B&H Once again sued for discrimination

[slclick]

Boy, I wouldn't want a jury of 'these' peers from CR. I'm with Neuro on this, we just don't know enough, this is why we have the word 'alleged' in our vocabulary. If truly found guilty, I'll never shop there again but the forum jury is a bit premature.

 

[Orangutan]

Boy, I wouldn't want a jury of 'these' peers from CR. I'm with Neuro on this, we just don't know enough, this is why we have the word 'alleged' in our vocabulary. If truly found guilty, I'll never shop there again but the forum jury is a bit premature.

We don't know enough to throw anyone in jail, but we probably know enough to withhold our business.

I wish a lawyer would chime in about it, but my understanding is that this (and the previous) were not criminal complaints, but rather civil/administrative complaints. There are formal civil procedures for adjudicating those types of complaints, not all of which require a courtroom. B&H submitted to substantial remedies (payment of $4.9 million and monitoring of hiring and compensation practices) as part of a settlement. Such steep remedies strongly suggest that B&H was afraid that worse results would emerge from the full adjudication process. While this does not imply or suggest criminal guilt, it does suggest civil/administrative culpability, and very strongly supports the non-legal use of the term "guilt."

 

[neuroanatomist]

So B&H was coming out clean from the trial

So there was a trial? Well, I guess facts don't matter much to some people.

The word "guilt" has meaning beyond its courtroom definition. I'll leave it to you to check various dictionaries. Since few of us on this forum are lawyers, the sense of the word should have been clear.

When people start tossing out statements like 'the trial' and 'found guilty', and there are no facts to support those statements, it doesn't take a law degree – or a dictionary – to know out of which orifice they're talking.

I'm fortunate to live in a country where the concept of innocent until proven guilty is one of the tenets of the law. I feel sorry for you if you live somewhere where mere accusation proves guilt – but I feel even more sorry for if you live somewhere where your own rights include freedoms like innocent until proven guilty, and you deny those rights to others.

 

[neuroanatomist]

We don't know enough to throw anyone in jail, but we probably know enough to withhold our business.

I wonder how many people posting statements like that because of alleged deplorable working conditions are posting them from an iPhone, or wearing clothing/shoes produced in a sweatshop. Perhaps something to be considered over a breakfast including produce picked by migrant farmworkers accompanied by coffee made from beans harvested by child labor.

When you're on a high horse, falling can hurt.

 

[privatebydesign]

Read up on their Attorney and law practice.

http://www.mmsjlaw.com/

From a photographic perspective, they need serious help with their headshots. From a website perspective any link that goes to a 'coming soon' page shouldn't be there at all.

From a B&H customer perspective I have been very happy with their service for many years, though I don't understand why they ran my CC for the 1DX MkII preorder immediately, Adorama don't. (I am not prone to preordering or buying $6,000 anythings so it came as a surprise)

From an ethics point of view, most of us need to look in the mirror before casting judgements like we are prone to. How many of us have taken pictures of people clearly in need of a little help, yet all we did was took from them? How many of us are happy in our ignorance of where our meat comes from, our clothes are made, our electronics are assembled etc etc? Taking a higher moral position is an unstable stool to stand on......

 

[Orangutan]

So B&H was coming out clean from the trial

So there was a trial? Well, I guess facts don't matter much to some people.

The word "guilt" has meaning beyond its courtroom definition. I'll leave it to you to check various dictionaries. Since few of us on this forum are lawyers, the sense of the word should have been clear.

When people start tossing out statements like 'the trial' and 'found guilty', and there are no facts to support those statements, it doesn't take a law degree – or a dictionary – to know out of which orifice they're talking.

I'm fortunate to live in a country where the concept of innocent until proven guilty is one of the tenets of the law. I feel sorry for you if you live somewhere where mere accusation proves guilt – but I feel even more sorry for if you live somewhere where your own rights include freedoms like innocent until proven guilty, and you deny those rights to others.

I'm not accustomed to seeing you use false dichotomy, and this is more hyperbolic than normal for you. This is not a black/white issue: you are correct that there is no reporting of a criminal conviction, or even of a trial; however, that's not the question here. If we waited for 100% proof of everything we would all die of inertia. I'd be willing to bet a few dollars that very few, if any, pharmaceutical products would stand up to that level of proof.

While it's entirely appropriate to keep an open and skeptical mind, we often must make decisions based on incomplete evidence. A good example is global climate change: the evidence is very strong, but not 100% (in part because we have incomplete knowledge of the systems involved). Nevertheless, based on the evidence and knowledge we do have, we are obliged to take some actions.

Again, this is not about criminal procedures, though I doubt you'll listen to me. I assume you have some lawyer friends, ask them about administrative procedures -- that's what this is about.

 

[Orangutan]

We don't know enough to throw anyone in jail, but we probably know enough to withhold our business.

I wonder how many people posting statements like that because of alleged deplorable working conditions are posting them from an iPhone, or wearing clothing/shoes produced in a sweatshop. Perhaps something to be considered over a breakfast including produce picked by migrant farmworkers accompanied by coffee made from beans harvested by child labor.

When you're on a high horse, falling can hurt.

We cannot be perfect, we can only try to be better every day. I try to make my possessions last as long as possible (my previous cell phone lasted 7 years, my car is almost 20), and I try to make the most ethical purchasing decisions I can. There are too many people for each of us to retreat to a self-contained life: there aren't enough places to build a hovel on a few acres to scratch a subsistence life here in the U.S. -- we're all part of a system. The remedy is to build a system that addresses those (very real) inequities you mention. A critical part of that system is enforcement of laws and regulations by the U.S. Labor Department, which is precisely what we have here.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While it's entirely appropriate to keep an open and skeptical mind...

...I doubt you'll listen to me.

Understood. I'll leave it to you to check various dictionaries for the word, irony.

 

[Orangutan]

While it's entirely appropriate to keep an open and skeptical mind...

...I doubt you'll listen to me.

Understood. I'll leave it to you to check various dictionaries for the word, irony.

A well-reasoned reply.

Oops, forgot the <sarcasm></sarcasm>

 

[kphoto99]

We don't know enough to throw anyone in jail, but we probably know enough to withhold our business.

I wonder how many people posting statements like that because of alleged deplorable working conditions are posting them from an iPhone, or wearing clothing/shoes produced in a sweatshop. Perhaps something to be considered over a breakfast including produce picked by migrant farmworkers accompanied by coffee made from beans harvested by child labor.

When you're on a high horse, falling can hurt.

So you are saying that since we can't fix everything, we should do nothing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A well-reasoned reply.

What would be the point? B&H settled a lawsuit in 2007, and they're being sued again now. You've decided that means they're guilty....both then and now.

What about the similar lawsuit in 2009? The one in 2011? No reports of those being settled, or ending in a guilty verdict. But no doubt they are guilty in those cases, too, right? I mean, they were accused, after all. Who needs due process?

The real jury is still out, even though you've decided the case.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

So B&H was coming out clean from the trial

So there was a trial? Well, I guess facts don't matter much to some people.

The word "guilt" has meaning beyond its courtroom definition. I'll leave it to you to check various dictionaries. Since few of us on this forum are lawyers, the sense of the word should have been clear.

When people start tossing out statements like 'the trial' and 'found guilty', and there are no facts to support those statements, it doesn't take a law degree – or a dictionary – to know out of which orifice they're talking.

I'm fortunate to live in a country where the concept of innocent until proven guilty is one of the tenets of the law. I feel sorry for you if you live somewhere where mere accusation proves guilt – but I feel even more sorry for if you live somewhere where your own rights include freedoms like innocent until proven guilty, and you deny those rights to others.

First of all, we have to distinguish between civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, settlements are often made in order to avoid the high costs of a trial.

It can take years for a trial to be completed after all the appeals are finished, so its often cheaper to settle.

Settlements usually involve a lot of money for the attorneys and almost nothing for the individuals affected, usually $10 or less. Attorneys love this, they get 1/3 of the settlement or millions of dollars. They are always searching for someone with deep pockets that they can sue, since they are guaranteed a big payday. Obviously, they must have a large number of people who are unhappy and willing to testify about events that sound bad once a attorney twists the story around.

This makes it difficult to determine if a company is guilty, or if they are being essentially blackmailed in a legal manner. The bad publicity surrounding a trial and the nasty but unsubstantiated accusations can cost big bucks in lost sales and a damaged company image that paying a few million dollars is chicken feed, so they pay up.

This is what will happen here. There is no criminal trial, just Attorneys asking for a few million dollars for their coffers and a few dollars each for the employees.

The business about the labor unions is a red herring, its not part of the lawsuit, just Attorneys spinning it because some will think it means something.

 

[josephandrews222]

I have heard bad things about B&H so many times. Where there is smoke there is usually fire...


I've said this a quite a few times on this forum, but it goes double right now for the American's with their high dollar: everyone should really consider shopping at The Camera Store in Calgary, AB Canada.

They honestly give the best service out of any of the shops I've dealt with, which is pretty much all of the big ones by now. They really go to no end of trouble to help, and I've been a massive pain in the rear on multiple occasions.

Since there's no duty on camera equipment thanks to NAFTA, might as well take advantage of the low prices while they last.

I bought the 11-22mm lens for the EOS M from Vistek (back when it was not sold in the USA, my home country).

Very happy with the service--shipped safely and quickly.

At the time the Canadian/American exchange rate was near unity...so I didn't have to think about how this all works.

Can someone help me out here?

Using an AMEX credit card (or VISA etc.) how is the exchange rate handled?

Today the rate is 1.35 (not so good for my friends in Montreal, eh?).

So a lens that costs $1,350 CDN...that I purchase online...goes for $1,000 USD?

And my AMEX credit card bill (for that lens) will be $1,000?

FWIW...the Camera Store in Calgary seems to sell/ship (online) only to Canadians/Canada.

 

[Don Haines]

I have heard bad things about B&H so many times. Where there is smoke there is usually fire...


I've said this a quite a few times on this forum, but it goes double right now for the American's with their high dollar: everyone should really consider shopping at The Camera Store in Calgary, AB Canada.

They honestly give the best service out of any of the shops I've dealt with, which is pretty much all of the big ones by now. They really go to no end of trouble to help, and I've been a massive pain in the rear on multiple occasions.

Since there's no duty on camera equipment thanks to NAFTA, might as well take advantage of the low prices while they last.

I bought the 11-22mm lens for the EOS M from Vistek (back when it was not sold in the USA, my home country).

Very happy with the service--shipped safely and quickly.

At the time the Canadian/American exchange rate was near unity...so I didn't have to think about how this all works.

Can someone help me out here?

Using an AMEX credit card (or VISA etc.) how is the exchange rate handled?

Today the rate is 1.35 (not so good for my friends in Montreal, eh?).

So a lens that costs $1,350 CDN...that I purchase online...goes for $1,000 USD?

And my AMEX credit card bill (for that lens) will be $1,000?

FWIW...the Camera Store in Calgary seems to sell/ship (online) only to Canadians/Canada.

That's right.... $1,350 Canadian will show up as $1000 U.S.

For Canadian shops that I know of,
The Camera Store in Calgary is very reputable....
Camera Canada is very reputable (my 7D2 came from there)...
Visitek is very reputable....
Henrys is very reputable.....

 

[Orangutan]

A well-reasoned reply.

B&H settled a lawsuit in 2007, and they're being sued again now. You've decided that means they're guilty....both then and now.

In this particular reply I'm avoiding the world "guilty" since you're focusing on the legal meaning of that (conviction at trial,upheld on appeal) I've decided that they're probably culpable for the following reasons.

• The Justice Department under the Bush Administration was not known for strong labor enforcement. The fact that a case was pursued at that time means the Bush Labor Department felt the case was strong. Under any administration, there's not a lot of extra lawyer-hours to pursue frivolous cases, and many legitimate cases languish for lack of time. This, alone, does not mean that they are culpable -- prosecutors have been known to be wrong, and even malicious in their accusations; however, it adds weight to the pile.
• B&H accepted a settlement that was pretty harsh: not only was it a lot of money, but there was oversight. At $300/hr for lawyers, it works out to over 16,000 billable hours. You can fight long and hard for that kind of money. The fact that B&H did not is highly suggestive of concession. Again, it's not irrefutable evidence (as you've noted, people settle for a variety of reasons). However, it adds weight to the belief that B&H didn't think that 16,000 lawyer-hours would win the case for them.

As you've rightly noted, there is not sufficient evidence in the article to convict in court; however, there is enough to support the opinion that there is likely a significant amount of misbehavior or culpability. That's good enough to deflect my money to another seller.

What about the similar lawsuit in 2009? The one in 2011? No reports of those being settled, or ending in a guilty verdict. But no doubt they are guilty in those cases, too, right?

Straw man arguments aren't necessary here. There's enough real material for a productive discussion.

The real jury is still out, even though you've decided the case.

I've decided for myself, not on behalf of a court.

 

[that1guyy]

Insulting post removed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I've decided for myself

Well, that's certainly your right. You can take your business elsewhere because of your perception of their labor practices, your feelings about the owners' religious beliefs, or an intense dislike of the shade of red used in their logo. Go, freedom!

 

[gary samples]

I know nothing of their internal politics . I have spent THOUSANDS of dollars there with zero problems so I'm good !

 

[AlanF]

It is fitting that the Canon fanboys on this website are racists/defenders of racists as well. Not surprised.

Your absolutes and judgments, i.e. aligning purchases patterns with belief systems are showing your maturity. You might want to rethink your keyboard bravado.

It's a sad aspect of our internet world that there are those who are so self-confidently judgmental that they brand individuals and organizations as being racist without any worry about evidence, and bravely hide behind the cloak of anonymity.

 

[Don Haines]

Wow! So much said with so little evidence.... and already pronounced guilty by internet.....

Anybody know the details? Not the media talking points, the real details......

How do they compare to other companies?

Have they been making progress or are they getting worse?

who cares.... pronounce guilt by internet and be done with it...