Okay I own photo card business, and sometimes I go to Walmart to get some cards printed. I went today and the manager was being an a-hole. I submit 2-3 orders online separatly and when I get there they combine my order into one. So I get the a discount if I order 100 or more. Never had a problem. Since I go to the store often I see this manager often around the store and carries himself as "God gift to Walmart" Okay so the manager is in the photolab today (shortstaffed) and when I am about to combine my orders and the photo clerk (a young girl) says she does not know how to do it. So she gets the manager who refuses to do it due to company policy,because it is a separate orders. I am also a photographer and I can tell you that I have not heard of this. All the photolab managers do it without a problem. So I tell him If I refuse to take the order and resubmit the order will you then apply the discount? He said that was the only way!! He kept on saying "company policy" but with a big smile on his face. Does this make sense? He was willing to reprint them and throw away the previous orders. Okay so I go home in disbelief and pissed, and decide to call him, and ask him how can this be? He was being rude and sarcastic and telling me company policy, and that all the other Walmart were not follwing company policy. I realize that I am talking on my company phone and that the phone call is being recorded. So I tell him, If I forward the call to upper management who what would they they think? He said "This is illegal and I'm calling the cops" We'll the cops aren't at my door yet... :) So it is illegal to tape a conversation, but it depends if a place of business normally records their conversations then, it is okay. Please see: All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording, disclosing, or endeavoring to disclose without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03. These first offenses and the interception of cellular frequencies are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976). Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02. See also Stevenson v. State, 667 So.2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996); Paredes v. State, 760 So.2d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000). In Cohen Brothers, LLC v. ME Corp., S.A., 872 So.2d 321 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004), the District Court of Appeal for the Third District of Florida held that members of a limited liability company’s (LLC) management committee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to participation in telephone conference calls with other committee members to discuss continued financing of the LLC, and thus could not hold the committee members liable for recording the conference calls. A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an “electronic, mechanical or other device” are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law. The court found that business telephones are not the type of devices addressed in the law and, thus, that a life insurance company did not violate the law when it routinely recorded business-related calls on its business extensions. Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). I was going to pick up some prints for business and did call from my business phone.. so does this apply? The reason is that I am not going to stop going to this Walmart and I am not going to take this crap either.... So what do you guys suggest I do? I don't want to go to jail for this either.... BTW He has done this before, One time he would not issue a refund for a photograph that was crooked. As a photographer I now it was an issue with the printer. So I asked for a refund to have them printed elsewhere. No he said he would print them until they came out right! The second time it was printed, it came out crooked, so he had to manually cut it. He was pissed. ,

I am a graphic and web designer. I took on a client that runs a non-profit organization and agreed to set up her website for a very discounted price because it's for a good cause and I know she's on a tight budget. When we first discussed what she wanted done, I quoted her a price, got half the money upfront and expected to receive the balance upon completion. Over the last several months, she has continuously asked me to alter and expand the site so now it's gone from a simple information website to an information and social networking site. I have done the work, but now I feel as though I'm being taken advantage of: not only have I completed the work we initially agreed upon, but I have done work far outside of the scope of what was asked for in the beginning. I have a conference call with her coming up, and I'd like to address the following: that I finished the work she needed done initially for the price we agreed upon long ago. I need to be paid for THAT work. The work that I've been doing that is outside the scope of what we first agreed upon - how do I ask her for more money (since it was more work and not covered under the agreed upon price) without upsetting her and possibly losing her business, or even worse, having her not pay the balance that she already owes me? I want to handle this diplomatically and without upsetting her, I just don't know what to say. What's the proper etiquette here? Thanks for any advice! Me: "What you should have done is told her that the work is outside the scope before you completed it, and made her pay before hand." Yes, I know that's what I *should* have done... but I didn't. I'm kicking myself now for NOT doing that, but now I'm in this situation and need to handle it... Dharma Nature: "If she intended to pay voluntarily she would have done so by now, so you can either push for the money or drop the client. It's not so much that you were taken advantage of; you let her do this. Remember that this is a business relationship and insist on what is owed." You're right, I did let her do this. I wanted to help, and didn't mind doing a little extra for the same price, but lately it's gotten way out of control. I guess I'll have to just do as you suggest and insist on the balance... but am I in a position to ask for more money since I've done more work, or do I have to chalk it up because I didn't ask for more money when she asked me to do more work? Pink and DM: Thank you - very good suggestions. I think it is a lesson learned for me - I definitely should have asked for the balance when I finished the first chunk of work, and then re-negotiated before beginning all the extra work. During the conference call I'll take your advice... Thanks so much for the advice!!!

ISo im staying at a hotel, and they hold them selfs fairly high (its about 160 dollars a night, but im at a conference so its cheaper, 105 a night) and while i was in the bathroom tonight, my second night, i found about 100 live ants on the floor (i did check the bed for signs of bed bugs, and found nothing) any way i called the desk and they said they would send some one asap...which was 45 minutes, and i had to call again in that tie span because the desk guy forgot to call engineering...anyway is it appropriate to speak with a manager at check out, and request they discount/ comp the night because of this?

Want the real truth behind it and why is was vetoed, or do you prefer whining? This was nothing more than a set-up to make the Republicans look bad. There can be no better contemporary example of the creeping crud of socialism than the congressional exploits surrounding reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. But it's refreshing to see President Bush has drawn such a deep line in the sand. Whether it's a Maginot line, however, remains to be seen. The quite generous and well-intentioned program, generally known as S-CHIP, was designed at its 1997 inception to cover truly needy kids. But just to be safe -- just to make sure those on the cusp didn't slip through the cracks -- even kids well above the poverty line (a line, by the way, that discounts government subsides) were afforded medical coverage. Children in families of four earning 200 percent of the poverty level (just over $41,000 a year) are eligible. The program expires a week from today. Of course, leave it to Disciples of Dependence to use kids in pursuit of statism's faux communal good. Under one early Democrat proposal, children in families with incomes exceeding $80,000 would have been eligible for government medical care. Upward of 75 percent of all American children could have ended up being covered under the government plan. The numbers have been ratcheted down but they're still quite onerous. And in typical fashion, Democrats keep lowballing the real cost. Mr. Bush has promised an uncharacteristic spending veto. And it's a veto that likely can be sustained in the House. Of course, chickens often do come home to roost. Now, just because S-CHIP involves children doesn't make socialized medicine any more palatable. In fact, using them as human health-care shields is downright despicable. Taxes would have to rise to cover the escapade. The cost of private insurance coverage for kids will skyrocket or dry up altogether. And all the goodies that come with socialized medicine soon will follow. Long waits. Crappy care. Can dead kids be far behind? The president deftly stated his position -- what should be every American's position -- in a Thursday news conference: "Our goals should be for children who have no health insurance to be able to get private coverage, not for children who already have private health insurance to be able to get government coverage." The grossly expanded S-CHIP program "is an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American," he said. Actually, you might as well call it the Socialist Democrat Recruitment Act of 2007. Just as liberals and progressives and Democrats want to bolster their constituency by amnestitizing hordes of illegal aliens, they'd simply love to be able to create millions of new government health-care dependents. Inculcate and indoctrinate as you inoculate. What a plan! It's outrageous, of course. As is the intellectual vapidity of supposedly smart people and institutions shilling for the latest government entitlement. Incredibly, The New York Times was critical of the Bush administration implementing rules that make it difficult to enroll kids in S-CHIP in families of four with income at 250 percent of the poverty level. That's about $51,000, folks. And The Times calls restricting applicability "too stringent"? It also labels as "ideological" the administration's opposition to "expanding government insurance programs." Using that logic, so too would be the world's horrific repulsion to the Holocaust. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial called the case against what essentially is a big bear hug for greater health-care socialism "academic arguments (that) obscure larger truths." Good grief. The Times seems to have no problem entertaining government health care for children in families of four with annual earnings of $82,600. No wonder there are new projections that by 2040, 60 percent of Americans will depend on the government for their income. In addition to the traditional entreaty of S-CHIP expansion being "for the children," its apologists also cite polling data that show a majority of the public want such a thing. But as stark as this is going to sound to some, the late, great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises nailed the malady in "Socialism," his seminal 1922 work: Propagandized with woefully little counterargument, "The truth is that most people lack the intellectual ability and courage to resist a popular movement, however pernicious and ill-considered." It is a lack of intellectual curiosity and proper education that allows America's Socialist Democrats to lead an ever more-gullible populace by the nose. And for that, a nation founded on the premise of liberty, freedom and individualism should be ashamed of its slide into collectivism. Professor von Mises said that what is needed to stop the trend toward socialism and its soon-to-follow despotism is "common sense and moral courage." Better add a large bolus of economics education for the illiterati. Pity that all are in such short supply in America these days. But grand kudos to President Bush, who deserves criticism for so many failings, for being dead-on in fighting liberal efforts to make the "S" in S-CHIP stand for "socialist." Here's hoping his Maginot line holds. So it’s okay for people earning $82,600 per year to live off of the government and accept entitlements? Does the insanity ever end with the Democrats?