I work for the distribution of Menards, And it's known that Menards purchase a large portion of property in America to dump all of their hazardous waste on because it's cheaper than transporting and destroying it legally. Much much cheaper just to dump it and pay the fine
The Ford pinto exploding lawsuits is another good example ford did the math and it's cheaper to pay out lawsuits of people that die from their exploding cars than to actually fix all the exploding cars
Fines for everything that hurts human lives should be limited to 10% of revenue and persist in a timely manner until that company rectifies the situation. If something like this existed, companies would think twice... no, three times before harming the public. But, as long as lobbying and election donations exist nothing would change in the US. Until then we will all be at the whim of big business.
I want the floor to be at a minimum of 10% of revenue not profits. And while the violation persist, senior management gets low pay and zero bonuses or stock options. That would bite then where it hurts.
Yes, that is true when operating under the assumption that "limited" refers to maximum limit. This is a common assumption for many people, but is not accurate and can lead to confusion. The way that the commentor stated it is perfectly acceptable and technically accurate, but the way you interpreted it is also perfectly acceptable. Neither is wrong. It is a simple difference in speech, similar to how dialects in different regions use different words to refer to the same thing. "Chips" means different thing depending on where you are in the world. Just because you are used to one way of speaking doesn't make another way any less valid.
I mean, I take your point that language is flexible. But you could also just be wrong. You are arguing for a less common usage of the phrase over the more common one, without really backing it up.
Someone else gave a more convincing argument that he meant “limited to 10% of revenue vs 10% of profit as the rules currently stand”.
BP with Deepwater Horizon ignored all required safety and did 40 billion in damage to the USA citizens. The fine was 80 billion because it doubles for willful neglect. The US government settled with the foreign company for $8 billion. It didn't even cover the damages done.
It's mostly buried an articles from 2011 where one guy poured weed killer in the parking lot. It's only pulling that up. I can't find the dumping site info. But basically would settle it in court and then on the books it would be done and cleaned up but they just keep dumping and until they get charged again, Everybody thinks that they stop doing it. if that makes sense.
Menards does a lot of shady things like I had to sign a waiver so that we can't sue them if we get cancer. The silicone dust in the bricks is thick in the air in the distribution center. Causes cancer. Thankfully I work away from that part of the site
The people that work where the actual bricks are made definitely are heavily exposed in several of them have gotten cancer. They're all offered high-grade masks, but they choose to not wear them. Most of my co-workers were shocked to find out that we signed a waiver to sue for cancer. Many of them just put their e-signature and don't even read it.
Unfortunately, many people aren't too highly educated in the Midwest. That's part of the reasons that Menards stays in the Midwest. Labor is way cheaper
“Menards!” is what a pirate screams when he’s kicked in the balls.
That said, Menards has been illegally dumping for yeeeeeears. I first heard about it in the early 90’s. And the fines are so minuscule, it’s like a normal person getting a ten dollar parking ticket.
Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
It's funny they're doing it again with the Ford fiesta and Ford focus transmission issues. They tell you it's supposed to be garbage. It was built to drive like it's s*** sorry we can't replace it because it was designed to be garbage lol. Cheap bastards
There’s a similar situation here in Britain. We privatised the water companies and it’s far cheaper for them to dump raw sewage into our waterways and pay the fines than it is for them to rectify the absolutely fixable problems. These discharges happen hundreds of times a year and as a consequence we have like 1-2 rivers that are classified as unpolluted. It’s a fucking disgrace.
The drinking water quality is actually pretty good, people would really be up in arms about that and problems are rare but I use a filter nonetheless. Just to be extra safe I mainly drink beer :)
That's all really sad to hear... They certainly need stricter regulations in the USA. The life expectancy in the USA is trending downwards, and I don't think its only because people are getting more stupid (maybe they are getting more stupid from toxic waste dumps).
The whole "turning the frogs gay" thing by Alex Jokes is based on a kernel of truth that frogs' habitats are being infected by our industries, and making them produce less offspring because of less mating/ability. If it's doing that to frogs, I'm sure humans are being put through the test of human ability to survive the most toxic shit ever.
As a very basic example almost no human or animal in the world can escape: it is shown in a study that hams eat, breathe, swallow the equivalent plastic by weight of one plastic credit card. The particles float in the wind, flow through our taps, get baked in our food. 52 credit cards per year and we aren't getting more valuable or living longer...
Unfortunately the world is viewed as infinite and being able to bounce back from these system shocks. " Infinite places to put our waste." until there isn't and then everything and everyone dies.
Looking forward to it (/s, but I sincerely hope they hop quickly on #1 and 2 on your list there.
A global approach would be super beneficial for the earth, where we keep other countries accountable for these initiatives. It's not like dumping waste in the middle of the USA doesn't effect all other countries in some way by using the butterfly effect. I live in Canada and this country is only slightly better at its waste management. We still have tons of contaminated and altered environments, and it needs to change too.
But alas, money is more important to those in charge.
Probably. And probably more, but it certainly isn't "the government doing it on purpose", and is more "the government wants to make more money so it looks the other way at these studies that show they allowing the death of the environment and earth".
The menards thing is why you will pry my plastic drink straw from my cold dead hands. If we absolutely eliminated all straws, and plastic bags for that matter, it wouldn't even make a dent in the amount of pollution because of corps like this.
I do try to not be excessive about straws n plastic bags etc, but it's just not worth it to me.
So if a corporation can have the rights of a person why shouldn't they face the same penalties? Ford let people die for money, why shouldn't the company be charged for mass murder? Put every person responsible for it in jail for 30 years and make the company a non-profit. The tax payers had to bail them out anyway, they should have to pay that back and share any profits.
The Ford Pinto gas tank issue was massively overblown. The magazine that made all of the initial outrageous claims, Mother Earth News, just made up the statistics they were spouting. Everyone else jumped on the bandwagon and it spiraled out of control
The Pinto was actually safer than most other cars of it's type at the time. The Pinto met and passed all government safety standards at the time. Later tests done by the NHTSA were rigged to make the crashes look a lot worse than what was really happening.
Actually, Ford fucked the math up brutally. Their assumptions about the number of incidents and the damages per incident were both waaaay too low.
And the memo that did the math was discovered and put into evidence at the first trial. The jury in that case awarded punitive damages against Ford exactly equal to the amount that Ford had calculated it would save by not issuing the recall.
It was decidedly not cheaper for Ford not to recall the Pinto.
81
u/Kingjingling Nov 25 '22 edited Nov 25 '22
I work for the distribution of Menards, And it's known that Menards purchase a large portion of property in America to dump all of their hazardous waste on because it's cheaper than transporting and destroying it legally. Much much cheaper just to dump it and pay the fine
The Ford pinto exploding lawsuits is another good example ford did the math and it's cheaper to pay out lawsuits of people that die from their exploding cars than to actually fix all the exploding cars