderstood.
Kathy
Judity
repercussions to him for following the rule and waiting two hours.
In fact, after having worked all day and coming home to have a couple
drinks to unwind, I did exactly that once or twice.
When I became an SE, I was on call 24/7 and often got calls to come
back to work to fix a program. First of all, there was no way I would
drive on the 101 freeway for an hour from Sebastopol down to San
Francisco after drinking. Second of all, the rule about not drinking
for two hours was drilled into my head during initial interviews, and I
loved my job too much to risk being fired for a couple drinks.
So, no, there would have been no repercussions for waiting until the
two hour limit was reached before he returned. He was either too drunk
to care or thought he was too high in the food chain for it to pertain
to him.
RaeMorrill
could go. Living with someone you're not married to is no more
distracting than being married to someone with whom you fight constantly.
Imagine now, if he belonged to PETA and felt animals should not be pets.
Would you agree he could fire you for having pets? Where is the line
drawn? Married to someone of a different race and they don't approve, so
they can fire you? Belong to a different belief system? What about if
they don't like overweight people and think supermodel size is appropriate?
That's also apparently unconstitutional. Someone in SC or NC was fired
for living with a guy and she got her job back.
RaeMorrill
all. It is a far different thing to drink and go to work on your regular
shift, but if you're off and not on call and you had a drink or two -
not enough to put you over limit to drive of course - it would be really
bad taste for an employer to fire you even if drinking on the job was
against the rules.
RaeMorrill
drinking in your time off and then going in after hours (presuming he
wasn't on some kind of call schedule). I can function quite well with a
little alcohol on board. Heck I used to play one of those video games at
the place we used to hang out and get to quite high levels with way
too much alcohol on board. Lots of eye-hand coordination in that. Was
this guy soused or just had a drink or two?
haggis
once thought to call her in triplicate. Guess we never were a real
Brady-type family.
jeanne
(middle child, but very not-Jan)
Judity
pets.
Would you agree he could fire you for having pets? Where is the line
drawn? Married to someone of a different race and they don't approve,
so
they can fire you? Belong to a different belief system? What about if
they don't like overweight people and think supermodel size is
Rae, I don't mean to offend you or anyone else here, but I think you're
missing the point.
The rules he had didn't come to us out of the blue. Before we were
hired, they were spelled out to us very clearly. If he belonged to
PETA, I wouldn't have agreed to work for him. Married to someone of a
different race, different belief system, etc.? These would have told
to us IN WRITING before signing the final hiring agreement papers. You
and the others seem to think the rules were sprung on us after we'd
already agreed to work for him. Not true.
I have turned down excellent job offers many times for things that I
didn't like about the company or agree with on a personal level.
Everyone Ross Perot hired had the same option. You might think you can
work at top performance after drinking, but many people can't. I know
I couldn't. Therefore, the rule was for everyone since the management
couldn't know who would put the projects at risk. Someone didn't like
the no adultery rule of EDS? Fine, look for employment at another
company where the owner has a different moral code.
This will be my last post about Wal*Mart or EDS since I can see too
many people here, myself included, are firm in their opinions, and
feelings might get hurt.
RaeMorrill
fired if you don't stop smoking.
I simply find an employer who tries to run your personal life very
distasteful - it's offensive. All they should care about when hiring me
or anyone else is if I can do the job. IF my personal life, whatever tha
may be, interferes with my work and my performance suffers, then I
should be let go. Simple as that. My boss isn't my father.
Phyllis Nilsson
as long as it isn't illegal. The employee has the right to work elsewhere.
There is no constitutional right to not be offended. Work rules change all
the time after people are hired. All of life changes and work rules are no
different. If we don't like the rules, we can work elsewhere.
RaeMorrill wrote:
--
Toledo,Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
call, hourly workers only sometimes or never.
Phyllis Nilsson
They're still going strong, they still make money, they're still building
stores. Exactly how did the lack of your sales hurt them?
Anne Vasquez
jmorn...@aol.com
Phyllis Nilsson wrote:
> No, but the owner of a business has the right to run it the way he sees fit
> as long as it isn't illegal. The employee has the right to work elsewhere.
Interesting Phyllis because you seem to think that businesses doesn't
have the right to sell the morning-after pill because it goes against
your religious beliefs. Also when other posted suggested that a
compromised pharmacist go elsewhere to work you felt that was wrong.
What a hypocrite you are, but then again you must already know that.
Janice
jmorn...@aol.com
Phyllis Nilsson wrote:
> Do you really believe the money they lost from your sales hurt them?
> They're still going strong, they still make money, they're still building
> stores. Exactly how did the lack of your sales hurt them?
>
Well it would appear that some people have listened to the call and
quit shopping there. The lack of my sales may not hurt them, but I am
able to sleep at night knowing that I am not participation in this sin
of my conscience.
Janice
Phyllis Nilsson
conscience, and no one should be forced to aid and abet. Drinking isn't
a "right", neither is living with someone out of wedlock, neither is buying
a particular drug from a particular person.
jmorn...@aol.com wrote:
--
Toledo,Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
in the sale and dispensing of certain drugs some here would like them to be
forced to sell.
jmorn...@aol.com wrote:
> I am
> able to sleep at night knowing that I am not participation in this sin
> of my conscience.
>
> Janice
--
Toledo,Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
RaeMorrill
core, I can't not hire you because of it- it's called religious
discrimination. I believe it is wrong, I believe it is against the book
you claim holy, but I can't use it not to hire you - even though it's
against God's word in my belief.
So, it comes down to, people can discriminate BECAUSE of their beliefs,
but people cannot be discriminated against for their beliefs - except
when those beliefs discriminate against a certain group's beliefs.
I am not pro-union by a long shot. My DH was union and finally took his
chance out because he does have a work ethic. HOwever, sad to say, if
there were no unions (ever) there'd be a lot of dead workers because
companies wouldn't feel the need to protect them. Asbestos? So what,
it's not me in that workplace. I could go on and on. Only because of
unions did this kind of practice come to a halt w/o ramifications.
Unfortunately, IMHO, they went too far.
kath...@comcast.net
call,
uh... NO, they're not.
Kathy
RaeMorrill
Sure he puts in a time sheet, but he's basically on salary. Good
company. Means he gets comp time if he's in "off the clock." He's not
expected to be on call 24/7 in that manner. Now and then he comps time
off and comes home early, but still needs to be available "just in
case." During those time periods he will not have even "a beer" even
though for a man his size one beer would have no impact on his legal
drinking limit to drive or to perform.
Of course people of your mindset would like to see no one drink anything
ever, so this punishment would be just - even though the poor bastard
was probably trying to do his best
kath...@comcast.net
Sorry, doesn't fly with me. Ever hear the tale of the starfish?
Kathy
RaeMorrill
person after person gets disgusted enough to avoid them. It may take
time but in time it will lead to a collapse of their monopoly.
Like I said, DH and I have stopped going to an establishment that
mistreated its employees. It was a restaurant we were regulars at for
year, probalby helped keep them going in the beginning. Finally sold it,
to a jack ass. He yelled and swore at his help (some of them we
considered friends) in earshot of his customers. We stopped going. It
took a while but eventually the asshole went out of business and I say
good riddance.
RaeMorrill
them and no answer. Call again. No call back. HOw many times have we
tried to get a contractor here to do something. No call back or if they
call back they don't show. If they show up they don't follow through. I
guess they think they have enough business it doesn't matter. Well, as a
small business person, I know sometimes one is too busy, but GOOD GRIEF
- call the person back and thank them for the inquiry and tell them
you're sorry, but you have no time and likely will not until
(whenever). Sooner or later people who run a business, large or small,
like the customer is not important, will go out of business!
RaeMorrill
RaeMorrill
business where the job requirement requires it (by dispensing legal
substances). Living with anyone you want IS a constitutional right!
SOrry - happend already. If you think not, then ask the courts why they
are not pursuing it. Oh, could it be that the cops, lawyers, judges,
representatives, senators (both state and local) are involved in this
"sinful behavior" and it is not being prosecuted. You can't pick and
choose who you want to "go down" for a sin.
RaeMorrill
her to work or shop there is she? What was that post you just put up a
few hours ago? Hmmmm
RaeMorrill
greed. Trying to get vendors to "cheapen" products so they can sell it
cheaper wont' fly for long
kath...@comcast.net
Really? And just how do you know that? You in on the Wal*Mart BOD?
Maybe they *have* noticed, and just haven't informed you yet.
Kathy
Sandi
screwdriver. Right?
Sandi
"Judity" <Judi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159119414....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Phyllis Nilsson
weren't, you wouldn't have to hire anyone of any particular faith that you
didn't want to. Remember, I said employers could hire (or not) whom they
wanted to as long as it was legal.
RaeMorrill wrote:
> Yeah, exactly, Phyllis, but though your belief system offends me to the
> core, I can't not hire you because of it- it's called religious
> discrimination..
I agree with you about the unions. I know they had an important place in
our working society. Not long ago they had a documentary about the strike
here in Toledo about 1930 (I think). The violence was terrible. Not to
far from here there was a problem with beryllium (sp?). No union helped
those workers in a way that could have saved some of their lungs.
Phyllis Nilsson
you to shop there, and I'm sure they don't care whether you do.
jmorn...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Phyllis Nilsson wrote:
>> You can do whatever suits you, but what purpose does carping about
>> Wal*Mart
>> do? It doesn't hurt the store, it doesn't hurt the family, and it makes
>> those who repeat things they've only heard and not seen seem silly.
>>
>
> Phyllis,
>
> Being anti-Wal-Mart is practicing my religion. I don't tell you not to
> practcice your religion when you want drugs not to be available in
> pharmacies do I.
>
> If you think me pointing our my convictions makes me look silly, I sure
> hope that you have all the mirrors and windows in your house covered.
>
> Janice
--
Toledo,Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
things to say about the company, even in private. If they don't like the
practices, they're certainly hiding it well. Wal*Mart isn't the only place
to work in *any* town. If the pay is lousy, if they have to work off the
clock, if they don't get good health insurance, then it is no better than
working somewhere else so why wouldn't they work somewhere else? Wal*Mart
is *never* the only place in town that hires.
RaeMorrill wrote:
> When people are at work they are to be paid - by law. I think I have a
> great work ethic, but that doesn't mean I should work for free just to
> be nice to my boss, particularly if it is a multimillion dollar company!
> People are afraid to speak up for fear of losing the jobs they need -
> so while they can't be forced, they sure can be strong-armed.
>
>
>
> Marsha wrote:
>> RaeMorrill wrote:
>>
>>> What about their known practices of making people work off the clock?
>>>
>>
>> No one can force you to work off the clock, but if it's only 10 or 15
>> minutes, is that the end of the world? I work off the clock in my
>> current job, without anyone asking, just because I like to give more
>> than 100%. It's a work ethics thing. Don't listen to all the union
>> mantra about Wal*Mart.
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>>
--
Toledo,Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
pay less because of "group discounts" (they provide more people so they pay
less).
Judity wrote:
> Wal*Mart is starting their program in Florida offering some generic
> drugs for only $4. This had me again looking at the enclosed bill for
> my recent simvastatin 80 mg prescription for 100 tabs from the HMO
> Kaiser. Usually a generic had cost me $10, but now it's $20 for
> anything over a one month supply because I'm on Medicare. This still
> is reasonable for me, especially after I see what the Kaiser retail
> price is, $183.25.
>
> Is this really the amount that noninsured people have to pay, or is it
> jacked up because it's Kaiser? No wonder people have problems paying
> for medication if they are on multiple ones like I am.
>
> Judity
> Home of the Gray Dog - written thru Chapter 32
> http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1131316
> If you enjoy reading or writing,
> get a free Writing.com account at the link below.
> http://judity.Writing.Com/
--
Toledo,Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
in the Constitution where it says you can live with anyone you want to.
It isn't a crime to get health care, but ask those who don't have it, if it
is their constitutional right, why don't they go to court to get it.
RaeMorrill wrote:
> Living with anyone you want IS a constitutional right!
> SOrry - happend already. If you think not, then ask the courts why they
> are not pursuing it. Oh, could it be that the cops, lawyers, judges,
> representatives, senators (both state and local) are involved in this
> "sinful behavior" and it is not being prosecuted. You can't pick and
> choose who you want to "go down" for a sin.
>
>
> Phyllis Nilsson wrote:
>> Not at all. Not wanting to help someone commit murder is a right of
>> conscience, and no one should be forced to aid and abet. Drinking isn't
>> a "right", neither is living with someone out of wedlock, neither is
>> buying a particular drug from a particular person.
>>
>> jmorn...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Phyllis Nilsson wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, but the owner of a business has the right to run it the way he sees
>>>>fit
>>>>as long as it isn't illegal. The employee has the right to work
>>>>elsewhere.
>>>
>>>Interesting Phyllis because you seem to think that businesses doesn't
>>>have the right to sell the morning-after pill because it goes against
>>>your religious beliefs. Also when other posted suggested that a
>>>compromised pharmacist go elsewhere to work you felt that was wrong.
>>>
>>>What a hypocrite you are, but then again you must already know that.
>>>
>>>Janice
>>
>>
--
Toledo,Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
of an hourly wage) that had set hours and couldn't be called in at any
time.
kath...@comcast.net wrote:
--
Toledo,Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
hourly wage.
I'm not sure why you think you know what I would deem proper "punishment"
for drinking a beer (or if I would deem any punishment necessary at all).
RaeMorrill wrote:
--
Toledo,Ohio
kath...@comcast.net
You think it is "carping" only if not in agreement with you. Janice
didn't bring up the subject, if I remember correctly. She was
responding to a post. I guess we should take a lesson from you and just
remain silent when someone posts something that we don't agree with, as
you always do.
Kathy
Jeannie Wilson
seenews:9dadnXmb848ev4rY...@buckeye-express.com:
> What makes you think he wasn't on call? People on salary are always on
> call, hourly workers only sometimes or never.
Well, at the risk of being accused of attacking you every time you speak
(and those who stated that should kindly notice that I have stayed out of
any Phyllis conversation for quite some time) - Phyllis, that statement is
just plain wrong. Everyone on a salary is not always on call. You are
paid to do a job and the description of that job. Some people who are on
salary are always on call but not all of them. Again, it depends on the
job and the job requirements.
--
If you don't stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of
them!!!
Jeannie Wilson
> Being a manager isn't the same as being paid a yearly salary instead
> of an hourly wage.
My husband is a manager and he is paid a yearly salary and not an hourly
wage. He isn't on call all the time. Just becuase you do not know anyone
who has never been on salary and not on call all the time does not mean
that those circumstances do not exist. I know of MANY people who are paid
a yearly salary for the job as described, yet work a set schedule. Yes, as
anyone in any employee-type relationship wtih a company, there could be
times when they would be called in but that happened more times to me when
I was an hourly employee versus a salaried employee.
Jeannie Wilson
seenews:T3IRg.56074$8j3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
> Not yet. I predict that Walmart will collapse sooner or later from sheer
> greed. Trying to get vendors to "cheapen" products so they can sell it
> cheaper wont' fly for long
I have been hearing on the news here in "leaders" that "Wal-Mart lawaway is
going away". I guess I'll have to record the 6:00 news tonight since I
won't be here and see why they are doing away with layaway.
Jeannie Wilson
seenews:9dadnXib84-QvorY...@buckeye-express.com:
>
> Do you really believe the money they lost from your sales hurt them?
> They're still going strong, they still make money, they're still building
> stores. Exactly how did the lack of your sales hurt them?
The same could be said for people (yourself for example) refusing to go to
a certain pharmacy because they sell the morning after pill. Do you really
think your small amount of sales hurts them? The same could be said for
the pharmacist who goes to another pharmacy because he doesn't want to sell
the morning after pill. Do you really think the stance of one person will
amount to a hill of beans to a company? After all, I am sure there are
many pharmacists just waiting for a job.
RaeMorrill
people I've dealt with are horrible. Don't call back, call back but
don't show up. Farriers, for example, are notorious for this. I had one
here or scheduled four times. Out of those times, at least three he
called at last minute to reschedule. After a while I wasn't buying the
excuses. He apparently just didn't want to drive out here. He may think
I don't matter, but if he keeps it up sooner or later someone else will
come along that operates professionally and they will get all the gravy
work and leave him the horses that bite and kick! Word gets around and
eventually that one person starts to ad up - works the same way in
reverse - if someone does a good job, word gets around - and they get
more business. It might take a lot of "one" people to bring WM or MS
down or at least humble them a little, but sooner or later it will happen
RaeMorrill
beliefs I should be able to refuse to hire you just as you can refuse to
hire a gay person (or at least in some states). You should not be
allowed to discriminate against others because of your religious
beliefs. If you can, then it should be the same for everyone.
RaeMorrill
case where someone was reinstated in a job from which she was fired for
cohabiting because it was unconstitutional. You know they found it
unconstitutional to control what goes on in private bedrooms, married or
unmarried, right? Means sodomy laws will no longer hold up. Already
happened. I imagine it is same thing.
RaeMorrill
and so that invalidates anyone who has had the opposite experience, yet
the fact that YOU don't know anyone on salary that is not expected to be
on call at any time it must be fact.
I just stated that about my own husband, and I"m probably more familiar
with his working hours and employment terms than you are of your
friends. He is not paid "by the hour." He draws a yearly salary, but whe
he is off he is not required to be available at any moment most of the
time. Sometimes he needs to be available, but it's rare. He works a set
schedule, and while he does have to go in for meetings at times, etc.,
he is allowed to comp the time whenever he wants - long as he has
coverage - for the most part.
RaeMorrill
new salary is X thousand.