B&H emails back a response regarding allegations

[Rick A]

You may need to adopt an Amish lifestyle then. Business is not always able to meet everyone's views on ethicality. Or wait until allegations are proven.

If people think "Amish" is a good life style (or even set apart from the world), you should really take a close look at what they do. They are far and away worse than the folks at B&H in their practices(all in the name of religion).

 

[swanlake1]

When the 2007 matter was settled, the EEOC said, "We commend B & H for working cooperatively with us to resolve this matter without protracted litigation,” said EEOC New York Trial Attorney Lou Graziano. “We encourage other employers to follow B & H’s example of resolving discrimination cases expeditiously and in good faith.”

The other two suits were dismissed I believe.

Well, we now have the folks from B&H posting in this thread.

 

[wildbill]

I personally do not care one iota if they keep their workers in chains and poke them with pointy sticks. B&H sells what I need/want, they have good prices, and they have fast cheap shipping. I will continue to buy what I can't buy locally from them until such a time comes as I no longer need these products or they go out of business. It is none of my business or concern how they treat their employees.

Do you do the remainder of your shopping at Walmart?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It's damage control, but I wonder if it's a union smear job to represent B&H employee? I've seen this happen at a local Nugget grocery store. My cousin worked at Nugget and he loved working there. BTW, I belong to a tech workers union. They have negotiated pay raises and protections for us. Otherwise, our employer will screw us.

 

[Alan Klein]

B and H has always operated ethically with me. So I would give they operated similarly with their employees, vendors, etc. How you operate as a business is a mind set that isn't compartmentalized.

 

[cowanw]

Complaints of labour standards at Elections Canada.
I am not going to vote there any more. That will teach them!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-advance-polls-1.3270865

 

[mrred]

No, you need to vote at least one more time. Get the bad guys out....lol

 

[cowanw]

You are probably right. Maybe internet shaming isn't the best idea. In fact maybe it is the worst idea.

 

[Sirius Glass]

B and H has always operated ethically with me. So I would give they operated similarly with their employees, vendors, etc. How you operate as a business is a mind set that isn't compartmentalized.

I am with you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1

 

[mrred]

+1

 

[removed account4]

There's an element of society that's always ready to boycott (i.e., guilty until proven innocent). In the US there are rules of law that mandate the opposite. Just wait until ALL the facts are known, folks, before condemning.

asking folks to wait until they have all the facts and make a well-informed decision
is like asking a 20,000 post a week bot to stop posting nonsense

 

[Sal Santamaura]

There's an element of society that's always ready to boycott (i.e., guilty until proven innocent). In the US there are rules of law that mandate the opposite...

There are no such rules and never have been. Anyone in this country can boycott any entity for any reason at any time. US law concerning criminal guilt has no bearing on the matter.

Whether such boycotts are reasonable, justified or good ideas is another discussion entirely. But let's not confuse what applies to those charged with crimes and the freedom to patronize a particular merchant or not patronize that merchant.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

The rules in a civil action are far from civil. Little rigidity when compared to criminal process. And the vultures are well aware of this thus use it to their advantage. That being said never forget where there's smoke there's fire. Make up your own mind based on your values and the information provided. And leave the preaching for Sunday morning.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I wasn't going to post in this thread but having lost my self-control I'll just state this: I reserve the right to form an opinion regarding who's in the right and who's in the wrong at B and H. From my experience, this is seldom fully one-sided with both sides have some participation in wrong-doing. There are cases in which one side is 90 percent or more in the right or wrong but I think those situations are unusual. I refuse to condemn either party until all the facts are presented and the case is closed.

 

[BrianShaw]

I wasn't going to post in this thread but having lost my self-control I'll just state this: I reserve the right to form an opinion regarding who's in the right and who's in the wrong at B and H. From my experience, this is seldom fully one-sided with both sides have some participation in wrong-doing. There are cases in which one side is 90 percent or more in the right or wrong but I think those situations are unusual. I refuse to condemn either party until all the facts are presented and the case is closed.

alleged wrong-doing... ALLEGED.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yes, of course, ALLEGED wrongdoing by one or both parties. I also probably should have written, "ALLEGEDLY in the right".

 

[removed account4]

People are always going to believe what they want to believe, and their stated views are of course allowed by the laws of free speech. But their resulting decisions have no weight, as it's the decisions of the court that really matter.

yup
people can say and do pretty much what they want. they can make up their mind before knowing
what actually happened, before understanding the truth, and that is their right, never said it wasn't.
i was suggesting that asking someone to not make up their mind before knowing
all the facts ( when he/she is determined not to ) ... is a waste of time

 

[Sal Santamaura]

There's an element of society that's always ready to boycott (i.e., guilty until proven innocent). In the US there are rules of law that mandate the opposite...

There are no such rules and never have been. Anyone in this country can boycott any entity for any reason at any time. US law concerning criminal guilt has no bearing on the matter.

Whether such boycotts are reasonable, justified or good ideas is another discussion entirely. But let's not confuse what applies to those charged with crimes and the freedom to patronize a particular merchant or not patronize that merchant.

...allow me to clarify:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty
and note the ending statement "The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society." So if this isn't a rule, then I don't know what is...

Your link clarifies nothing. It relates to criminal charges/trials. The presumption of innocence isn't a "rule," it's law with respect to criminal charges/trials.

...Incidentally, I haven't noticed any indication so far that this subject will be handled as a civil vs criminal matter...

It's neither civil nor criminal. It's a labor relations matter. The only thing that's happened is attempted union organizing accompanied by a public relations effort. No reports indicate that charges or a civil action have been filed.

You seem to have missed the point. Your initial post, in response to those who would boycott, stated that there are "rules" against a presumption of guilt that ought preclude such a boycott. I pointed out that there is no such rule with respect to boycotts, which generally fall under "free speech." Legal dictionaries and their entries concerning criminal guilt are irrelevant.

Please note that I have been a customer of B&H since first walking into its store in 1976 and continue to regularly patronize it even now. I have not reached any conclusions about B&H practices from news articles about the organizing effort nor am I supporting or participating in any boycott of the firm. It's important, however, especially for an international audience reading APUG, to be clear that the US has no "rule" against anyone reaching any conclusions they wish and boycotting any firm they see fit to.

 

[BrianShaw]

Your link clarifies nothing. It relates to criminal charges/trials. The presumption of innocence isn't a "rule," it's law with respect to criminal charges/trials.

...

It's important, however, especially for an international audience reading APUG, to be clear that the US has no "rule" against anyone reaching any conclusions they wish and boycotting any firm they see fit to.

I totally agree with you Sal... but it is also a common courtesy that folks should provide to one another.

 

[Dali]

It's important, however, especially for an international audience reading APUG, to be clear that the US has no "rule" against anyone reaching any conclusions they wish and boycotting any firm they see fit to.

The opposite would be pretty strange...

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...It's important, however, especially for an international audience reading APUG, to be clear that the US has no "rule" against anyone reaching any conclusions they wish and boycotting any firm they see fit to.

The opposite would be pretty strange...

Yes, but the opposite is what's implied in the posts I was responding to.

...it is also a common courtesy that folks should provide to one another.

Courtesy, like sense, is, unfortunately, not at all common.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...While it may not be a legislated "rule" it seems, to me, that the majority feel this is the way it should be, regardless of whether we're talking about criminal/civil/any other actions that might be taken to resolve the issue...

Would that it were so. Unfortunately, for a substantial percentage of the public, it's not. Thus, boycotts based on allegations happen. And it is necessary to select jurors (for criminal cases, not the subject of this thread) from those candidates who haven't been exposed to prior reporting of what allegedly transpired.

 

[Dali]

Ok. this debate gets a poinless legal turn... Move on to something else.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't want to move on. I like it here.