CONS. - Another case of a big company hiding stuff from you
 

Big Companies are NOT looking out for our best interests and here is more proof of it. I wont go into statistics again with you but suffice to say for everyone caught there are a bunch more not caught that will continue to take advantage of me and you.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ucts_recall_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Graco Children's Products Inc., a unit of Newell Rubbermaid Inc., has been fined $4 million for failing to report hundreds of incidents, some fatal, involving products ranging from infant carriers to high chairs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (news - web sites) announced on Tuesday .


In addition, 1.2 million toddler beds made by Graco have been recalled because children's limbs can get trapped between the slats in the guard rails or footboard, resulting in broken bones or sprains, the commission and Graco said.

The CPSC, which said the $4 million fine marked its largest civil penalty ever, said Graco failed to report hundreds of incidents and injuries involving 16 different products from 1991 through 2002. The 12 million items involved were designed for young children and include infant carriers, high chairs, infant swings, strollers and toddler beds.

The injuries ranged from bruises and fractures to strangulation, including some deaths, the CPSC said.

The commission said Graco's failure to report the safety concerns related to the 1.2 million toddler beds subject to the recall was one of the violations leading to the $4 million provisional penalty.

Graco received reports of 77 entrapments related to the toddler beds, resulting in 13 broken arms and legs and one broken foot, the CPSC said.

The recalled beds were sold from 1994 through 2001 under the names "Cozy Toddler Bed," "Glow-in-the-Dark Toddler Bed," and "Classic Toddler Bed."

There is a label on the guard rail or leg containing one of the following model numbers: 8801, 8801WR, 8821, 8824, 8828, 8833, 30066, 34434 and 11030.

Consumers should remove the guard rails from the recalled beds and call the firm to receive a free retrofit kit.

Consumers can contact Graco at 800-837-4404 or go to the company Web site at www.gracobaby.com.

Eventually, people need to be put in jail for shit like this before it will stop.

Unfortunately, there is no way this administration would even consider such a thing.

From what I've read on this, there isn't enough evidence of malicious intent to allow anyone to bring criminal charges. Plus, it's not like the Bush administration would have the best shot at filing criminal charges here. The best chance would be by District Attorney's in states/cities where these deaths occurred and/or the "malpractice" by the company occurred. And, unless a vast majority of DAs in this country are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, they must not feel there is the evidence to prosecute. From a DA standpoint, this case is a dream and you would think they would bring charges if there was even a semblence of a case against them.

Also, the current Bush administration has done significantly more in regards to corporate fraud than either Clinton or the first Bush administration.

But if you really feel there is something here to prosecute from a criminal standpoint (and there very well may be - I kind of wish there was), then send a letter to your local city counsil and/or DA and ask them to look at the case.

Yup. Once again people fail to note that pretty much all this fraud occurred while Clinton was in office basking in the glow of the economy fueled by all the fraud.

Hello McFly! This is a State Issue. Not everything needs to be rubbed down by the Federal Government. Write you DA if you want to see criminal action

The past week shows that the politicians in Washington disagree with you. The parties of Big Government apparently think it's now their role to meddle in individual cases of state jurisdiction.

*now*? They have been doing this for years.

Examples? Just one? Do not give me Enron or Worldcomm either, the Bush administration did absolutely nothing in those cases and dont forget ole kenny boys private jet flying Bush to 60+ campaign stops in 1999 and Lay staying at the Whitehouse more than any other private citizen in HISTORY. Dont give me that crap that Bush is hard on corporate crime, the cheif corporate criminals are all TOP REPUBLICAN CONTRIBUTORS.

Do you know what other types of corporate crime there are? How about dumping mercury into our rivers? How about the Bush admin actually increasing the amount of mercury you can dump into our rivers? Sound tough too you? Sound like theyre really laying it to the corporations on that one?

Bush tough on corporations huh? Take a look at who works for him and tell me if there could be the slightest conflict of interest here...............
http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp

Its amazing how anyone can be so blindly partisan, dont you ever question anything in your life? Im not a partisan person, i flatly do not like Bush, but that does not make me a democrat. It seems like every single thing i hear from you Arles is nothing but an echo of Rush Limbaugh, or as if you believe that republicans can do no wrong, ever. This "Republicans have done significantly more on corporate fraud" statement really takes the cake, this is so far from reality - it clearly shows your will say, or believe anything for "your side", instead of the correct side.

Actually, he said "Bush Jr has done more than Clinton or Bush Sr". Care to start naming off the number of corporate criminals put behind bars by either of those Administrations?

Ebbers might get some hard time....i wonder though.

Let me also point out that yet again the Administration is bashed for not being hard enough on the corporate crooks IN A THREAD ABOUT A STORY WHERE A CORPORATION WAS CAUGHT AND PUNISHED!

regardless of party...

Big Business does NOT look out for you and me, as someone put in another thread, they only look out for the bottom line and scruples go the wayside. Its crap and in the long run our country pays.

lmao! Good point.

its some kind of surprise that big business doesn't look out for you? wtf.

How do you write a thread about people who werent caught? If it isnt written about or KNOWLEDGE how do you write about it......you cant, you have to use STATISTICS. Statistics, with a +- for errors, work.

Yea he made that incredible step in giving Jr. props over Sr. Wow. That republican card is getting really really worn. and its bs anyways.

The point being, NO ADMINISTRATION puts "corporate criminals behind bars". Thats up to the states and federal prosecutors. But for Arles to sit there and actually tout someone as the best ever, when they have no basis for that claim, is incredibly disingenuous.

Whoever is better on corporate criminals is open for debate and its really not something you can gather quantitatively. If you had to defend Clinton or Bush Jr. on corporate favoritism, whos side would you pick? I dont think many would side up with Bush.

See my post above, and quit trying to toot your sides horn. You act like Bush himself kicked in the door of the crib maker and arrested these people. Bush Jr and his administration had nothing to do with this, in any way, nor did Clinton, or Bush Sr.

Regardless of administration in the white house, the CPSC is still going to be there, its still going to do the EXACT same job.

Then stop griping about the Administration's attitude towards corporations. Time and again the Administration gets bashed for not being tough on corporations (see your own post above), and when questioned you're now giving us "but it's the states job!"? If it's the state's job, what exactly are you expecting the Administration to do?

OK, where to begin:

Adelphia
Global Crossing
Fannie Mae/Freddie MAc
AOL Time Warner

Let's focus on Adelphia, as it is a great example of the change in policy from Clinton to Bush. Here's a story on how the founder (John Rigas) and his son Timothy were convicted on all 15 securities fraud charges. Both are currently facing up to 30 years in prison depending on how the sentencing goes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5396406

Could you site an example of where this was done illegally, evidence provided and was not prosecuted?

I know, the horror of it all. Putting people that were successful in the private sector involving these issues in charge of aspects of the government that deal directly with them. He should have been like Clinton and put in Rhodes scholars, Yale Law grads, and elite journalists with absolutely no real world experience and wonder years later why corporate crime was rampant and groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad grew in power around the world.

:D Of course not, you are an idealist working towards anti-business, pro-environment, pro-ACLU and anti-republican causes. But, you're much to open minded to be associated with one political party :rolleyes:

I certainly have no problem classifying myself as a conservative and have much more in common with the (albeit flawed) republican platform than the democrats. You certainly mention Limbaugh a lot. I take it you listen to him reliously? Maybe you could tell me what some of his ideas are as I haven't listened to him in a while.

There's been a lot of outrage in your tone, but not much substance. Here's hoping that changes at some point....

I got to see, I agree with Arlie here. Last time I checked, businesses exist to make money, not to look out for us. We have a choice over what we buy. Flasch, you seem pretty rooted to spend big money on furnishing your house, but yet gripe about big businesses. If you have problems with them, then why continue to give them your money?

Here's an interesting site on each scandal, what the current investigations are under the Bush administration and the donations by the company to each party. There's around 65 ongoing investigations listed on this page - hopefully that fulfills the "just one example" question above:

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/corp-scandal.php

Some of you may want to look at this as the democrats came out very well in corp donations from many of these. They outgained the reps in many cases, including high profile groups like AOL Time Warner, Bear Sterns bank, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Global Crossing. Overall, I would say both sides profitted in a very similar manner. Of course, it doesn't seem to have impacted Bush's aggressiveness with these investigations.

Overall, the most striking difference was Citigroup (a main player in trying to sweep Enron under the rug), who gave a whopping $30.3 Million to the dems, and only $1.6 million to the republicans. You can bet they were wishing Gore would have gotten elected in 2000.

BTW, I tried to find a similar site for corporations prosecuted under Clinton and came up empty.

Bush asked for more jail time here (July 8, 2002):

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/08/news/bush/

Then helped spur this (jan 8, 2003):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in535830.shtml
Seems like an odd action for someone seeking to profit off of illegal campaign donations and "gifts from his corporate buddies". And once again, I couldn't find similar efforts by Clinton in this area.

Youre missing the point, just because these scandals were revealed during a presidents term does not mean he's "the man!". So i guess Bush is the best at giving tsunami aid. good for him that this horrible tragedy happened while he was working?

What are you talking about?? Bush relaxed 20 years worth of EPA regulations. End of story. If you cant comprehend why he did that, then well, i guess you know why i went off on you for your blind partisanship.

Um what? This is complete trash. Seriously, where do you come from? Oil execs know whats best for the environment? Timber lobbyists should be writing the healthy forests act? There is a reason why those people are there, and it sure isnt because they know whats best for americans.


Im not associated with a political party in any way. But its funny you mention the ACLU, did you just recently take beef with them like all the other republicans? How does it feel having your so-called personal political beliefs prescribed to you via GOP talking points? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the ACLU? Im not pro-aclu, because i really dont know much about them as a whole, but i do know their sole existence is based off of helping people. So please give me some of that republican wisdom, and tell me why people who want to help others, are bad?


Point being wise guy, you come across like you really dont have any genuine thoughts, everything you say seems to come straight from the latest GOP talking points.


Its hard to not be anything else when half this country is full of people who cannot think for themselves. The lack of substance is our pop-culture, and the GOP is the political equivelant to that. Dont forget, Terry Schiavo will really rally the pro-lifers for '06.

I think that response pretty much refutes itself. To quote the immortal Sean Connery:

"Here endeth the lesson"

In the grand scheme of these I havnt bought much thats been too expensive...Im quite frugal.

I had to buy a fence
got some painting done
some lighting
a bed

I have dreams of getting nicer stuff but havnt been able to yet...so I guess the word BIG in big money is what threw me since I havnt spent BIG on anything...yet.

Im not communist, I just believe in corporate responsibility and morals. I hope you do to.

really weak.

Man, do I hope that the Democratic leadership keeps thinking like this. It's not that their policies or agendas are flawed, it's that us dumb, hick, conservatives are too stupid to figure out how great they are. :rolleyes:

ACLU's been (mostly) on the anti-conservative side for quite awhile now. don't you remember Dukakis being called a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" in 88?


Please please please let there be more of you out there. I know when I'm on the losing side of an issue (or in this case, elections), calling the other side a bunch of brainless morons always helps to turn things around.

It is always nice to see that people already know who they will vote for before they know who the candidates are.

I know, I wasnt being completely literal. Arles immediately threw me into the "pro-aclu" crowd for no reason, and since the ACLU is on the GOP talking point radar again since December, i made that comment.


Im not calling people brainless morons, but what i am saying is half this country just doesnt think. They choose not to be informed. They choose Fox News and actually think they are informed because theyre watching some sort of news program. They dont know any better. Its the same mentality of listening to only top 40 radio and thinking it has to be the "best" kind of music, since it sells the most.

I believe its my duty to find out every single truth on a subject, being careful to understand who is actually giving my information and their motives and then making solid informed decisions off of that. I dont see 75% of this country doing anything remotely like that and thats a crime.

in other words, you're just another fucking elitist? :D

No, this is weak:


[I provide 65 current cases being investigated by the SEC - some involving hard jail time and how Bush's efforts help increase penalties (and jailtime) for corp fraud]

Your response:

What? :confused:

You are first upset because Bush isn't hard on crime because "the cheif corporate criminals are all TOP REPUBLICAN CONTRIBUTORS". I show this to be completely false and prove that Bush has not only been tough on crime, but tougher than prior administrations and your response is essentially that he can't really impact these criminal investigations to begin with. You have argued in a complete circle and refuted your own argument. If Bush can't impact these investigations, how can he be soft on their prosecution?

I guess you could say Im deeper, now than I used to be, I dont care who is in office. The Corporations, in my heart, seem a bit "evil". I use the "evil" word with a light-speak. I just mean that they have lost their morals and have lost sight of the fact that they have a responsibility to the people, IMO. Anyways, Bush, Clinton, Nader, etc. Whoever is in, national or state should be more Vigilant, more heavy handed and hit these corps. where the sun dont shine IF they are in the wrong....the good corps. will shine and be better off for it.

I can see your view point, and atleast admire your passion. Of course, I think we are getting pretty close to the point where corporations face enough penalties to make such behavior not worthwhile, while still allowing them to stay in business and provide us with jobs.

After all, if the government goes too heavy on corporations, then we will lose a lot of jobs. In turn, this will cause people spend less on things like movies and concerts. This will cause hollywood to lose the ability to pay exorbitant salaries to actors which would cut out a significant amount of funding for many of these groups that protest the administration's soft stance on corporations. So, in the end, even the protesters need these corporations to be able to prosper and continue to hire workers ;)

***MODERATE SPEAKING****

The Bush administration does have it's faults (it's Social Security 'plan' for one thing) but corporate fraud and the environment are two areas where they have done EXTREMELY well. For liberals to attack them on those fronts weakens their position elsewhere.

And I am definitely *not* a Republican.

Go back to Rush Limbaugh you partisan nut... :p

Given your reaction to the evidence Arles posted, I find the above paragraph hypocritical.

How can you continue to miss this key point: BUSH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

You cannot praise him in any way just because the SEC is investigating these companies, where does that logic come into play? Since when did Bush himself say.."Hey SEC, i have a feeling Adelphia is up to no good, why dont you go take a look?". Wtf? Thats exactly how youre treating the situation. Now if Bush had actually said something like that, id be the first in line to shake his hand. But he didnt, in any way, so to praise him is just partisan bravado.

Also, from that same MSNBC article you want to bank on, this quote sticks out:

I am not being hard on Bush at all, I never once said he wasnt tough enough or wasnt doing enough. All i said was you cant praise a guy for conducting business as usual. The fact is, he himself has never in any way proposed legislation for tougher guidelines, where was the midnight bill signing when the WORLDS LARGEST CORPORATE SCANDAL was revealed? ENRON literally ruined the lives of 1000's of Americans. Where was the outrage from Bush? Why didnt we have an emergency session then to make sure nothing like that would ever happen again? Where was our savior DeLay & Bush then?

Regardless of the president, these companies would have been busted and prosecuted. Why cant you just accept that and realize you cant praise someone for being alive when something happens.

Another major point on your misguided thought that Bush had something to do with increasing fines for corporate violators. Fines were raised by a Justice Department Commission, by a panel of 3 dems and 2 republicans. Bush was not involved in any way. Also, once the fines were raised, the Justice Department condemned the new rules, so think about that.

You should read those articles he posted, then come back and tell me you still feel the same way. Those articles dont support Arles point even remotely. The Citizens Works site is a Ralph Nader owned corporate watchdog site, its a list of corporate scandals CURRENTLY being investigated. It does nothing to promote Arles assertion that Bush is responsible for bringing the corporate evil doers to their knees.

The CBS News article clearly shows Bush had nothing to do with increasing fines. The CCN/Money article clearly shows Bush weathering the storm of ENRON & WorldCom, but in fact he never followed thru on any of those talking points from that ONE press conference.

Who the hell lets these idiots in here? Bush has done EXTREMELY WELL on the ENVIRONMENT? *slams head on desk* GRRRRRRR.

Seriously, what? huh? If this is so evident, then please show me just one example that will clearly solidify Bush as a pro-environment president.

No, instead he shifted the focus of his administration to trying to aggressively pursue corp crime, increase the penalties for those found guilty and put significantly more resources into investigating and convicting this type of crime.

But yeah, outside of that, he didn't do much. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you'd have thought Bush and Cheney could have found a way to "sweep it under the rug" and protect their "oil buddies".

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/08/news/bush/
(July, 2002) "A key to our economic development is consumer and investor confidence in the markets and in the integrity of Corporate America, and right now that confidence has been shaken," Bush said in a press conference. "I will outline tough new laws to punish abuses, restore investor confidence and protect the pensions of American workers."

He then went on to help pass these tougher measures six months later.

What exactly are you arguing here? That Bush should have quit the presidency, moved to Austin, Texas and became the DA? He became the first president to strongly speak out against corporate fraud, helped increase the penalties and provide more resources to investigating these types of crimes. What else should he have done? And, if this was "standard president stuff", why didn't Clinton do just one of them (while all this chicanery was going on).

No, he just advocated the following and was prepared to sign executive orders if congress dragged their feet:


He was instrumental in making sure a bill like this got passed. Maybe if Clinton would have shown the same passion for this issue, scandles like Enron and Global Crossing could have been avoided.

I agree with your last part. But with today's society of people, and the responsibility and morals, I'm more worried about them then corporations. I think (like I said, I think), we are stepping up the plate. If you guys disagree, then thats fine.

I think our American buying culture is a big problem. We all are "anti-Wal-Mart", and the outsourcing, yet we aren't willing to pay the higher prices (keeping jobs here, go to the higher stores), ect.

One thing I wont stand for and I think your ridiculous if you put it out there is:

"Look we caught another one!! see they get caught" woopee!!

That is flasifying and misleading the point. You and I both know the statistics and know that pretty much in EVERYTHING for everyone that is caught there is + or - X that are not.

You make it sound as if the one's caught are the ONLY one's committing these moral crimes, c'mon. you know better.


(if you reply to this, than, yes I was talking to you.)

Not sure how much I agree on this administration doing great on the enivironment issue. Some issues are double sided though, and can be seen different ways by different people.

Example - New laws that have been put into place to limit the amount of sulfur and othe pollutants into the air by commercial trucks (18 wheelers). Wow, that sure sounds spiffy and good for us all eh? That is the most common reaction I bet when someone here that, that it is a good thing.

Well, the people who don't like it have pretty good reasons. Uhm, the diesel engines that are being tested right now, suck fuel like a mofo! What is this going to do? Well, it is going to kill the small trucking companies even more then they are being raped of money right now. Even big companies are not liking this too much, except the oil companies. Oh yeah, and the RAILROAD guys are loving this. See, railroads still have a bunch of power. One of their own guys sit on Bush's cabinet. Railroad companies do A LOT to try and hurt the trucking companies so they can get the freight.

Anyways, I wrote this not to argue one side or the other, because there are good and bad parts of it, to many different people and groups. You can pick and choose any fuckin' angle you want. Bush is pro environment, Bush is pro railroad/anti-trucking. Bush is pro oil. You can argue the point of why it was passed all day, no one will ever know IMO. Was it because certian groups are imbedded into his cabinet? Was it because enviromentalists actually got something they fought for?

Different sides give different stories. In the end, both are usually right, but they focus on the side that looks best to them.

There are plenty of areas to go after Bush - this preposterous social security plan that gets a laughably soft treatment from all sides, for one, and his appalling communication skills (which impacted the Iraqi conflict) for another - but targeting him as anti-environment is just stupid. His record on the environment is better than Clinton's.

lol, um ok? Thats what you base Bush's entire environmental policy on? A 3 year article, based around a debate over a Doonesbury cartoon?

Just read the Bush record for 2005 alone.
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/

Get more facts than that, that link you posted is laughable in so many ways. Mainly, Easterbrook is a known dipshit.

NRDC - LOL. This is another "unbiased" source from you I gather. Here's something from their about page:

"But the second Bush administration will have to contend with an NRDC that is stronger than ever before. In the past year alone, we prevented the administration from giving 20,000 power plants and industrial facilities a green light to spew more pollution into the air."

Sounds like someone with an open mind and with the public's interest in mind. If it were up to them, we'd be living in caves with fire pits. Hard to think this group wouldn't like a republican administration. Quite shocking, in fact. And they certainly wouldn't cherry pick data to use against them. No, not at all. They are 100% unbiased and fair to the administration.

is that line a joke?

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/11103191.htm

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Thursday finalized a regulation for the eastern United States that would cut power plant pollutants that cause smog, acid rain and soot by about two-thirds over the next decade.

The rule - which will cost about $3.6 billion a year to implement but is expected to save $85 billion in annual health benefits - "will result in the biggest health benefit of any EPA rule in more than a decade," said Jeffrey Holmstead, the Environmental Protection Agency's assistant administrator.

"Stealing a march on the EPA" (Editorials, July 12) falsely asserts that climate change is not a high priority for the Bush Administration. In fact, the U.S. currently spends more money ($2 billion annually) on studying the causes and effects of climate change than Japan and the European Union combined. The Bush Administration was the first to deliver a strategic plan as part of its Climate Change Science Program -- which brought together 13 federal agencies, more than 1,200 scientists and stakeholders, and 35 countries around the world -- even though Congress required such a plan in 1990.

Implementing policies designed to curb "global warming" has dramatic consequences for businesses large and small and on the economy in general, but to what effect? Quite simply, we don't know enough about climate change to understand what effect policies would have on the global environment. That is why President Bush's comprehensive plan to first fill in the gaps in climate-change knowledge, along with accelerating federal investments in advanced energy technologies such as the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, is the most prudent course to take.

Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr.
Vice-Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans & Atmosphere
Washington (Found in Business Week July 25)

I'm going to stay out of this thread for now: My point is that Bush is consistently criticized for the wrong things. I've got plenty to pick on him about, but the environment (and corporate fraud/greed) are NOT on my list.

Sincerely,
A Moderate Who Voted for Clinton Twice

Anwar, Kyoto, mercury, arsenic, superfunds that dont get funded anymore for their cleanup, etc.

c'mon.

Watching Democrats bicker is fun.

"We hate Bush for everything!"
"No we don't, we need to hate him for everything but this, so as to not look like we are complaining about everything!"
"You *&#%#@ moron! We hate him for everything!"
"Screw you, what the fuck do you know?"
"I'm so banging my head on my desk right now because of you--twit!"
"Idiot!"
"Jerk!"
"Poopy-head."
"Republican luver!"
"Stupid Christian!"
"Oooooh, that's it, now I'm really pissed, I'm banging my head on my desk and sending this god-awful (I know, there's no god --yuk, yuk--) pain of a headache over the internet at your sorry fascist ass!"

To get back to the original post in this thread:

The problem I've got is that people are somehow surprised to discover that there are corporations out there doing wrong. Of course there are! Just like there are people stealing cars, mugging people, committing rapes, breaking into homes, etc. Why would you expect people in corporations to be any different?

The key is: what percentage? How many? Are they constantly doing wrong? Are they any different than anyone else in society?

There are lots of corporations that plod along just fine without breaking any laws, and many donate millions back to communities. The problem is that every time someone gets caught, it's held up as an example of how all corporations are bad and evil and must be stopped. You want me to go to, say, CNN.COM and take the top story to show how evil teenagers are because they keep shooting up schools? I'm wondering why you expect that there won't be some percentage of corporations (or people at those corporations) trying to dodge around the law. Instead, I'm gratified that someone is keeping an eye out and holding them accountable when the do.

As for Graco, do you have any idea how tightly child products are watched? Check the recalls out sometime in a magazine like Consumer Reports and see some of the piddling stuff they recall these things for. Scan the web for sites that do nothing but rate these products and track how well they work, and how active parents are doing research. They get a reputation for poor safety, and they'll get absolutely creamed in this market. As a result, I think you'll find this particular issue to be an aberration rather than part of a pattern. Graco makes a ton of kids' products, and as tightly as things are tracked I'm not surprised they got tripped up on something. You think that if you had a cop car following you around every single day (often unmarked so you don't know what car it is all the time), they won't catch you breaking some traffic law?

I've got several Graco products, and most of them have been fantastic. The current stroller we own is a fantastic piece of engineering; strong and well-built, yet light enough to lift in and out of the car and set up / take down with one hand (important with a child in the other one). I've also got products from other companies, it all depends on the specifics of the models (although my daughter has a particular fondness for Fisher Price toys for some reason...) Nothing mentioned in this story makes me feel worse about them, in fact it makes me feel better to know that someone was watching them close and made them fix the issues.

I think if a company is going to make child products, they're going to get hit with liability concerns. Kids are GOING to hurt themselves no matter what you do. These products are over-engineered to no end, and they still find things wrong. It's amazing we all managed to actually grow up if you compare what's allowed in products for children today vs. what we had back then. I'm scanning some old slides to hard drive and am in shock at my old toddler bed, some of my toys, etc.

In short, lighten up a bit and be glad that someone is out there watching out for your best interests. Try doing some research on how business was run back in the 19th century and you'll see how much better things are now. A simple search into the railroad industry alone will show that things are MUCH better.

Yes it would be much better if everyone adhered mindlessly to strict party-line dogma. Stupid people, having individual opinions. Bah.

Excellent post. It's kinda like the auto market. The successful, safe companies are big winners, and the poor car makers seem to be getting creamed.

Im all for the safe companies being succesful BUT when a company knows people are being killed and HIDE it. THAT IS EVIL!!! and unacceptable...you shouldnt accept it either. The problem is that there are HUGE amounts (statistics) of corporations, large and small, that lie, cheat, steal, and in this case, kill, to stay full steam ahead.

I apologize, my remarks were mean and insensitive. :)

On topic...

I don't think anyone really believes that corporations have the best interests of the public in mind. The theory of free markets, however, is that in pursuing their own selfish best interests, corporations (like people) will indirectly end up serving the public interest. It's a pretty good theory and mostly works. But there are times when the algorithm doesn't work so well, and that's where we have regulations.

I don't think you can blame Bush for the rash of corporate scandals. The corporate culture from the 80's up through the dot-com boom has been rife with underhanded dealings and neither party did a damned thing about it until huge companies started going belly-up due to their unethical conduct.

Still, there is a political dimension in that the parties have long-standing positions on corporate regulation: the Dems like more, the Republicans like less. Who you'll like will largely depend on how effective you think market feedback mechanisms are.

While I think they're usually effective there frequently cases where consumers operate on incomplete knowledge, due either to corporate concealment of pertinent data or simple information failure on the market (people don't actually have the time or resources to fully research all of their purchases). There also other issues that can cause a free market to operate less than optimally (externalization of costs, behavioral flaws in consumers, etc). In those cases market feedback doesn't operate as well as it should, and if abuses occur, regulation may be useful. Civil enforcement (shareholder actions, product liability suits, etc) can serve as an important regulatory devices as well.

since it kinda had to do with beds:

FDA orders killer hospital beds to be seized
Warns: Vail Products' beds have trapped, killed patients

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Posted: 9:34 PM EST (0234 GMT)


LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, citing a public health risk, said Tuesday it ordered the seizure of enclosed hospital beds made by Vail Products Inc.

The FDA said it was aware of 30 people who became trapped in the beds, seven of whom died.

Officials at Toledo, Ohio-based Vail Products could not be immediately reached for comment. The company's Web site says the beds, used for clinical and home care, allow "the patient to move about freely within a safe, padded environment."

The site makes no mention of Tuesday's seizure.

The FDA said it directed U.S. marshals to seize all finished Vail 500, 1000, and 2000 enclosed beds as well as components, labeling and promotional materials for those models.

The agency said the beds are misbranded because they are dangerous when used as recommended in the labeling. They also lack adequate warnings and directions for use, it said.

The FDA said Vail Products failed or refused to furnish requested information, and inspections show that the company has continually failed to follow quality requirements.

The agency says it issued two warning letters to Vail Products outlining unacceptable practices, and the company "failed to take appropriate actions."

I disagree with you completely. Product safety is a federal regulatory responsibility, and rightly so for any company that sells products across state lines. The Commerce Clause explicitly gives the federal government that authority.

I'm sorry, but until I see details on the reports, I'm not going to start calling Graco "killers". They're being cited for failing to report incidents involving their products, not for having unsafe products to begin with. There is a recall involving their beds, caused by them having the slats spaced too widely (silly Graco, there are clear guidelines on this). However, the fundamental issue remains having kids stick their limbs through those gaps; Graco is being cited here for not making something foolproof to 2-year-olds. I defy you to make ANYTHING that is foolproof for 2-year-olds.

Nothing in that article indicates that the other products were actually unsafe, just that Graco failed to report incidents when children were hurt while in one of their products. The article does not make clear if the product failed, or if something else happened; did someone knock over the high chair, fail to park the stroller properly, etc?

So it's a long stretch from "failed to report" to "killed", a leap you've made on the basis of one summarizing article that does not draw the same conclusions. Much more information is needed before deciding just how "evil" they were.

it said failed to report some instances, "some fatal".

But it does not say whether the company products were at fault in those instances. They are supposed to report any accident where their products are involved, whether or not they are the cause ('cause they have to figure out the cause).

Because they weren't taken to court!!

Are you kidding? Youve got to be kidding? This is plain as day, it was a unspoken corporate policy that spanned different prooducts, to HIDE/not report (which is required) incidents in which children were hurt OR KILLED, obviously in use of their products.

Youre right, they dont have to report every accident or fatality in which their product was not involved!! like, say car accidents, or drownings. Cmon man THEY OBVIOUSLY ONLY FINING THEM FOR THINGS THAT RELATE TO THEM!! (I dont pay your taxes!!) This is obviously a company that did WRONG, please dont stand there and say that, "youre not sure." because there isnt all the evidnece. Shit I can go to fox news or CNN or NPR and get whatever we want to back up what you already believe. But at some point, when a gov't organization throws a 400MILLION dollar fine at some one, theyre not doing it on a whim!!

I have the utmost respect for you and your opinions but when you cant see that the sun is in the sky, it really makes me question whether or not your stances pervade ALL our debates.

Flasch - You've mentioned the statistics several times in this thread and in your initial post you indicate you've presented them before. Since I missed it the first time around, could you link or re-post those statistics. I'm curious to see how pervasive this issue is.

no no no,m I mean statistics in random samplings. If you take a sampling of X # of companies and find that 3 are caught cheating, you can expand upon said sample with a + or - error range, that there is more that do said "cheating".

Obviously those that are Pro-big business would like to tell you that ONLY those that have been caught, Those that we can talk about, THOSE THAT ARE IN OUR KNOWLEDGE NOW, are the ones doing the cheating but that is disingenuous.

For ALL crime (like someone stated already) not EVERYONE is caught, and thus is UNKNOWN. You have to use statistics to guesstimate a likely target. While not 100% accurate it is a better estimate to get at an answer than randomly saying ALL cheat or NONE cheat.

Oh. I see. I thought you might have some statistics to show what percentage of companies we could 'expect' to be breaking the law.


Of course, how would you use statistics to show what that percentage would be? I guess you'd have to generate a list of X number of random companies, then investigate them all to see if any were breaking the law, then extraploate that out to all corporations. Also, would this be limited to a particular type of criminal activity, such as product liability, tax evasion, improper accounting practices, illegal hiring practices etc. or would we just lump them all together under the 'evil corporate activity' category? Naturally once this was done, there would be all sorts of ways to slice and dice the data to spin it in one particular way or another. "Sure, 20% of all large corporations were indicted on criminal activity, but a whopping 34% of small business executives were jailed for tax evasion" (as an example)

Also, you are pretty fervent to point out that for every one corporate scandal, there are many out there that aren't uncovered. So far, I haven't seen one single, solitary post that claims that the only criminal activity that is occurring is that which is caught. However you repeatedly claim that this is what the pro-big business camp would like people to believe. You make the claim, but so far it seems to be an outlandish and unsupported claim.

As I have pointed out to you before your fervent and often over the top claims submarine the rest of your argument. Is your argument valid that there is criminal activity occurring at the corporate level a valid one? Absolutely. Is your argument that this is something that we should be concerned with a valid one? Most likely yes. Is your concern over this something that should drive you to post about the topic in order to raise the awareness of others? That's up to you, but I think it is probably a noble purpose.

However, claims that "they" are EVIL and that "they" will result in a nation of the 'haves' governing a third world nation of the 'have-nots' are so ridiculous that it totally destroys any valid points you make. You lump ALL big businesses in with your statements and present an attitude that "all big business is bad". Rather than painting with the broad brush that all big businesses are evil and that they will destroy America, drop the Chicken Little approach and focus on the idea that corporate scandals are something to be concerned with, that they are more pervasive than people might realize, and that while corporate watchdogs and law enforcement agencies might catch a few bad guys, the general population should be more aware and should be sensitive to what businesses they support with their purchases.

Your repeated threads regarding corporate scandals COULD go a long way in spreading your message. However, because of your presentation, you do more harm to your cause than good. Back off the 'you people are too stupid or stubborn to see how things really are' approach and go with a 'my first inclination is that this is a bad thing, but wanted to find out other's opinions' or similar type approach and I bet you get a less devisive response.

Study QuikSand. I think in most 'discussion' type threads he starts or participates in, he doesn't claim to be an authority (although it's usually pretty evident that he knows a bit about the topic) and asks for others input and opinions. Then when he disagrees, it is done in an adult, reasoned, non-combative manner. That's one reason his posts tend to carry a fair amount of weight around here. If he does take a dig at someone, he usually follows it up with an explanation, based in fact or reason, as to why the previous poster is an idiot.

Sorry for the long post. It is just aggravating to continually see you ruining a valid point with blind fervor.

You're failing to see the difference between "child was hurt while in a Graco high chair that was knocked over by the family dog" and "child was hurt while in a Graco high chair when the leg collapsed". Or better yet "child was hurt while in a Graco high chair when the leg collapsed after the parent failed to lock the leg properly". I've seen plenty of recalls that were phrased like that last one: "Graco high chair leg will collapse when leg not locked correctly" (yes, I read the recall notices in the back of EVERY Consumer Reports now that I have a child, and there is a mix of "how could they release a product like that?" along with "what idiot user would try to do that with the product?")

The article does not tell us how many of these incidents fall into which of those 3 categories. And I'm not about to throw the label "killer" at them until I know which ones. The label may be deserved, but it also may not. And frankly, if a product failure killed a child, I'd expect a lawsuit somewhere over it, and I'd expect the press to be digging like mad to find them right about now. The fact that all we've got so far is this one tiny article makes me skeptical that this goes much beyond "failure to report".

You do realise that all those warning notices everyone loves to laugh at come out of these types of incidents, right? We all laugh at the warning notice without thinking that someone had to actually try to use the product in the way its being warned against, got hurt, sued, and WON! And a company can be cited for failing to report these outrageous claims.

So to summarize: plenty of information to be outraged that they weren't reporting incidents, not nearly enough to be outraged that they were "killers".

great point(s), I am affected in life by my emotional diatribes as well, but it is equally upsetting when others claim that there isn't any more corporate scandal outside that which is found. Like, when someone says, "I cant believe another thread about bashing corporations when one gets caught." Well we only KNOW about those that get caught.

Obviously, I feel that the corporate atmosphere that started back in the 80's and carried through to now, have created a generation of upper management that does throw their morals to the wind at the greater public's expense.

When we boil down corporate misdeeds the most important ones that I have focused on are those that crush the public for the short term stake of the corporation, ie. Enron's financial claims and selling internally, the hiding of information by Firestone that could've saved lives, and now these here...not reporting incidents, some fatal, in which one's goods were deemed responsible enough to be fined for.

Yes, we should be concerned but I do get emotional when someone defends the greater corporate culture by insinuating that the one's caught are the only ones, or a very few that do "cheat" when statistics (theory) say otherwise.

That's fair enough. However, I would suggest doing some research on corporate scandals. I anticipate that you will find that what seems to be a recent phenomenon isn't so recent. Without anything to back it up and without having done any research on the matter, I would venture to say that corporations have been 'dirty' long before the '80's, and that contrary to what you suggest the percentages haven't really changed all that much.

My thinking is that what HAS changed is the scope of the activity, the intensity of the media coverage, and most importantly the scope of the individual effects. What hasn't changed (IMO since I don't have any facts to back up my feeling) is the lack of morals, greed as the driving force, or the frequency of the criminal acts.

In other words, corporate scandal has always occurred, and probably with similar frequency. However because we are SOOOOOOO much more inundated by the media the problem seems magnified. Also, society has become sensitized to stock prices as evidenced by the huge drops in a company's stock price if they miss estimates by a penny. This increases the effect MUCH more than it used to.

Yet, even though we may be more sensitive to one company's shortfall, the effects are MUCH more tolerable in today's economy than prior to 1980. For example, look at Black Tuesday, the stock market event that helped trigger the Great Depression. Since 1980 we have had (I believe) several times where the stock market declined more %-wise than back then. Yet the economy was able to absorb them relatively well. In contrast, scandals such as Enron might have less effect on the National scale compared to the past, they have a MUCH greater individual effect because of 401(k) programs, which I believe has increased the percentage of people who now invest in the stock market.

Nutshell: Corporate crime has always existed, and very possibly in similar proportions. What has changed is our awareness and sensitivity to it and it's potential to affect far greater numbers of individuals.

No, you're misinterpreting us again. Sure, there is more than those getting caught, but I'd say that the increase in frequency about companies getting caught and punished shows that more enforcement is being applied rather than an increase in corporate abuse.

Another key issue is that you take these stories and spin them in to "All Corporations are evil", while I'm not willing to go nearly that far. Change it to "Many Corporations have crooks working for them" and I'll stop arguing. Statistics do say there are more than are getting caught, but statistics don't say they're all doing bad things. Heck, all I've got to do is find a handful of stories about companies doing good and it'll kill your argument using your own logic: if X are doing good, statistics show that X times some large number are also doing good that we don't know about. And a quick search on "corporate donation" turns up dozens of links.


Um, started in the '80s? Did you do any of the 19th-century research I recommended earlier? The big guys have been trying to screw over the little guys since man walked out of caves / Cain slew Abel (depending on your beliefs). If anything, things are getting BETTER in that the little guy has more resources to get the big guy punished when the big guy crosses a line. Again, you see these stories as a negative, while I see them as a positive (they're actually CATCHING and PROSECUTING these guys now).


And you're taking it way too far the other way.

How do you know about the GOP talking points!!!!! :eek:
OMG, an undercover agent for the DNC!!!
Quick, call out the vast right wing conspiracy hit squads!!!! :mad:

It has been my experience that liberals more often support emotional, knee-jerk, tow the party line policies than conservatives....sometimes without even trully understanding the implications of such policies. I guess the old saying is true, "if you are young and not a liberal, you have no heart; if you are mature and not a conservative, you have no common sense."

Again, you single out Fox for carving out and serving a niche that was being neglected by the other [ahem] news outlets. Last time I looked, it wasn't Fox that was having to apologize for airing a highly "politically charged" story supported by forged documents.

I seem to recall seeing my first "CBS News - Rather Biased" bumper sticker back in the mid 80s, long before there was a Fox News for the libs to demonize. And CNN wasn't called "The Clinton News Network" for no reason, again BF (Before Fox).

Well, if that's true, then the conservatives have been catching up furiously in recent days...