Wal-Mart is having to eat the costs. Which is partly fair, I think, since they disregarded the emergency guidelines for EBT cards. But they're having to eat the WHOLE cost, as far as I know, which I disagree with.
I don't think the shoppers were completely blameless here, but when it comes to divvying up the costs I'd much rather have a super-billionaire rich store like Walmart eat the cost than have even part of it come out of the meager food budget for those families.
lol at the "typical" Walmart shopper taking a cab.
Actually, there are quite a few cabs up by the one near me, b/c the buses don't go everywhere and a surprisingly high percentage of the population in my town don't own a car. It's $10 round trip (from the farthest end of town to the WalMart), so if you are able to buy your month's worth of groceries from EBT and save up the $10 for the cab fare every month it's kind of your only option. Also they will take a cab from the WalMart to the closest bus stop (it's about 1/2mi? give or take).
ETA so is this typical, I don't know, but it isn't unheard of. I can see a scenario where this could feasibly happen regularly.
What I see more of is people walking their shopping carts back home or using baby strollers as a substitute.
imo:
Was it dishonest? Yes Do I blame them? No.
If I'm in a position where I'm continually struggling with a shortage of food or medication and the opportunity is presented to me to take/steal one of those necessities, I'm probably going to do it. It's a different mindset from walking into The Limited, seeing a sweater I like and buying it even though I know I don't have enough money in my account to do it.
But, really, is it not important to promote some level of self-responsibility? Otherwise, we are screwed.
I see the self-responsibility in that they didn't all try to burn the store down, it was relatively orderly, and when it came to an end they all left without a peep. I just can't fault these people for trying.
Yeah, uh, who could fault them for trying to take something they knew they didnt have a right to take? *-)
Wal-Mart is having to eat the costs. Which is partly fair, I think, since they disregarded the emergency guidelines for EBT cards. But they're having to eat the WHOLE cost, as far as I know, which I disagree with.
my guess is that there is some sort of accounting trick/tax loophole and it could even potentially 'help' them
Well jesus, Pixy. If the standard of self-responsibility is that they didn't fucking riot, you're uh...not really expecting much here huh?
Not really, no. Walmart basically opened its doors and said, "Free food while the gettin's good!"
No. Not really. It was a glitch. They reacted poorly to be sure but those people knew what they were doing as evidenced by the carts full of food left all over once the stores got their shit together.
I think the difference between the Walmart scenario and the airline scenario is the airline gets to choose after the glitch if they are going to honor it. If they choose to honor it, that's not stealing. Walmart doesn't get that chance.
Though I am glad to hear Walmart takes the loss rather then the government.
I don't think the shoppers were completely blameless here, but when it comes to divvying up the costs I'd much rather have a super-billionaire rich store like Walmart eat the cost than have even part of it come out of the meager food budget for those families.
I don't know. I want to agree, because fuck, people have it bad enough; but part of me thinks these people should be held accountable, because not being held accountable leads to more shit like this.
But wasn't it Jesus who said each should give according to what they can give, or something like that? (I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about Walmart, but whatever.)
Walmart will barely blink at covering the cost. But for those families, even paying back $20 a month could mean "sorry, kids, no breakfast this month."
It's stealing, plain and simple. They know they're allotted a certain amount and they knowingly went over and above what they are granted.
OTOH, there was a system in place in the event of something like this happening. WalMart dropped the ball, so it should land in their court that they were *letting* people get away with obvious disparities, rather than "a few dollars over" discrepancies.
As a PP posited above, there have been plenty of other taking advantage of errors. It's up to the company to decide whether to honor the error or not. The $5 plane tickets? Yes, it's taking advantage but with the obvious pricing error, people go in knowing it's possible that it will get cancelled. The Target car seats a few years back? Target decided to not honor the pricing. No harm, no foul, no car seats at basement pricing. The Kitchen Aid mixer error those years ago? Lowe's decided to honor the price. They made the ad, it went through editing and was printed and placed online. They had multiple checks that it cleared before it got to that point. It was a costly mistake but good PR to honor it. I've been on the other side as well. I've had to eat costs because of pricing discrepancies.
The people shouldn't have taken advantage in the first place, because it is stealing when you take something to which you know you are not entitled, no less so than throwing a brick through a window, but when the company chooses to let it happen, it's no longer stealing. If it's abetted or approved by the person or entity from whom you are stealing, it's no longer stealing - it's a "gift" from the "victim" (for lack of better word choices) at that point - and so the company should pay the price for their decision.
Short version since it's me: The people involved knew they were taking what wasn't theirs. They took a chance it would be approved but they took knowing it wasn't theirs to take. That's the definition of stealing. WalMart didn't follow contingency plans. They knew the system was down. They approved the transactions anyway. So out of their pockets for anything that the people took because in approving it, they were sanctioning it and wrapping it with a big, red bow.
But wasn't it Jesus who said each should give according to what they can give, or something like that? (I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about Walmart, but whatever.)
Walmart will barely blink at covering the cost. But for those families, even paying back $20 a month could mean "sorry, kids, no breakfast this month."
Well, except for the 40 boxes of cereal they took home.
I don't think Jesus would want those poor kids to be forced to eat Boo Berry for the next year, though. Jesus was a fan of seasonal cereals, but only in the right season. "To every season there is a cereal"--the BIBLE.
I don't know. I want to agree, because fuck, people have it bad enough; but part of me thinks these people should be held accountable, because not being held accountable leads to more shit like this.
But wasn't it Jesus who said each should give according to what they can give, or something like that? (I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about Walmart, but whatever.)
Walmart will barely blink at covering the cost. But for those families, even paying back $20 a month could mean "sorry, kids, no breakfast this month."
I have no idea HOW people could/would/should be held accountable, but to say they shouldn't be held accountable simply because they can't afford to pay it back is asinine. Taking what you know isn't yours doesn't become ok when someone else can afford to foot the bill.
I'm pretty sure if I wrote $700 worth of checks to Wal-Mart that I knew wouldn't clear my account I'd be in some sort of trouble. Or at least have to pay it back.
With kiting or writing bad checks, the store has different options than with electronic EBT transactions. They can come after the check writer, they can disallow future checks, then can charge fees... Often, there is a system in place that now checks whether there is enough of a balance in the account to cover the check and the check can be denied at the point of purchase. Debit cards generally get denied if there isn't a balance. And so forth. Just as often, they hold the checks and if they get enough of them, they send a lawyer to small claims, get the judgments on the checks en masse (it's cheaper by the thousand - lol) and garnish your checking account so you can't pay your rent. There is a personal account they can come after. You take the chance that they will come after your personal account when you give them that check (or debit card) with all its information.
If the system is down, the store has the option to state they are not taking checks or the keypad isn't functioning so it's cash or check or credit or whatever only. I've dealt with that a few times as a shopper. Inconvenient but it happens.
WalMart chose not to take this option. People took advantage and people stole. WalMart chose to *let* them instead of following procedure.
Walmart fucked up and should eat their cost. The shoppers stole.
But how sad that people stocked up like this on food. They didn't steal big ticket items. It sort of breaks my heart that the large, overall, picture shows that families cannot live off of such a small amount of money.
If I'm in a position where I'm continually struggling with a shortage of food or medication and the opportunity is presented to me to take/steal one of those necessities, I'm probably going to do it. It's a different mindset from walking into The Limited, seeing a sweater I like and buying it even though I know I don't have enough money in my account to do it.
This is where I am. I voted it's stealing, because from a very basic POV it is, but I just can't judge it.
At the end of the day it's about integrity, you know right from wrong, you either do the right thing when no one is looking or you don't. If you KNOW there is a glitch and you take advantage of it, it's wrong. Justify away all you want. I'm not speculating on Walmart's motives and why they didn't just cap a limit at $50 or not take EBT until it was fixed. But I know that if I have $200 on my card and there is a glitch and I can now get as much as I want and I do that, it's messed up and I'm doing the wrong thing. If I have every intention of paying it back, that's different, but did these people who decided to use the system glitch to get more than their allotted amount have the intention or belief they would pay it back, or that it was a free for all?
I get that it's food and we all need food to live, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Since corporations are people, this applies to Walmart, too. Lol.
Oh it's theft. But theft of the sort GBCN would be fine with if it were done by upper middle class women buying children's stuff and plane tickets.
I can't see how anyone distinguishes the situations. Both are corporate errors. Did you take advantage of the airfare? I didn't, because I was late. But I would have. So I am not judging this.
Post by EmilieMadison on Oct 17, 2013 14:39:43 GMT -5
It's just grossing me out, that so many people are justifying this. Say you've fallen on REALLY hard times and to help you out, your richie rich friend hires you to clean their house for $100 and says that they will leave the money in a drawer for you when you're finished. When you're done, you go to the drawer and see about $5K in cash. YOU CANT TAKE MORE THAN $100 JUST BECAUSE YOU NEED IT, IT'S SITTING THERE, AND YOUR FRIEND HAS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE BANK. How hard is this to grasp?
Post by pixelpassion on Oct 17, 2013 14:41:56 GMT -5
Was it wrong to take so much? Yes.
But in working with people receiving assistance and seeing the heightened state of anxiety over having enough food/finances that they live in day to day, I'm not bothered by it. Being in that position has the potential to propel you to do things you'd never think of, particularly in the midst of a govt. shutdown with programs like WIC in certain states not working.
If I'm in a position where I'm continually struggling with a shortage of food or medication and the opportunity is presented to me to take/steal one of those necessities, I'm probably going to do it. It's a different mindset from walking into The Limited, seeing a sweater I like and buying it even though I know I don't have enough money in my account to do it.
This is where I am. I voted it's stealing, because from a very basic POV it is, but I just can't judge it.
If I leave my front door unlocked, should the people that come in and take my stuff not be responsible because I didn't lock my door?
They only took food out of my refrigerator and some aspirin from my medicine cabinet because they were super hungry, sick and needed it desperately. They can't pay me back because they can't afford it/have no money - and I did do the stupid thing and left my front door unlocked.
Is that ok? Or is it only OK because they are stealing from Walmart and not you?
FWIW - I think Walmart is the devil and if it happened to anyone I'm happy it's Walmart. However, it's just not right - regardless of the excuses of why they did it.
Walmart fucked up and should eat their cost. The shoppers stole.
But how sad that people stocked up like this on food. They didn't steal big ticket items. It sort of breaks my heart that the large, overall, picture shows that families cannot live off of such a small amount of money.
Wait now. I think we can all agree that it's heartbreaking that there are families that are struggling. But taking $700 worth of groceries when you are only allotted $250 doesn't mean you aren't able to live off of the $250. I'm sure in *some* cases, it's barely enough money to make it, but THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
I am here. I think clearly the answer is "it's not ethical", but I've been food bank poor (as I'm sure many here have been, I'm not trying to be all u don't no my lyfe) and I can relate to the excitement of being able to get a lot of groceries in the house. I think for some who participated in this, there most certainly was just an awful level of self gratification going on, but I think for the majority, this speaks to a bigger desperation going on and I relate to that. It's not ethical, and at this point in my life, it's easy for me to view it as wrong. But if I think back to other points in my life, I can very easily bring back up that feeling of calm and excitement during the rare times I had more food than I needed. I can see how people got caught up in that, even though I like to think that I wouldn't have. What a crappy situation.
Walmart fucked up and should eat their cost. The shoppers stole.
But how sad that people stocked up like this on food. They didn't steal big ticket items. It sort of breaks my heart that the large, overall, picture shows that families cannot live off of such a small amount of money.
Wait now. I think we can all agree that it's heartbreaking that there are families that are struggling. But taking $700 worth of groceries when you are only allotted $250 doesn't mean you aren't able to live off of the $250. I'm sure in *some* cases, it's barely enough money to make it, but THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
No where did I say I am ok with what they did. I said I feel sad that people felt they had to steal food. GBCN has had discussions about how little people have to live off of in terms of food stamps and I was stating that it shows.
Wait now. I think we can all agree that it's heartbreaking that there are families that are struggling. But taking $700 worth of groceries when you are only allotted $250 doesn't mean you aren't able to live off of the $250. I'm sure in *some* cases, it's barely enough money to make it, but THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
No where did I say I am ok with what they did. I said I feel sad that people felt they had to steal food. GBCN has had discussions about how little people have to live off of in terms of food stamps and I was stating that it shows.
I agree that it's sad that some people, even on assistance, still have so little. But I dont think a lot of these people felt they HAD to steal food. I think many of them probably felt like they COULD.