Wal-Mart caves to SCs, allows them to get cartloads of "free"groceries

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Story here

Summary:

In Louisiana, a glitch in the state's EBT system caused all the cards to in effect have no spending limit, allowing people to buy as much food as they wanted.

As you can probably suspect, this led to a rush of people storming Wal-Mart and leaving with cartload after cartload of "free" groceries. One person apparently had almost 10 carts by THEMSELVES.

But here's where it gets dumb. After the glitch was identified, the manager of this Wal-Mart called Company Headquarters, who advised him to CONTINUE ALLOWING THE TRANSACTIONS.

Wal-Mart and Xerox are currently slugging it out over who should foot the bill for this mess, but if you ask me it should be Wal-Mart, especially after they were dumb enough to not stop EBT use when the problem was discovered.

[mikoyan29]

And in the end, we all get to pay for this one way or the other.

[s_stabeler]

Up until the fault was identified, Wal-Mart have a case for Xerox paying, since it was Xerox's screw-up. But once thye had been alerted to the screw-up, then it became their responsibility to mitigate against further losses. Therefore, their decision to continue accepting the EBT cards means they should be forced to pay for those transactions.

edit- sorry, changed my mind. Xerox operate a phoneline for EBT approvals even when the cards aren't working properly. Wal-Mart actively refused to use systems designed to prevent this exact situation. Wal-Mart pays.

[Gravekeeper]

The law in Louisiana states that in the event of an EBT problem transactions must be limited to $50. If this guideline is not followed, the store is on the hook for every dollar over $50. So Walmart essentially just gave away their whole store's inventory because the regional manager is a dumbass.

The store did phone corporate to ask what to do, and corporate said to allow people to keep using the cards for whatever. So someone at the regional level is gonna get fired. ;p

[eltf177]

The part that really disgusts me is that these people knew this was wrong, when the store manager announced the problem had been fixed most of these people just abandoned their groceries.

I hope that every one of these thieves is cut from the rolls for their part in this...

[smileyeagle1021]

I hope that every one of these thieves is cut from the rolls for their part in this...

You know how so many conservatives like to talk about food stamp recipients being leeches on society... yeah, these people just gave them enough ammunition to fight a small war against China. I'd say cut them, not just as punishment for their own thievery, but to protect the honest people who legitimately need the benefits from being thrown under the bus with them.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

The part that really disgusts me is that these people knew this was wrong, when the store manager announced the problem had been fixed most of these people just abandoned their groceries.

I hope that every one of these thieves is cut from the rolls for their part in this...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Andara Bledin]

I hope that every one of these thieves is cut from the rolls for their part in this...

I hope they get prosecuted for fraud and theft, myself.

If they want a free ride so bad, let's give them three solids in the greybar hotel and see how that feels.

[Panacea]

The part that really disgusts me is that these people knew this was wrong, when the store manager announced the problem had been fixed most of these people just abandoned their groceries.

I hope that every one of these thieves is cut from the rolls for their part in this...

Oh hell YES.

I have no problem giving benefits to the poor; most are honest and don't abuse them.

But these fuckers: throw the book at them.

[Greenday]

I read something last night about how someone was in the middle of an $800 transaction when the card problem was fixed. She had less than a dollar left on her card so she bolted.

[Rageaholic]

And in the end, we all get to pay for this one way or the other.

Or the employees will end up paying.

The more I live, the less sympathetic I am to customers and their piddly ass problems.

[Nekojin]

I'll admit that if I were in dire enough straits to be needing EBT, I'd probably abuse the system a bit. But I can't imagine putting thousands of dollars on it... isn't it restricted to perishables, food that could go bad? I can't imagine going over $200, even if I were buying the least cost-effective foodstuffs I could grab... I'd fill the fridge before I got any further. And then take out whatever amount I genuinely had on the card, and was going to spend anyway? Yeah, can't see myself doing more than, say, $50 in "extra."

And that's only if I were that desperately down on my luck. I seriously can't imagine racking up nearly a grand in EBT charges. It blows my mind.

[draco664]

As a study in human nature, it's quite apt.

It's also a good reason why there's a credit limit on congress...

[Racket_Man]

That is almost as bad as a situation that happened to me years ago. I was unemployed, receiving UE benefits and getting food stamps on an EBT card.

I then got a decent job, stopped getting UE bennies and notified my welfare caseworker of this. YET the food stamp money kept rolling into my account (I checked on the balance once a month to see how much of the 'legal" amount I had left). I called my caseworker several times to again notify them I did indeed have a job and no longer needed food assistance and that I would gladly provide proof of said job and decent income. But the dollars kept rolling into my account. Now I did not want to get into trouble or be charged with welfare fraud so I called my caseworker one more time to say I was cutting up the card and not using any more of the dollars on my account.

The last time I checked the balance there was like $2000 ready to be used. I could not justify using those 'not legally received" dollars though I could have if I so choose.

[HYHYBT]

I'm all for cutting them from the program. But *only* the ones who can be proven to be doing it deliberately. In many cases that's going to be obvious, but where and how do you make a sharp enough distinction?