An employee of the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, was fired after tattling to the Wall Street Journal about the corporation’s alleged spying on employees, suppliers, shareholders and critics. The employee said that the company had wide-ranging surveillance operations within its Threat Research and Assessment Group to analyze threats to the company by anyone who might challenge its policies.
New York City comptroller William C. Thompson has asked the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department to investigate Wal-mart’s actions, which he called “ill-considered and possibly illegal.”
Wal-Mart is big enough to tell suppliers what it will pay for their goods and big enough to influence world markets, but evidently it is not big enough to avoid paranoia.
Posted by Patrice Hein
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
15 Comments
The only question is did WalMart do anything illegal like Hewlett Packard did. The fact is that many corporations are getting out of hand with spying on employees both on and off the clock. The Republicans have for years gave employers a blank check and they need to be brought in. It should be illegal and a basis for a civil lawsuit to fire any employee for off the clock activities for the most part. Drug testing should be outlawed except for employees that have jobs which affect public safety such as truck driver, pilot or police officer. Firing employees for they write on the internet that does not involve the employer should be illegal as well. Tapping peoples home phones and lying to get their phone records without a warrant should be illegal for an employer as well.
It should be illlega……
More nanny statism. It’s their business, and their money. If they don;t want ssomebody to work for them, they should be able to fire them at will. While I agree that the above policies are rotten to the core, they should not be illegal.
And yet, I don’t see fewer cars at walmart. That’s why the free market doesn’t always work the way it is supposed to. That’s why we have regulations and laws.
And that is why we should have those whistleblower laws reinstated that Bush & Republicans took away.
Sam Walton would probably be so sad that his kids turned into such anti-american money grubbers.
Littlejohn,
Companies shouldn’t be able to invade the privacy of their employees or their competitors. When most people sign an employment agreement, there’s nothing in there about having your phone records stolen, your car followed, or your home placed under surveillance. You don’t give up your first amendment rights just to take a $5.15 job as a shelf-stocker.
These companies are not accountable for their actions in the way the US Government is, yet they are engaging in activities that are traditionally viewed as the province of law enforcement.
I think this is an incredibly dangerous path we’re going down.
“phone records stolen” If they were indeed stolen, then there are laws against that, and they should be charged accordingly.
“I believe tapping someones HOME phone is illegal, and should be charged according. If it is not, then a civil privacy suit could be in order.
The previous post mentioned things that “should” be illegal, such asfiring people for writing on the internet, drug testing, etc.
You are right, you do not give up your first amendment rights, but the first amend mentprotects you from government, not necessarily your employer
And I know at least a couple of shelf stockers, they make more than$5.15 per hour. Have to,even McDonalds pays 6.50 to start
“You are right, you do not give up your first amendment rights, but the first amend mentprotects you from government, not necessarily your employer”
Okay, so what happens when the government starts allowing private companies to exercise police powers?
It’s already happening. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/private_police.html
So, private security should be eliminated? Or somehow businesses and their owners should have their freedoms restricted, while arguing for freer activities by individuals(which own the largest majority of businesses)?By the way, I think outsourcing sucks. I think prisons should never be privatized, nor should “private” police have any authority outside the area they are hired to protect. I am sure, by the way, that Best Buy could be made to pay big bucks, but also changed their hiring practices.My main argument is this. If I own a business, and I am paying my money, I should have the right to fire you if I dont like you, regardless of the reason. My business, my property, my money. As is frequently touted on these boards, My business, not yours.Not hitting out at you, I just think the same principal applies
“If I own a business, and I am paying my money, I should have the right to fire you if I dont like you, regardless of the reason. My business, my property, my money.”
I agree with you completely, on that point. But I raised a bigger point, one that should concern everyone who considers themselves a civil libertarian.
One term you used I disagree with” “outsourcing.” Some of what’s going on isn’t outsourcing – it’s the outright granting of police powers to private companies. These are people who are not accountable to anyone except their stockholders, yet they are able to act like law enforcement on, *and off*, the private property they’ve been supposedly hired to protect.
Again, I believe this is an incredibly dangerous path. It’s open to abuse, manipulation, and corruption. When I see flashing lights behind me, I want to know that the man or woman in that uniform are sworn to uphold the laws, and aren’t just there for the corporate bottom line.
“These are people who are not accountable to anyone except their stockholders, yet they are able to act like law enforcement on, *and off*, the private property they’ve been supposedly hired to protect.”
I would be interested in seeing examples where these people are allowed law enforcement priviledges off the premises they have been hired to protect.
Besies, they are accountable in the courts, if not criminal, then certainly civil. It is much more difficult to criminilize or civilly try regular police officrs, as a certain amount of immunity is given.
Your bottom paragrah, I would most certainly agree with, but i have yet to see it otherwise. I most certainly would object to such a scenario. My views of government responsibility are probably much more limited than many, but at the top is public protection
Littlejohn,
This link is to a private company in North Carolina:
http://www.capitolspecialpolice.com/faqs.htm
There’s another North Carolina company that should worry people: Blackwater USA. They’re what’s euphemistically referred to as “private security contractors” in Iraq, but disturbingly, they have the same rules of engagement as US forces. They’re not, however, subject to UCMJ.
Blackwater and companies like it are getting paid billions of dollars to create what are essentially mercenary armies. When the Iraq conflict is over, what’s going to happen with these firms? They’re not going to just go away. They will continue to be a tool used by the US Government to engage in activities that are outside the control of or accountability to the American people.
I think you know from my previous posts I’m not an alarmist/conspiracy theorist paranoid. But this trend bothers me. I don’t see any happy endings if we sit idly while it continues.
Tom–I know you are not an alarmist/conspiracy theorist paranoid guy at all. And I do thank you for your information on the NOrth Carolonia capitol police thing. Quite strange to me,and worth looking into.I also agree that the Blackwater contract with the US GOvernment should not be. The US Government should not be hiring mercenaries.Period. If they have a job to do, then make the case for a larger military. I think largely it is an accounting gimmick to shift costs from one pocket to the other. That cvilian companies do hire people to protect their stuff should be no surprise. I thinktreading lightly here either way makes a lot of sense as we think our way through to the end result, not just the expedient.
As I reread my last post, I think I may have left a misconception. I do not think private companies should be hiring security details in Iraq or other areas of conflict. They shouild be willing to be under the protection of the US Military, or not do business there. Hostile or war areas having active operations by US Forces are in a different category, and all security should be detailed by US FORCES
Littlejohn:
Agreed. :)
Only corrupted powers are involved, which have always been the outcome thru out the history of the usage of secret policing.We have an elected government system and we have emerging self-appointed government systems always trying to succeed into power over the people.Isn’t that is what the practice of Walmart and other corporations are trying to do?
“Now days I cannot define the definition of what a criminal organization is, the lines of separations have become blurry.”
just try going into a Wal-Mart and say the word union….LOL