Filed under: Government/Legal, GM
GM claims $450k lost to improper employee discounts
When the land was flowing with milk and honey, GM didn't get medieval on folks who took just a little more than their fair share. Now that GM's diet has been pared back to a few nuts and the occasional berry... well, every nut counts. So when The General performed a random audit and found that employees had allegedly been sharing their employee discounts with ineligible buyers, instead of a big "whatever," GM initiated lawsuits.Based on the known records, GM is trying to recoup $450,000 plus court costs and attorney's fees from at least nine court cases. In addition to offering the discounts to those who shouldn't have had access to them, GM said the the employees were using the discounts "for their own financial gain."
Some of the employees being sued no longer work for GM. Attorneys for the defendants have suggested that shady dealers simply used the employees' information to give the discounts to other buyers without the employees' knowledge or consent. At this point, no dealers are named in the lawsuits, so it's up to the employees in question to prove their innocence. And for now, when it comes to pennywise, GM isn't playing around...
[Source: Detroit News]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
pmalloy4391 10:09AM (9/02/2008)
"so it's up to the employees in question to prove their innocence. And for now, when it comes to pennywise, GM isn't playing around..."
No its up to GM to prove their guilt, at least in america it is still (theoretically) innocent until proven guilty
Reply
TJ 10:17AM (9/02/2008)
Criminal versus civil suit. This is civil, which is based solely on preponderance of evidence.
Egon 10:34AM (9/02/2008)
In criminal proceeding, yes, it's (theoretically) innocence until guilt is proven. In civil court, it's a whole different ballgame. I'm no attorney, but that's my basic understanding.
TJ 11:30AM (9/02/2008)
The fact your comment has been "highly ranked" speaks a great deal about the misguided intellect of a majority of the population on matters as small as the difference between a civil suit and a criminal case.
Pathetic, really.
Los 12:43PM (9/02/2008)
The funny thing is, TJ, you offer no explanation as to why Egon is wrong. So why don't you just keep it to yourself unless you have something productive to add eh?
Oddly enough, I do agree with you. I do think it's up to GM to prove within reason that these employees misused their benefits, and I do think going after them has a larger upside in making others think twice before running the same scam. Might save them more money than it would seem at face value.
TJ 12:58PM (9/02/2008)
Los: At the time I posted, my original comment and Egon's comment were neutral and pmalloy's comment was highly ranked.
My comment was directed at the OP.
Big Rocket 2:25PM (9/02/2008)
Guys, please get it right.
In all lawsuits, civil or criminal, the defendant is always innocent till proven guilty by the plaintiff (accuser). In civil lawsuits, the plaintiff only has to offer a preponderance of evidence to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty. In criminal lawsuits, the plaintiff has to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, pmalloy4391 was right. TJ and Egon, you guys got it wrong, and the high rankings of your posts don't make it right. Here is what I dug up from Google:
"... a person has to prove that someone is guilty (in a criminal case) or liable (in a civil case) depending on the allegations; a person is not required to prove his or her own innocence, it is rebuttably presumed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
"The burden of proof is the duty of one party in a legal case to convince the decision-maker (judge and/or jury) that their version of the facts is true. The burden of proof is carried by the plaintiff in civil trials and the prosecution in criminal trials."
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/burden-proof.html
RIck 10:10AM (9/02/2008)
So they're going after people who have no idea their identity was used in a crime, er transaction?
Reply
David 10:22AM (9/02/2008)
They're going after people who SAY they had no idea their identity was used. That doesn't mean they can't be lying.
Alex 10:19AM (9/02/2008)
The funny thing is, they wouldn't have to worry about this kind of theft if they were always paying attention. GM should have been more responsible and the depertment that is responsible to monitoring this kind of situation should have some heads rolling within it.
Reply
TerribleT 10:19AM (9/02/2008)
You have to be kidding me? How much is this witch hunt going to cost this company. They lose billions a year due to poor designs and mismanagement, but they pull out all the stops to track down a few people who bought a car using a discount. Whatever.
Reply
TJ 12:17PM (9/02/2008)
I cannot believe so many people are outright advocating theft and fraud to the tune of a half million. :shaking head:
carsteve 10:21AM (9/02/2008)
Penny-wise, dollar foolish.
Get smart, GM. Stop wasting your time.
Reply
MajorGeek 10:37AM (9/02/2008)
+1
Think about how stupid this is, unless your an executive, in which case it apparently makes sense:
Ok, were losing billions of dollars and offering GM pricing to everyone, but it appears we can recover 450k or so by suing our employees over abusing their discount. Sure, after we piss off every employee we have, pay the attornies and others involved, it should still put a whopping 200k back into our coffer.
My advice to GM; I appreciate where you think your making a stand for right or wrong, but I can't imagine a worse time. Negotiate discounts better in your next contracts, or modify how they are dispensed. Limiting employee discounts to 1 per year, per employee and don't bother regulating it makes sense to me.
TJ 12:17PM (9/02/2008)
I cannot believe so many people are outright advocating theft and fraud to the tune of a half million. :shaking head:
Tim 10:30AM (9/02/2008)
You'll pay for trying to pay what we pay. I think GM should be thankful for the sales at this point but hopefully they can recoup the legal fees
Reply
Sean Flanagan 10:41AM (9/02/2008)
"In celebration of our 100th anniversary, we're sharing our GM Employee Discount.
You pay what we pay. Not a cent more."
Do as I say, not as I do.
Reply
jv2k 11:01AM (9/02/2008)
I was thinking the same quote. Can GM pick a worse time to do this?
TJ 12:18PM (9/02/2008)
I cannot believe so many people are outright advocating theft and fraud to the tune of a half million. :shaking head:
ahkmel foley 10:46AM (9/02/2008)
These people likely wouldn't have purchased these vehicles without the employee discounts.
They will potentially never purchase another GM vehicle after these lawsuits.
GM. Dumb.
Reply