Re: moral dilemma

Thanks Judy for posting that. It is always good to be an informed
citizen. Now I have factual ammo to support my long-standing decision
to never shop there. Very sad. I hope things turned out better fro
that woman.

Thanks,
Christine

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
"Crazy" is a term of art: "Insane" is a term of Law. Remember that, and
you will save yourself a lot of trouble.
      ~ Hunter S. Thompson

On Jan 24, 2004, at 8:07 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:

>
> Unh unh..., even if we had a Walmart in NYC (I don't think I've been in
> one), speaking of moral dilemmas, I'd have trouble shopping there.
> They
> mistreat and exploit their employees brutally, as has been well
> documented
> in the press lately -- and as I know from a private account. AND
> folks,
> this has indeed something to do with alternative photography, so if you
> own Walmart stock -- too bad.
>
> This was probably about 6 years ago, or maybe a bit longer, because my
> daughter had been a reporter in LA and might have been some use, but
> she'd
> left a while previously.
>
> I got a call from a rep at Photo Warehouse. He knew that I'd used the
> direct reversal film, because I'd bought a bunch of it (for students
> and
> self) and probably talked to them about it.
>
> He had a customer, he said, who was trying to use it, but failing,
> could
> only get a very faint image, and he wondered if I could advise. My
> thought was, good grief, it was a couple of years already, maybe I
> couldn't remember. I tried to explain as much as possible, but I
> think he
> wasn't a photographer. In any event, he finally asked could he have the
> customer call me. I said sure, I'd try.
>
> So the customer called and one of the most hair raising stories I've
> heard
> ensued, which I will try to condense here, though if you don't like the
> tale so far, why not delete now? It seems the woman had been a
> computer
> programmer or software developer, something along those lines, until
> the
> boom in silicon valley bust and she was unemployed. She took an interim
> job at Walmart -- and there had an accident that nearly killed her. It
> seems employees were sent into the warehouse, without any training or
> special safety measures, taking down merchandise from 20 foot ladders.
> She
> was on the ladder when something swung out from somewhere and knocked
> her
> down and out.
>
> We've read about injured Walmart employees locked in the warehouse.
> This
> was extreme brain damage, though she has no memory of how long she lay
> there. She was ultimately hospitalized, and after a period of time
> (which
> I forget) in a coma, returned to consciousness but not intelligence,
> able
> to speak and eat on her own, but mentally enfeebled.
>
> Walmart, however, stonewalled on workmen's compensation, and excuse the
> expression, doctored the records so that they couldn't be sued. Since
> she
> herself was incapable of managing her case, and there were no funds for
> lawyers, and it seems almost none of the doctors in the system would
> stick
> out his/her neck to challenge them, the settlement offered wasn't
> enough
> to pay for her immediate care, and she was more or less consigned to
> custodial care on welfare for life.
>
> The conventional wisdom is that what in the brain hasn't come back in
> two
> years, won't come back, but this woman continued recovering and after
> FOUR
> years felt capable, at last, of managing her own case. But now she
> found
> herself stymied at all points, not just by laws that said the period
> for
> suing was past, but by a hospital establishment apparently in cahoots
> with
> a corrupt system, with that hospital essentially run by workmen's
> comp.
>
> Among the other points of deception, and the one I was called about,
> they
> were presenting as "evidence" brain scans which they said showed no
> brain
> damage, but which the woman said she could see by looking at the film
> had
> sections that had simply been put out of focus.
>
> Somehow, the details of which got lost in this conversation of about
> two
> hours, she had managed through a sympathetic worker access to a record
> that showed the damage, and needed to copy it for evidence. She was
> not a
> photographer, but had learned to use simple equipment and this reversal
> film was recommended. Although the case had been timed out in the
> courts,
> she had found a sympathetic judge, appalled by the history, who she
> thought might be able & willing to re-open. She also understood that
> publicity was important, and hoped to find some of that, though I don't
> know if she did. (See results of NY Times reportage of several cases
> in
> recent news.)
>
> I don't know if my suggestion helped solve the immediate problem,
> though I
> like to think maybe of some use... My experience with that film was
> that
> exposure is EXTREMELY long, we sometimes exposed for 15 minutes. I
> remember one student claiming she went out for coffee and came back to
> a
> perfect negative. It did make very beautiful full tone reproductions.
> I
> also at that time remembered the developer we used.
>
> I never heard more about the case. I kept the woman's phone number for
> several years, but.... but, but immediate east-coast hassles take more
> energy than exists. I think the story would make a good movie, tho it
> may
> NOT have had the "happy ending" of Erin Brokovitch. In any event, for
> me
> shopping at Walmart is not really a moral dilemma.
>
> Certainly not as long as I have other options. I might have thought it
> was
> a local aberration, but recent reports show it's general practice.
>
> Judy
Received on Tue Jan 27 11:28:24 2004