Pennsylvania Walmart Sued for Videotaping Employees, Customers in Bathroom

I had to think about this one for sometime as to what my opinion is.

Having worked for WalMart at two different stores, I have first hand knowledge of the types of theft that goes on. In one store, there are two areas where the thieves use to dump the packaging for the items they steal. One is aisle 13 where there is a dead zone for the cameras. Every thief knows of this blind spot. The other are the rest rooms. Packaging and 'spiders' are found in the trash all the time. Another contributing factor is the close location to a Game Stop store where items can be dropped off for 'credits'. It is a commonly known fact that Game Stop or others stores of this type are the recipients of stolen merchandise, however there is no way to 'prove' that games, dvd's and cd's are actually stolen. A recent case at one local store, $7,000.00 worth of iPod Touches were stolen. Obviously the thief was not aware that iPods such as these have electronic serial numbers making them useless.

Back to the subject of video cameras in rest rooms. I am not so certain that any customer has an inherent right to privacy when you consider rest rooms are public and people come and go while you are doing your business as it is. As a man, there are other 'men' use the urinal next to me and I do not find that as a lack of privacy. My guess is that the camera in question was pointed at the wash area and showing the trash bin and door. Any other location would not make any sense. Now, if the camera was located in such a place, such as a stall AND the video was viewed in such a way to suggest a nefarious scheme, then yes it would be wrong. The issue is intent.

Given all of the cameras in each store, it is impossible for any one Loss Prevention specialist to monitor each one 24/7. These cameras are monitored when there is probably cause to do so. An example would be, a known shoplifter or a large group of students in the electronics area might be monitored in real time. Another example would be after the fact. Let us say that a spider is found in a bathroom trash bin. The video would then be viewed to show who in fact cut it off the item and threw it away.

Now there are those who would say, WalMart is the biggest retailer in the world and they can afford to loss millions on dollars every year through theft. Well, those losses have to be offset by higher prices for all. Those iPods stolen here comes off that store's bottom line and does not reflect corporate wide thefts. Each store is responsible for it's own profitability. Now since prices are fixed by corporate, how does a store offset the loss? The only way they can, by cutting overhead and that usually means cutting hours. So you see, thefts in stores if over a certain threshold means less hours and very unhappy employees. A $7000.00 loss would equate to the loss of 4 hourly employees for that month. That is 4 employees who have lost their income because some idiot stole items that cannot be resold.

If a camera in a rest room will help stem the tide of theft, I am all for it. I am sure those 4 people who would lose their jobs to make up for it would also agree.

Who loses in the Health Care Reform Bill?

What is truly sad about the new health care bill? The Republican states that chose to say no. To get the needed votes, Democratic senators held the process hostage to get certain things for their states. In one case, Florida this makes for interesting politics. Sen. Nelson got to grandfather in Medicare Plus for Floridians. Florida also has a caretaker Republican senator who we all know will not vote for the bill. Had it not been for Sen. Nelson, Florida would have been left out of the process. Now the question is, when the next election is held for senator in Florida, which Republican will come forth and say they would have voted for Floridians? Probably Charlie Crist will, he's no fool. The thing is, what Republican senator running for election/re-election who refused to be a part of the process can possibly win since they made no effort on behalf of their constituents? The adage that a senator knows best even if it goes against the people who elect them won't hold much water. This bill would have been much better had the Republicans taken part in the process rather than being obstructionists. Even in the committee's when Republicans offered suggestions that they wanted, no one voted for the bill.

The big losers are the folks who have Republican senators that failed in their responsibility to work for the public good and to their constituents needs. By voting no and not being a part of the process because they do not want Mr. Obama to succeed is a terrible legacy to leave thier voters.

This process has be filled with hatred and tremendous animosity against a President who is fulfilling his campaign promises. The people elected Mr. Obama because we believed he would do exactly what he said he would do. Guess what? He has. He has kept his word to the American people and the Republicans have done everything in their power to see that he fails. Why would the Republicans want to deliberately sabotage a presidency that has full public support?

Diety help the Republicans who are following their party over the cliff like lemmings.

Global Warming Summit

Here is an excerpt for an AP report today with regards to the activities of our President.

"A key moment that led to the deal took place when Obama walked uninvited into a meeting that was already under way with China hosting Brazil, India and South Africa.

Later, a senior Obama administration official said that "the only surprise we had, in all honesty, was ... that in that room wasn't just the Chinese having a meeting ... but in fact all four countries that we had been trying to arrange meetings with were indeed all in the same room. ... The president's viewpoint is, I wanted to see them all and now is our chance."

This is I believe the first time a sitting President just barged into a meeting of world leaders uninvited so as to get the ball rolling on an agreement.

Gotta admit, he's got balls.

Oh yea, we got the agreement.

Are the Republicans walking the plank?

May I first say, I am a lifelong Republican. I do however vote the person or the issue that most closely resembles my own personal philosophy.

Much has been made of the whining coming from the Republican Party that they have not been included in some legislation, especially the Senate. Now keep in mind, the Republican leadership has made two announcements, one that they will not vote for anything that makes the President appear successful and in the case of Health Care Reform they have gone on record saying that no matter what, not one Senator will vote for reform unless it is a total Republican bill. The proof of course is in the voting. When Republican proposals made it into the bill, not one voted for their own amendments. So what is the point in working with these people. It's like loaning money to someone knowing full well it won't be repaid, stupid idea.

Unfortunately the Democrats are undoing whatever good could come from their majority.

The Republicans are now considered the party of 'no', which is sad and disgusting. Don't these people realise that they are sent to Washington to work for the people in their state or districts? Politics aside, the purpose is a government by the people; for the people.

The last time I experienced this kind of discourse was during the Vietnam War. This nation nearly came apart at the seams.

In the words of that (in)famous American, Rodney King; "Can't we learn to just get along?"

Health Care Debacle

Okay. For months some of us have been watching with some interest in the goings on in Washington over health care reform. As it stands of this writing, pretty much everything which had been promised has been excised from the bill.

I have come to the conclusion that the only rational solution to end this nonsense is to simply make Medicare an opt in for all, even those with current insurance. Medicare is quite simple, you get sick and you get fixed. You can go anywhere you choose, anywhere in the country and get medical care. The premiums you would pay would be the same nationwide. There are no exclusions at all, no matter how sick or the cause, you get treatment and it's covered. No games.

Some will say that this is a government run health care plan. Indeed, it is rather a government administered health care plan. The government sets the rates it will pay and the providers choose to either accept it or not, just as it is now. This controls costs to the government and the insured person.

Now some will say that this plan will infringe upon the rights of insurance companies. Not so. This is a market based system, if the insurance companies choose to meet the price and quality Medicare provides, they are entitled to do so in the same way the government does. The insured decides for himself which plan works best for him and his family.

There is no reason for the government to make new laws restricting a private company. By offering the public option alone will bring them in line because the consumer will choose for themselves.

The government can provide a subsidy to lower income people to either offset the Medicare premium or the same amount to a private insuror, but again the consumer makes that decision which to choose.

It will be up to the insuror to match the benefits of a Medicare plan for all.

Abortion Debate in Health Care Proposal

My first post in my blog is a simple one. I like the idea I can rant on subjects I find interesting and need to had a little light shed on.

There are some who want to forbid the use of taxpayer money to subsidise insurance premiums of the poor for the purpose of abortion. The logic on the left is that this impedes the right for a woman to decide, the right believes that morally it's murder and should not be funded.

What is the reality here? First off, abortion in and of itself is a personal decision granted by secular law. The act of becoming pregnant is also a personal decision and choice. It is an elective process. In my opinion, no abortion should be funded by any means other than by the person responsible. If a woman can say 'no' and stop the process and does not chose to do so, then she should bear the responsibility for that decision. In other words, insurance should not be covering an elective procedure anyway. This in no way infringes upon a woman's right to choose, but that same woman must be compelled to accept responsibility for that right to choose. Since a husband or parent has no rights in this matter, the responsibility clearly falls on the shoulders of the woman.

The idea that the abortion amendments somehow limiting a woman's right to decide is a red herring. The amendment says nothing about her right to decide, just who will pay for it.