Comments by jaripez

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Use Chrome

It will do the work for you...

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Use Chrome

It will spell check for you....

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

What I have done. Food for thought, for out of state use

I purchased the whole package for the $260 annual and have the daily/weekend paper edition delivered to my choice of family as a present and they let me to have the E Edition for my personal use.

Makes a great Christmas present or birthday present.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Victor News

My pal and school mate Phillip as we called him Squeaky owned it many moons ago from his dad...great store....

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Library of Congress British fire

Books were all donated after the fire by whom? Jefferson...

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Confusious say standing on folding chair, give big headache

Shame Pauly ain't standing on that unsafe folding chair to light them candles

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Unethical Treatment of those Disabled, this is just a few...

There is more than wages with the store called Wal-Mart....

Brady v. Wal-Mart

What happened: A man named Patrick Brady, a licensed pharmacist with the disability Cerebral Palsy applied to Wal-Mart after leaving his previous job at Centereach. After 3 days of being a pharmacist at Wal-Mart, the managers at Wal-Mart thought that Brady was too incompetent for the job and transferred him to pushing the carts. Brady sued and won 7.2 million dollars.

A solution that could save Wal-Mart from lawsuits and Wal-Mart's disabled employee's from Wal-Mart's ignorance with how to handle and work with them could be to hire Human Resource Management employees who research and find ways to accommodate the disabled. In this situation the solution was to not move Patrick Brady from his position at all. As long as he is doing his job properly and there are no formal complaints from customers than there is no reason to move Brady.

Allen v. Wal-Mart
What happened: Glenda Allen, a loyal employee to the Wal-Mart Corporation, was shot one day at work when the store was robbed. After being in intensive care and after much physical therapy she returned was able to walk although it was limited. Once she was confident enough to move around on her own and without any pain, she tried to return to Wal-Mart, believing she still had a position waiting for her. Unfortunately, that was no the case. In fact, they had immediately replaced her, sparing her no health care or sympathy in the matter. They believed that she was too incompetent to handle the job and refused to give her her job back or another job.

Gallo v. Wal-Mart
David Gallo worked as an employee for Wal-Mart for several years. His disability is atrial fibrillation which causes a short of breath and difficulty walking. He needed to park close so he did not strain himself. So he parked in the handicap parking spaces closest to the Wal-Mart. After doing this for quite some time and never having a complaint before, a new manager come into Wal-Mart. This new manager comes and bans David Gallo from parking in the handicap parking spots and spaces anywhere near the store. The manager’s defense, although the rest of the employees and other management knew about Gallo’s condition, said that these spots were made for customers.

Solution: Provide handicap parking for employees only. Designate a safe and easy accessible area for these employees to access their vehicles and the store as well.

Employee vs. Walmart

Walmart was charged with a failure to reasonably accommodate an employee who had cancer surgery. He submitted a request and asked not to be required to cover for a 20 minute break in the shipping department because of his weakness in his shoulder. Even though the employee had worked at the company for 12 years, his request was denied and he was terminated.

Solution: Solution for Walmart that could prevent these law suits would be to let him cover some other department that does not require hard labor other than the shipping department.

EEOC vs. Walmart

Case: Employee Rehberg was refused reasonable accommodation by Walmart for her inability to stand for long periods of time. Since she was failed to be given a simple accommodation Walmart found that she was unable to properly do her job so they discharged her. This marks EEOC's 16th court action against Walmart for violating the ADA laws.

Solution: For the EEOC they have required Walmart to go though training to prevent further violations of EEOC laws and especially the ADA laws. Rehberg did win and she was given compensation for the actions taken by Walmart.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

4 damn good reasons not to shop ...Union in China OK, but not US

1. Skimping on employee paychecks;
Notoriously known for its poor wages, many of its workers often rely on food stamps and other government aid programs just to fulfill their basic needs.

According to a report released by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, every Walmart center costs taxpayers close to $1.3 million in public benefits on average simply because the company's low wages forces their employees to rely on public assistance to make ends meet.

"When low wages leave Walmart workers unable to afford the necessities of life, taxpayers pick up the tab," the report says.

Paired with poor working conditions, the retail giant's low wages also led to numerous worker strikes at stores around the nation that started on Black Friday last year, including 10 police arrests outside a retailer in Washington, D.C. a few days ago.

"I'm not a screw-off employee by any means, and it's upsetting to me that I can't even support myself at 45 years old," said Barbara Gertz, a Walmart worker from Commerce City, Colorado.

2. Poor working conditions all around;
Gawker published an article last month that included some pretty frightening workplace stories from anonymous Walmart employees that included reduced working hours resulting in having to go hungry, unchecked sexual harassment, and denied sick leave.

Instead of addressing these complaints, Walmart responded by asking their employees to send in happier stories instead.

"I was once talking about a family reunion I had attended and one manager went into full sprint up to me and demanded to know why I had said the word 'union.' When I told her 'I said REUNION, not union' she didn't believe me and decided to tear me down right there on the sales floor," one employee wrote.

Conditions abroad, however, don't fare much better either.

After a factory collapse in Bangladesh, labor advocates pressured Walmart and other American businesses to improve labor and working conditions abroad. However, the plan that Walmart and associates developed was met with stern criticism from labor activists.

While committing $42 million to pay for worker safety, inspections and an anonymous hot-line for workers to report concerns, the plan lacked legally binding commitments to pay for those improvements.

Multiple labor rights groups, including the Worker Rights Consortium and the Clean Clothes Campaign, criticized the plan and said the company was "unwilling to commit to a program under which they actually have to keep the promises they make to workers and accept financial responsibility for ensuring that their factories are made safe."

3. Still opposed to the "living wage" bill;
Walmart's strong opposition to the controversial "living wage" bill certainly didn't paint a pretty picture of the retail giant.

The living wage law would require Walmart and other non-unionized retailers to pay their workers in Washington D.C. at least $12.50 an hour: 150% of the local minimum wage. Walmart, however, responded by threatening to pull out of plans to build at least three stores in the District should the bill become law.

In a preemptive op-ed, Walmart executive Alex Barron described the D.C. Council's pending decision on the bill as one that "discriminates against business and threatens to undo all that we have accomplished together."

The District, however, chose to stand up to the company's unethical labor practices. D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson said the bill will be send to Mayor Vincent C. Gray by Friday for his signature or veto.

Anti-union stance;

Although the majority of Walmart employees in countries such as "CHINA" are members of unions, Walmart's anti-union stance within the U.S. constantly makes headlines every year.

Their official statement reads, "At Walmart, we respect the individual rights of our associates and encourage them to express their ideas, comments and concerns. Because we believe in maintaining an environment of open communications, we do not believe there is a need for third-party representation."

According to a Human Rights Watch report in 2007, Walmart continues to take advantage of holes in U.S. labor law to suppress any attempts at unionization from bombarding workers with messages of "disastrous results" that could occur if they organize to closing an entire store because employees decided to unionize.

Despite the waves of Walmart workers attempts to organize, the company still manages to prevail and maintain its anti-union stance.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

LePage tells one thing and means another...

But LePage’s own words provide plenty of ammunition for his opponents.

In an April 22 profile on seacoastonline.com, LePage said that if he is elected governor of Maine, “Day one, I come down to Kittery and take down the sign ‘Maine, the way life should be’ and put up one that says ‘Maine, open for business,’ with the governor’s phone number underneath.”

In the same interview, LePage said DEP regulations often “serve no purpose but to cost businesses money.”

LePage has said he would like to ease Department of Environmental Protection regulations and make it less “one-sided” and adversarial. He wants to move the agency to the Department of Agriculture.

As for energy policy, LePage has said he wants to look at all sources of energy, including everything from wind power to liquefied natural gas, and that his priority will be to lower Mainers’ electric bills.

At a public forum in Bangor in August, however, LePage said it is too early to be focusing on wind farms as an energy source.

“I favor nuclear. I favor hydro,” he said, according to an Aug. 26 article in the Bangor Daily News. “I honestly believe at the present time that we need to keep studying wind to make it commercially viable, but I would much rather put my energies into hydro and nuclear power.”

In an interview earlier in the campaign with Maine Public Broadcasting, LePage said, “Quite frankly, I think Maine is ripe for a nuclear power plant.”

What about Mitchell’s claim that LePage strongly supports offshore oil drilling? In a Sept. 23 debate on energy policy at the University of Southern Maine, LePage said he would “never say never” to the idea of offshore drilling in state waters.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

LePage favors polluters the Koch's; Sierra makes wise choice

The LePage administration has been marked by cronyism and corruption, by handouts to the wealthy and large corporations and favors for political donors.

LePage has one of the worst job creation records in the country, has stubbornly denied health care to tens of thousands of working Mainers and has rolled back regulations that protect Maine’s health and environment.

LePage has refused to work constructively with anyone, has governed through insults and threats, and has made Maine a subject of ridicule across the country.