1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at info@12ozprophet.com and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

DuPont: Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Discussion in 'News' started by Krakatau, Dec 23, 2005.

  1. Krakatau

    Krakatau 12oz Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    549

    DuPont: Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

    Discussion started by Krakatau - Dec 23, 2005

    Of course this will probably do nothing to Dupont in the long run, but I still enjoy seeing the huge chemical company take a hit.

    Stick to cast iron, yall.

    *Edited in the hopes of starting discussion, didn't leave much to debate above.
    Do you all think that these sorts of measures are usually adequate, or is more accountability necessary to get the point across to companies like DuPont (which I hate more than just about any other mega industrial company)? What about the effect these sorts of things have on the advancement of technology and the well being of industry/ the economy? Should there be some sort of more mediated process that will still allow flex room for corporations to function at normal levels (without the burdens of fines and what not, technology can advance more quickly), or would that merely foster an environment that allows them to shit all over everyone with impunity?
     
    Krakatau - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    549
    - Joined:
    May 5, 2005
  2. wiseguy

    wiseguy 12oz Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    2,543

    wiseguy - Replied Dec 23, 2005

    fuck, i knew that teflon was fucked. my old roommates cooked with it all the time. i am just fine with my stainless steel kitchen set.
     
    wiseguy - Rank: 12oz Elite Member - Messages:
    2,543
    - Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
  3. Cracked Ass

    Cracked Ass 12oz Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    7,898

    Cracked Ass - Replied Dec 24, 2005

    Corporate fines are mind-boggling. DuPont made how much selling Teflon products? Billions? And the fine comes to $16 million or so?
    The best one, I forgot the details, but basically a phone company "crammed" a fake charge onto everyone's bill. Those who noticed and complained got it refunded. Most customers just paid the bill with the fake charge. The phone company scammed a lot off of that one, and was caught. But the fine came to less than they scammed.
    "Hey, you stole millions from your customers...your punishment is, you have to pay SOME of it back."
    How is that a deterrent?
     
    Cracked Ass - Rank: 12oz Veteran Member - Messages:
    7,898
    - Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
  4. Sparoism

    Sparoism Guest

    Sparoism - Replied Dec 24, 2005

    Jury awards millions to Wal-Mart workers
    California workers claimed they were denied lunch breaks

    Friday, December 23, 2005; Posted: 12:00 a.m. EST (05:00 GMT)
    WATCH
    Browse/Search
    Wal-Mart loses lunch break lawsuit (1:02)
    YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
    Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated
    or Create Your Own
    Manage Alerts | What Is This?

    OAKLAND, California (AP) -- A California jury on Thursday awarded $172 million to thousands of employees at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. who claimed they were illegally denied lunch breaks.

    The world's largest retailer was ordered to pay $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages to about 116,000 current and former California employees for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to give 30-minute, unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours.

    The damages were originally tallied as $207 million after a court clerk misread the punitive damages as $150 million. The amount of punitive damages was later clarified. (Watch the facts of the case -- 1:02)

    The class-action lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court is one of about 40 nationwide alleging workplace violations by Wal-Mart, and the first to go to trial. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer, which earned $10 billion last year, settled a similar lawsuit in Colorado for $50 million.

    In the California lunch-break suit, Wal-Mart claimed that workers did not demand penalty wages on a timely basis. Under the law, the company must pay workers a full hour's wages for every missed lunch.

    The company also said it paid some employees their penalty pay and, in 2003, most workers agreed to waive their meal periods as the law allows.

    The lawsuit covers former and current employees in California from 2001 to 2005. The workers claimed they were owed more than $66 million plus interest, and sought damages to punish the company for alleged wrongdoing.

    Attorney Fred Furth, who brought the case on behalf of the workers, said outside court that the jury "held Wal-Mart to account."

    Wal-Mart attorney Neal Manne said the jury's verdict, reached after nearly three days of deliberations and four months of testimony, would likely be appealed.

    He claimed the state law in question could only be enforced by California regulators, not by workers in a courtroom. He added that Wal-Mart did not believe the lunch law allowed for punitive damages.

    "We absolutely disagree with their findings," Manne said of the jury's verdict. He conceded that Wal-Mart made mistakes in not always allowing for lunch breaks when the 2001 law took affect, but said the company is "100 percent" in compliance now.

    The lawsuit was filed by several former Wal-Mart employees in the San Francisco Bay area in 2001, but it took four years of legal wrangling to get to trial.

    The verdict comes as the company is waging an intense public-relations campaign to counter critics aiming to stop the retailer's expansion and make it boost workers' salaries and benefits.

    Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, an union-affiliated advocacy group that believes Wal-Mart's policies over wages, health benefits and other issues harm families and communities, said he was delighted by the verdict.

    "It is a sad day when Wal-Mart provides these so-called low prices by exploiting their workers and even the law," Blank said.

    The company added lower-cost health insurance this year after an internal memo surfaced that showed 46 percent of Wal-Mart employees' children were on Medicaid or uninsured.

    A federal lawsuit pending in San Francisco accuses the company of paying men more than women.

    ------------------------

    The US District Court case is comprised of over 1.6 MILLION female employees who never recieved equal promotions as a result of discrimination by Wal-mart, and is the largest class action in US history.

    I guess they may have to raise their prices, soon....
     
  5. gasfacevictm

    gasfacevictm 12oz Loyalist

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    10,415

    gasfacevictm - Replied Dec 24, 2005

    those people are nuts.
    they own delaware.
    you should see this state.
    they have a cement wall around their estate with broken glass embedded in it to keep people out or in...not sure.

    the zoobies are coming.
    they're coming to kill.
    you better believe me.
    when i tell you they will.
     
    gasfacevictm - Rank: 12oz Loyalist - Messages:
    10,415
    - Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
  6. PushbuttonWarfare

    PushbuttonWarfare 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    329

    PushbuttonWarfare - Replied Dec 24, 2005

    I will inhale me some fumes as long as my eggs come out perfecto.

    myteflonbakewareweighsaton.
     
    PushbuttonWarfare - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    329
    - Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
  7. Sparoism

    Sparoism Guest

    Sparoism - Replied Dec 24, 2005

    duPont made napalm, BTW.

    Teflon is one of their other military contracts, as well.

    I love the smell of napalm cooking in a teflon pan in the morning.
     
  8. theGOON

    theGOON 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    502

    theGOON - Replied Dec 25, 2005

    i use stainless, but my mom has teflon stuff, and i got to say... its pretty awesome......

    clearly this is inadequate "punishment" but there is no way a fine more in line w/ the amount profited would be put in place. billions in profits, yeah, billions in our economy, and truth be told "they" don't really care about the consumer anyway, the 16 mil covers the investigations and legal fees...
     
    theGOON - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    502
    - Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005