BH Photo's warehouse conditions worse than Amazon's?

[Phoenix86]

I'm impressed by how many words you have typed in this thread.

Someone roll up a news paper and smack him on the nose.

 

[DesiPower]

Oh the hypocrisy... conditions are much worse in other factories and warehouses where most of our goods are manufactured or stored. Just because this warehouse is on US soil this business has to pay dearly...

 

[CZroe]

I had no involvement with the production of ANY of the pictures so how could I know which pictures were legitimate or not. It was obvious the second picture was a different door as the signage on the door is different, but with a smallish picture of generally low resolution it's not that easy to discern little details particularly if you don't have 20 year old eyes any longer.



I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that B&H might take legal action -- I doubt it, but I'd bet they have some pretty decent attorneys on retainer...





Brian

Brian Stirling's door

 

[CZroe]

Brian Stirling's door

"How could I possibly know that's not Brian Stirling's door?! I had no involvement with the production of ANY of the pictures so how could I know which pictures were legitimate or not?! Lawyers lawyers lawyers sue.
-Brian"

 

[henryp]

What you're missing is the before pic

While I think Ns1's photo is amusing (in context) and disturbing a the same time I want to be clear ht was not taken in B&H's warehouse or in any B&H location.

 

[henryp]

Yeah, there's no way that's legal and that's dangerous. Jesus, I can't even keep up with this ... one minute a photo looks bad then the next minute Henry comes back with a clarification about camera angle, and now this picture that can't be explained away.

Ns1's picture was not taken in a B&H warehouse or in ANY B&H facility in Manhattan or Brooklyn.

 

[henryp]

If this is someone's idea of a joke to inject an unrelated picture into this discussion then let me say that's not even close to funny.

+1
Thank you.

 

[henryp]

History tells us that these sorts of allegations are almost always true.

Ahh, the sweeping unprovable generalization. And everyone who is arrested must be guilty of something so let's convict them of this one?

 

[CZroe]

Now: B&H deserves the presumption of innocence against these claims AT LEAST until anything of substance is presented. It's all just unsubstantiated claims right now.

"How could I possibly know that's not Brian Stirling's door?! I had no involvement with the production of ANY of the pictures so how could I know which pictures were legitimate or not?! Lawyers lawyers lawyers sue.
-Brian"

I can't believe that was ever a serious question. It stands to reason that it's not Brian Stirling's door exactly like it stands to reason that it's not B&H's door. It's not freakin' rocket science.

 

[CZroe]

Edit: was supposed to be part of previous post. Oops.

 

[JSt0rm]

while I dont think that photo above of the banana door is b&h (especially if you google that thing and it comes back as walmart) I do believe humans should be allowed to go peepee.

 

[TheGardener]

B&H Photo has always done right by me. I'll continue to shop there.

 

[CZroe]

while I dont think that photo above of the banana door is b&h (especially if you google that thing and it comes back as walmart) I do believe humans should be allowed to go peepee.

As does B&H, I'm sure. What other than the unsubstantiated complaint with absolutely zero credibility makes you think otherwise?