Talk:C&S Wholesale Grocers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Litigation

Litigation discussion

{{Just wondering, what is the status of the lawsuit? I've never worked for C&S, but did work for one of the supermarket chains who sold C&S their warehouses. Anyone have any ideas? Kf4mgz 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC) I find it unusual that an article could be edited so many times to present a single point of view regarding a lawsuit. How is it that an $18 billion company, which undoubtedly has many lawsuits, past and present, should have an entire section of a Wikipedia article dedicated to one lawsuit? How is is that this lawsuit is presented from a very subjective and pro-plaintiff point of view? It's quite nauseating. As an interested party though, I do think this relentless editing may be related to a party directly involved in the case. With the help of Wikipedia's IP tracking, I shall make it a point to find where the edits originated and if they possibly may be violating any legal ethics rules. Expat73 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Yes I would have to agree with you. This article on the suit is filled with some pretty bias information. If you look at the Major academic establishments that respect and laude this pay scale it makes you wonder. Someone is always looking for a hand out and it is sad that a profitable private business is being attacked like this. I have friends who work in one of their warehouses and they love the pay scale. But then again they are hard workers and understand what it takes to get ahead in life.Moot28 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC) I've balanced the "Lawsuit" section with the company's statements. The section also has references now. --vi5in[talk] 16:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This article is not about a lawsuit. It is about an $18 billion company that supplies the majority of the groceries to the country's retailers. This is one, single lawsuit from many. Furthermore, the suit has never even made it to court, and likely never will. Until it has been argued and decided by a jury, all issues presented by the former employees' legal team are conjecture without basis. The approximately 23,000 other employees of C&S, who apparently aren't disgruntled, may well agree with my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.185.64.201 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC) It's not up to you to decide whether the issues are simply conjecture, or without basis. A judge will decide that. It is true that the article is not about the lawsuit, but it does document an ongoing lawsuit. I will reinstate the tag. --vi5in[talk] 20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Until it IS decided by a judge (which it never will be), it is conjecture. The article is not about a lawsuit, it is about the profile of a company. The tag is again removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.185.64.201 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC) –verb (used with object) 5. to furnish with documents. 6. to furnish with references, citations, etc., in support of statements made: a carefully documented biography. 7. to support by documentary evidence: to document a case. 8. Nautical. to provide (a vessel) with a certificate giving particulars concerning nationality, ownership, tonnage, dimensions, :etc. 9. Obsolete. to instruct. I believe the number 6 describes the use of the tag. The article is about a company, agreed. But it also documents this ongoing lawsuit. Are you a lawyer/judge? How do you know it won't be decided by a judge? That is not your call at all. A lawsuit currently exists and is going on. As such, it must be mentioned in the article. --vi5in[talk] 20:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, Vivin, maybe I just do happen to know. I'm removing the tag again, and will do so every time you reinstate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.142.241 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) If you continue to do what you're doing, you're going to get blocked. That I know for sure. --vi5in[talk] 09:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Additionally I would caution the unregistered editor to not run afoul of Wikipedia's official policy on ownership of articles. While this company is under litigious action that is described in the body of the article, it is entirely appropriate that the article be tagged {{Ongoing lawsuit}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC) There seems to be, as Vi5in noted at WP:AN/I, an ownership issue here. In addition, I note some comments here on the talk page, in which an editor whose only contribs are to this article offers to IP track other editors and consider legal actions against them (suggesting that he'll take this to an ethics board is effectively either what wiki considers a legal threat or flat out bullying intimidation). I saw this posted on AN/I, and have no particular interest in C&S, or any of the editors involved. I do note that Vi5in has found citations, and will probably continue to find more. Further, for the IPs who comment on how the company has probably been sued before, a few thoughts: One, this is a federal employee rights case, not a local slip-and-fall liability suit. Two, it's an on-going case, a current event, and those are one of Wiki's strong suits, to be able to maintain and update current events. Three, It's notable enough that citations could be found, meaning others on the internet are interested in the case. As such, removing the material, and/or the ongiong lawsuit tag, is not to the benefit of wikipedia at all. ThuranX 16:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Since you all seem to know what's going on better than I do at C&S, I'm finished editing this. Do whatever you like with it. As for threats or bullying, I wouldn't call it a threat. It wasn't a threat - I did send this on to the appropriate people to look at the ethics, and they agree with my assertation. Oh snap... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.142.241 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)}}

I have collapsed a 2007 debate about employee litigation. Since I found either broken links and couldn't find current info on the suits I nuked it from the article. Americasroof (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose removing the litigation section entirely from the article. I know this has been discussed previously (7+ years ago), but the two legal issues currently brought up in the article have no resolution mentioned.

The first litigation point mentioned (C&S and SuperValu collusion) has been dismissed. The second (stated causes of A&P bankruptcy) was never truly a lawsuit in the first place, but was instead one of several reasons A&P put forth as to why they were declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On top of this, several months after the point's stated date (December, 2010), A&P entered into a new agreement with C&S over grocery distribution. DSpeckhals (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on C&S Wholesale Grocers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024075434/http://www.paulweiss.com/files/Publication/d1436bab-f7cd-4ecf-a1d7-26764ac96052/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/896831da-763f-4a4e-a70d-7599105b5056/837336.pdf to http://www.paulweiss.com/files/Publication/d1436bab-f7cd-4ecf-a1d7-26764ac96052/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/896831da-763f-4a4e-a70d-7599105b5056/837336.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sunmist3 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mike Duffy

The mike duffy listed on the right hand box links to a DIFFERENT mike duffy.