Wal Mart de Mexico

hound dog wrote:
Dawg thinks that, perhaps a bit more social interaction with human beings may have stood you well when you were a kid hanging out in the backwoods in Chiapas kissing bears´ asses. It´s no wonder you left Jersey City before the last train to Delaware.

I didn't notice your sorry fat ass in the pics of the get together the other day, either, Señor Socialable.

So if they are guilty (looks pretty bad for em) what should happen?

1.)Jail time for execs. who covered it up.
2.)huge fine with exec with hanging face saying were sorry.
3.)Jail time for execs who authorized it.

What will happen

1.)huge fine with exec with hanging face saying were sorry and nobody
going to jail.

In mexico I would stop walmart from building for a year.

Comments??

Z

NEVER HAPPEN!!! They're looking for tax revenue. And don't forget all the jobs Walmart creates.

A timely article from EL UNIVERSAL states that WallyWorld plans to open 436 new stores in Mexico and Central America this year. This expansion extrapolates to 25,000 direct jobs:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eluniversal.com.mx%2Ffinanzas%2F93230.html

johninajijic wrote:NEVER HAPPEN!!! They're looking for tax revenue. And don't forget all the jobs Walmart creates.

John this is Mexico you don't think Soriana's doesn't have close to the clout that WalMart has? And I did assume we are talking
about Walmart mexico not Walmart USA for the sake of the argument.

Z

The execs in the USA should be found guilty of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and put in jail.

Personally, I would like to see the US show the world once and for all that they intend to follow the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to the letter of the law and make WalMart an example! Here is a brief history of the Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
If one reads the "applications" of this Act, most of the fines or settlements have been a "slap on the wrist", many to corporations that the public has little personal knowledge of. WalMart is certainly a recognizable corporation and that alone makes a perfect target to get the word out. A fine or settlement in the billions of $$$'s seem appropriate to me along with enabling executives heading off to jail.

I don't foresee the Mexican Government or any of the other Central American Governments making a big issue out of this, if for no other reason than they are most interested in pushing their economies. This was a US Corporation committing the crime, so penalize them in the US!

Thanks for posting that CG. At work we foreign workers were instructed on this
law very firmly but than again my company was known for being pretty honest
about such stuff. Not anymore. Everybody pays bribes nowadays especially
in certain contries. Years later my company got caught paying bribes in russia.

Time will tell but I bet it will be a big fine like CG says but I doubt if anybody
will go to jail but at least the person who approved it and the person who
covered it up should go.

z

Along the way in this thread someone mentioned the positive aspects of competition. I don't think I'm the only one who noticed the changes at Superlake when Walmart opened down the street. Or that the miserable Walmart produce was upgraded when people went elsewhere for that.
Soriana, too, cleaned up the smelly fish and meat section so you could get within ten feet without gagging.

We moved to Mexico, to SMA, IN 2004. Gigante was in business then and was the SOLE supermarket in the area. It occupied a building so leaky that you had to step in soggy cardboard tossed around the worst puddles when it rained. It was a miserable place on every level. After it moved over to the new shopping mall, Soriana bought it and every aspect of it changed for the better.

Mega is the best place to shop, hands down. Wish we had one here in Lakeside.

In my youth a $100 USDs and a fine meal would get you an A rating on a restaurants health certificate. Small peanuts, but somewhat the same moral issue, paying bribes.

Parker wrote:In my youth a $100 USDs and a fine meal would get you an A rating on a restaurants health certificate. Small peanuts, but somewhat the same moral issue, paying bribes.

That's disgusting and it's people's health that they were playing with. Same thing goes on with building permits and building inspections and fire inspections and....fill in the blanks.
Bribery and moral corruption everywhere. As my mum used to say "the world's not flat and it's not round, it's crooked". As gringal has quoted many times "follow the money".
What a sad state of moral decrepitude (is that a word?) we find ourselves inhabiting.

Don't despair. I'll wager the first bribe and the first con happened in prehistoric cave dwellings. People don't change much. Your mum was right.
It's crooked.

ferret wrote:

Parker wrote:In my youth a $100 USDs and a fine meal would get you an A rating on a restaurants health certificate. Small peanuts, but somewhat the same moral issue, paying bribes.

That's disgusting and it's people's health that they were playing with. Same thing goes on with building permits and building inspections and fire inspections and....fill in the blanks.
Bribery and moral corruption everywhere. As my mum used to say "the world's not flat and it's not round, it's crooked". As gringal has quoted many times "follow the money".
What a sad state of moral decrepitude (is that a word?) we find ourselves inhabiting.

There is some confusion going on here. It isn’t the bureaucrats that keep restaurant clean it's the proprietors. They knew if they didn’t keep thing up-to-par and people got sick they wouldn’t have a business. However, it really makes no different to the inspectors because it will rarely affect them. Once again, “Follow the Money”. To me we’re just keeping the “dim witted” employed.

"To me we’re just keeping the “dim witted” employed."

I hope you are referring to the food inspectors and not those employed in the restaurants!

CheenaGringo wrote:"To me we’re just keeping the “dim witted” employed."

I hope you are referring to the food inspectors and not those employed in the restaurants!

Yep, (food inspectors) thanks for keeping this on track.

Parker wrote:

ferret wrote:

Parker wrote:In my youth a $100 USDs and a fine meal would get you an A rating on a restaurants health certificate. Small peanuts, but somewhat the same moral issue, paying bribes.

That's disgusting and it's people's health that they were playing with. Same thing goes on with building permits and building inspections and fire inspections and....fill in the blanks.
Bribery and moral corruption everywhere. As my mum used to say "the world's not flat and it's not round, it's crooked". As gringal has quoted many times "follow the money".
What a sad state of moral decrepitude (is that a word?) we find ourselves inhabiting.

There is some confusion going on here. It isn’t the bureaucrats that keep restaurant clean it's the proprietors. They knew if they didn’t keep thing up-to-par and people got sick they wouldn’t have a business. However, it really makes no different to the inspectors because it will rarely affect them. Once again, “Follow the Money”. To me we’re just keeping the “dim witted” employed.

I don't think I was confused Parker. The Inspector is either blackmailing the Proprietor or the Proprietor has something to hide. Either way it's disgusting and does affect people's health. It is very hard to pinpoint the source of an outbreak of food poisoning unless it's on a massive scale.
As far as Walmart is concerned it'll probably be a slap on the wrist because unless someone has "proof" nothing will happen. Perhaps a bribe was offered and someone received it...but, on the other hand, was a bribe requested? Both parties guilty.

There's pages and pages of proof. Read the NYT article and you'll see how well documented this case is. Remember, this isn't just about bribes in Mexico. It's about the behavior of a large corporatation that is in violation of the FCPA. The company that was crossing the palms of CFE officials paid $3.3 BILLION in fines. Stay tuned.

It was a very well written article. And now it's 2012 when the "allegations" are from 2003-2005. Why now? Did somebody get paid to turn the other cheek?
Somethin' smells fishy and it ain't the fish counter.

ferret wrote:

Parker wrote:

ferret wrote:

Parker wrote:In my youth a $100 USDs and a fine meal would get you an A rating on a restaurants health certificate. Small peanuts, but somewhat the same moral issue, paying bribes.

That's disgusting and it's people's health that they were playing with. Same thing goes on with building permits and building inspections and fire inspections and....fill in the blanks.
Bribery and moral corruption everywhere. As my mum used to say "the world's not flat and it's not round, it's crooked". As gringal has quoted many times "follow the money".
What a sad state of moral decrepitude (is that a word?) we find ourselves inhabiting.

There is some confusion going on here. It isn’t the bureaucrats that keep restaurant clean it's the proprietors. They knew if they didn’t keep thing up-to-par and people got sick they wouldn’t have a business. However, it really makes no different to the inspectors because it will rarely affect them. Once again, “Follow the Money”. To me we’re just keeping the “dim witted” employed.

I don't think I was confused Parker. The Inspector is either blackmailing the Proprietor or the Proprietor has something to hide. Either way it's disgusting and does affect people's health. It is very hard to pinpoint the source of an outbreak of food poisoning unless it's on a massive scale.
As far as Walmart is concerned it'll probably be a slap on the wrist because unless someone has "proof" nothing will happen. Perhaps a bribe was offered and someone received it...but, on the other hand, was a bribe requested? Both parties guilty.

Yes, the inspector was blackmailing the Proprietor because he (inspector) would hardly ever, more like never, be affected and if you didn’t pay up you were closed down for an unlimited amount of time. At this point a $100 USD seems cheap compared to losing your business. They will make-up any excuse, without cause, to close you down or give you a bad rating so customers won’t come (printed weekly in the news) and who are you going to report to that cares? If you’re not confused then perhaps you’re really naive.

The reason the Proprietor didn’t have anything to hide is because his incentive was more about his customers, continued business and making a profit so he could continue taking care of his family or whatever. Making sure your food is not contaminated is a major concern of a Proprietor. It’s his business, his future and his family’s wellbeing and in this kind of situation, I personally trust the Proprietor over any bureaucratic job.

Understood. One can only hope that that inspector tried to shake down the wrong person and found himself hanging up side down in a meat locker.

ferret wrote:It was a very well written article. And now it's 2012 when the "allegations" are from 2003-2005. Why now? Did somebody get paid to turn the other cheek?
Somethin' smells fishy and it ain't the fish counter.

If you read the entire NYT article you'll see it was Walmart top management who essentially ignored it. Thought they could keep it in Mexico and no one in the US would know. Thank you New York Times!

I did read the entire article and the sneaky way that Walmart U.S. actually handed the entire mess to one of the accused in Mexico who essentially made it "go away".
I also appreciate the New York Times printing the article. I would still like to know why (after six years) the Times decided to print this NOW... and their SOURCE (which they don't need to name).

They indicated that they were working on the article late last year and advised Walmart of same. Who knows when NYT got wind of this. I don't think it was 6 years ago.

Ferret:

The media is constantly getting caught and rightfully maligned for jumping on a story without accurate detail. In this particular case, NYT probably took a hard look at the power of their target and decided to do as thorough an investigation as possible in the interest of maximum impact. I guess we should call this responsible journalism? No matter how much time they spent on this investigation, I will predict that a great deal more comes out down the road.

I love the quotes from management about how "this is not a relection of our corporate values and culture." Since it goes all the way to the top of the corporate ladder just what is it then?

It will be a very interesting development to follow. I certainly hope somebody or some company gets nailed for this. Far too many corporations have gotten away with devious business practices lately.