Sounds very interesting.
Wait, a couple was raped on I-65 and taken to a rest area on I-75 and killed and this is why folks should carry a gun in Nashville after dark? What?
Wait, so you're really arguing that they had a program they often called "Manuel" and they specifically and deliberately targeted Hispanics when they otherwise would not have and those two things are just some massive coincidence? You guys are awfully generous about handing out the benefit of the doubt to people who've just been accused of massively and regularly violating the trust others put in them. Just food for thought.
Anyway, the assorted nicknames for the fraud aren't the problem with the Civil Rights Act. Remember, the criteria for which customers get dicked over is, in every other case, those who would be too stupid to notice. Hispanics, who are "not stupid" (Hanscomb's words) and therefore not in the usual target group, are included as victims of the scam because of perceived traits attributed to their ethnicity--which Hanscomb specifically states is the case. That's the possible Civil Rights Act violation.
Moost, this is the part of the story I wish someone would cover, because I don't understand it, and would like to. Just from the little I know about how the trucking industry is set up, it appears like this would be bad for truckers, really bad. But I haven't yet seen anyone explain what this means for them.
I just know that you can't have millions of dollars at play and there not be someone who's feeling the financial pinch.
Yes, Steven, indeed, if you tell people you're going to charge them "cost+x" where x doesn't vary but is an agreed upon set number, if you charge them anything other than cost+x but let them continue to think you're charging them cost+x, you are cheating. If you and your customer have an agreed-upon definition of "cost" but you decide that, unbeknownst to them, "cost" means whatever the hell you want it to mean, you are, indeed, cheating.
If automobile dealerships are doing this, too, then, yes, they should be afraid they might get caught.
There are "details" and then there are "I dicked this guy over so hard I had to buy an airplane off him to make it go away, boss" details. I think it's plausible that Haslam may not have known about the first type of fraud I outlined, where customers did not have the deals they thought they did. That wouldn't raise any red flags on the books, because the books reflected the salesperson's wishes, not the customer's expectations.
I find it highly implausible that he didn't know about the second. If you are just quickly scanning the monthly numbers and you have, say, all your customers who buy 1 million gallons a month who are at cost+3 grouped in one spot, it's got to be obvious when they're not all getting the same rebate. The affidavit makes it clear not everyone was cheating and that the cheaters' numbers ended up on the books.
It's not like this was a fraud perpetrated by someone so far down the ladder Haslam probably doesn't know she's even his employee. This was, in part, perpetrated by folks just a level or two down from Haslam. There's almost no one but him to have oversight of these folks.
Yes, he told them to "be fair." But this has allegedly been going on since at least 2008 and the company's lawyer only started reviewing the numbers--at least according to the affidavit--recently, after the Federal investigation was in full swing. If "being fair" meant "not cheating customers," that order didn't have any fangs until the lawyer got involved.
The Patio Burger from Granite Falls!
All Comments »
The SouthComm Set
The City Paper |
LEO Weekly |
Medical News Papers
All contents © 1995-2013
City Press LLC, 210 12th Ave. S., Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of City Press LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Powered by Foundation