Talk:Georgia-Pacific/Archives/2013

Rodolfo Rodriguez

I don't want to delete this paragraph myself, but I am having trouble understanding how it belongs here. I fixed some typos in it for the time being. Cyrusc 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Felon On your Payroll

He runs your Haz Mat Team? Why would you do this to your communitee? Better Check it out! Just a concered citizen, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.232.116 (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion rationale comment removed

I removed the following, which was added here, from the article. I doubt it belongs here either but it certainly doesn't belong embedded into the article.

<-- Rationale for removing Alleged Racial Discrimination Practices The following letter sent by litigant of the case to media that covered the case and its allegations ...

November 17, 2008

Via Certified Mail, with Return Receipt

Mr. Ken Tonning President and General Manager Mr. Mike Garber News Director First Coast News WTLV NBC-12 and WJXX ABC-25 1070 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Dear Mr. Tonning and Mr. Garber:

On November 8, 2007, your station broadcast a news report and posted an article to your web site concerning a civil action I filed against Georgia-Pacific, Woods vs. Georgia-Pacific LLC, et al. I now have agreed to dismiss the case and have made the following admissions regarding my claims in that matter:

1. As I testified on August 2, 2007, neither Georgia-Pacific nor any member of Georgia-Pacific management discriminated against or harassed me on the basis of my race, sex, or any other characteristic protected under state or federal law.

2. As I testified on August 2, 2007, I was aware throughout my employment of Georgia-Pacific’s non-discrimination and non-harassment policies, which included various methods by which I could complain of any conduct that I found discriminatory or harassing.

3. As I testified on August 2, 2007, every time I complained to Georgia-Pacific of events that I found harassing, Georgia-Pacific immediately responded to my concerns. Moreover, each time that Georgia-Pacific management contacted me regarding my complaints, I told Georgia-Pacific that everything was fine.

4. As I testified on August 2, 2007, I complained to Georgia-Pacific on July 6, 2005, about comments made by a delivery truck driver in association with a cartoon containing a picture of a monkey that was posted in the Sterling scale house on June 10, 2005. I did not find the cartoon with the picture of the monkey offensive, nor did I believe that it was racially derogatory. Rather I was offended by the comments of the truck driver, who was not a Georgia-Pacific employee.

5. As I testified on August 2, 2007, I never complained of sexual harassment to anyone at Georgia-Pacific.

6. As I testified on August 2, 2007, although I alleged in my lawsuit that Georgia-Pacific operated a “whites-only” bathroom in the scale house at the Sterling, Georgia, facility, no one at Georgia-Pacific ever expressed to me that the Sterling scale house bathroom was a “whites-only” bathroom. In fact, neither Georgia-Pacific nor any member of Georgia-Pacific management had knowledge of my allegations regarding a “whites-only” bathroom at the Sterling, Georgia, facility until I raised these allegations in my lawsuit. Moreover, the “out-of-order” sign that formed the basis of my allegation was legitimately posted on the toilet and bathroom door at a time when the Sterling scale house bathroom was in disrepair, and I told numerous individuals, including my mother and friends, that they could not use the Sterling scale house bathroom because it was out-of-order. After it was fixed, Georgia-Pacific removed the “out-of-order” sign from the door to the bathroom and placed a sign that said “Do not use, thanks” on the toilet. This sign was placed on the toilet because the facility was to be used only by Georgia-Pacific scale house employees.

Because of these admissions, I would appreciate your removing the article that appears on your web site about my case as well as all comments and references to the article.

Sincerely, Lisa Woods

Cc: Georgia-Pacific LLC The Drudge Report

Wikipedia Change

I edited the Georgia-Pacific Wikipedia entry because I agreed to dismiss the case and made several admissions regarding the case, including that the company did not discriminate against me or harass me on the basis of my race, sex or any other characteristic protected under law. I have asked media to remove references to my case and previous allegations. --> Ponydepression (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

tags

I removed the tags to this page after editing it. Does not read like an advertisement anymore, and flows better.L0bc1ty (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This was a part of a settlemnt agrteement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.13.120.74 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Environmental record

That section takes up most of the page and is basically used as a coatrack. It needs to be trimmed down since there it is def undue weight to have that much content in there. I doubt similar companies have sections that large dedicated to environmental record. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Although a few of the company's environmental violations are mentioned, the overall tone of the section strikes me as greenwashing. Even if the company has done some environmental remediation (according to a citation directly from the company's own web site), it has a long record as a polluter, and is part of a corporate family full of polluters. One example that both illustrates the pollution charges and accuses GP of greenwashing is this article: "Koch paper pollution chokes Ouachita River (I recognize that Daily Kos is itself not exactly a neutral source; the article is just the first I found searching georgia pacific greenwashing.)

I'd extend the complaints to the "Awards and charity" section. It discusses at length a single EPA award, and again cites the company's own web site as a reference for mention of the company's charity record, and tosses in a gratuitous reference to the parent company's foundation. Since the foundations have their own article, mention of an associated foundation's charity is out of place in this article. I don't think it's particularly bold to cut that sentence.

—Steve98052 (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in commenting; I've been stuck doing other things for the last month or so :) I definitely think this is a conversation worth having. You mention that GP "has a long record as a polluter, and is part of a corporate family of polluters." Your comment is ostensibly true, but I wonder if it's really a fair statement. Is it fair to record every reported (and by reported I mean published by a reporter) incident of damage done to the environment? If so, paper companies like International Paper, Kimberly-Clark, and Weyerhaeuser would have reams of commentary on their impact on the environment. Perhaps this is worth starting a thread on the notability noticeboard. Something like: "How large must a fine be in relation to the size of a company to be notable?" I think we would both agree that the $4.5 billion fine given to BP is sufficiently notable, but the $6 million fine present on Georgia-Pacific's page seems a little bit nit-picky to me. What are your thoughts? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize for a slow reply in a slow-motion discussion. You make the fair point that most or all paper companies have ugly environmental records; even if they have cleaned up their acts (whether in the face of regulatory force or in pursuit of a cleaner public reputation), the paper industry as a whole was a heavy polluter in the past, if not so much any more. Without researching the rest of the industry, I can't clearly say whether Georgia-Pacific is worse, better, or typical of the industry. Where it does stand out, however is that it's part of a corporate family run by people who are outspoken opponents of environmental protection (as well as just about every other sort of regulation of business) – at least they're outspoken in the sense of funding all sorts of anti-regulation think tanks, political organizations, and politicians. That outspoken opposition to environmental protection regulations may make the company's (and the corporate family's) environmental record more notable, but to note that in the article itself is probably synthesis and definitely not neutral, unless a reliable source presents GP as a stand-out polluter even by the standards of its industry.

As far as the notability of a given fine, I think it's more significant to compare GP's fines to those imposed on similar companies, not just on the basis of fines as a share of total revenue or profit. The 2007 settlements noted in the article, totaling $36M, are about 4% of 2004 profits and 0.2% of 2004 sales. (Comparing 2007 penalties to 2004 profits and sales is bad practice, but they stopped reporting financials after 2004 and I don't know where to look for independent estimates.) How do 4% of profits and 0.2% of sales compare to other paper companies in that time period? That's probably the way to judge notability, rather than on the basis of the raw numbers or the percentages as compared to companies in other industries, or other paper companies in other eras when enforcement was lax. It's reasonable to bring the question to the notability notice-board, along with the point that standards of notability vary between industries. —Steve98052 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that proposal as a fairer way to compare US-based companies. I don't know if it's ideal still, though, for fines to be the focus of the environmental records sections. I think we should take into consideration that companies based in more "mature" industrialized nations in North America, Western Europe and Japan, for example, operate under stricter regulations than do companies also amongst the top paper producers list such as those based, for example, in China, which has historically had markedly laxer environmental regulations - those companies, therefore, are not as subject to fines. I think that this creates a situation where undue weight is afforded to mentions of fines in countries with stricter environmental regulations. A more universal and objective (and less arbitrary) measurement would be more useful, but I think that would be hard to come by, as I imagine the folks in charge of watching over all of those types of numbers around the world will have different standards for measurement as well. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)