Wal*Mart is evil.

[myhaloisintheshop]

I don't see why you couldn't give them information saying that your meds interact with drug tests.

I haven't ever heard of a job that DIDN't require drug testing other than food service.

[Sis]

They do but the pee tests are mostly inaccurate and there are better ways to check performance than taking body fluids from us.

I took the information to another thread so we don't hijack this thread with this conversation.

[mini]

Just saw this:

Wal-Mart: Brain-damaged former employee can keep money

(CNN)  -- A former Wal-Mart employee who suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident won't have to pay back the company for the cost of her medical care, Wal-Mart told the family Tuesday.

"Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Wal-Mart Executive Vice President Pat Curran said in a letter. "We have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation."

Eight years ago, Debbie Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

After a tractor-trailer slammed into her minivan, the 52-year-old mother of three lost much of her short-term memory and was confined to a wheelchair. She now lives in a nursing home.

She also lost her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, who was killed shortly after arriving in Iraq. When Debbie Shank asks family members how her son is doing and they remind her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Wal-Mart's health care plan lets the retail giant recoup the cost of its expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit. And Wal-Mart set out to do just that after Shank and her husband, Jim, won $1 million after suing the trucking company involved in the wreck. After legal fees, the couple received $417,000.

Wal-Mart sued the Shanks to recoup $470,000 it paid for her medical care. However, a court ruled that the company could only recoup about $275,000 -- the amount that was left in a trust fund for her care.

The Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court declined in March to hear the case. CNN told the couple's story last week, prompting thousands of angry blog responses and at least two online petitions to boycott the company.

On Tuesday, Wal-Mart said in a letter to Jim Shank that it is modifying its health care plan to allow "more discretion" in individual cases.

"We wanted you to know that Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with you to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care," Curran said.

"We are sorry for any additional stress this uncertainty has placed on you and your family."

Wal-Mart's reversal came as shock to Shank.

"I thought it was an April Fool's joke," he told CNN.

"I (would) just like to let them know that they did the right thing. I just wish it hadn't taken so long," Shank said. "But I thank them and I hope they come through with all that they said they're going to do.

LINK

[Sis]

Does that mean that Walmart isn't evil anymore?  Ahhhh *snaps fingers*

[kkay]

Does that mean that Walmart isn't evil anymore?  Ahhhh *snaps fingers*

Ha ha that's exactly what I was thinking. The only reason they're doing that is because the family made a big fuss over it.

It's still good that they did what they did though.

[Ashlea]

I think that Wal-mart should have never caved in. The policy was there,and  Mrs. Shanks signed it whether she knew what was in it or not. Wal-Mart did nothing wrong in following the policy. Wal-mart was exploited - made to look bad until they backed down.

I'm sorry, I'm definitely sympathetic to the woman and the horrible tragedy of her being forever disabled. However, she signed a binding agreement and Wal-mart is NOT evil. It makes me angry with Wal-mart that they did cave in. What happened to standing your ground and holding fast?

I do not think that a tragic circumstance should negate the fact that a woman SIGNED a piece of paper. This is WRONG. Her own lawyer said that they had no right to the money. Just because we feel sorry for a woman; we feel that she should not be held accountable for a policy that she signed?

[kkay]

I don't think Wal Mart had any other choice than to return her money. Wal Mart is only out to make money-like every other company-so, they need to make sure they have a good reputation with consumers. If they wouldn't have broken their own policy, they would have lost a lot of very important consumers.

I agree, however, that the woman did sign the contract on her own free will, so she isn't legally entitled to the money. Where would we be if we only looked at the legal aspect though? Where would we be without compassion?

[World Traveler]

Well, if I was president of the United States, Wal-mart would not even be in business.
Not because I would forbid Wal-mart to operate, but because I would sign a presidential order forbidding any US company to have any business dealings with any Chinese company or their affiliates during my term in office.

Let's see how long they last then. You take away their Chinese goods and their illegal aliens buffing the floors and then where would they be?

Oh wait, the "if I was president" thread is in another area. :-)

[bishopnl]

Well, if I was president of the United States, Wal-mart would not even be in business.
Not because I would forbid Wal-mart to operate, but because I would sign a presidential order forbidding any US company to have any business dealings with any Chinese company or their affiliates during my term in office.

That's not "if you were president."  That's "if you were dictator."

And Ashlea, I gotta agree with AG4.  Wal-Mart may have legally been justified in what they did, but they serve their own interests really well by letting the lady keep the money.  Once in a while, in spite of stated policy, it's good to show a little compassion...it's not only morally good, but it makes you look good with consumers.   

[Chérie]

Wow.  Maybe I won't get the heebie jeebies now when walking into the store...

[Nelle]

Ash.. LOL.. You spoke my sentiments very well, other than the part about Walmart needing to stick to their guns. I definitely agree that Walmart is best served to do what they did - which is not demand money back and therefore give themselves a better image to public at large.

Walmart weighed their options and came out winners, along with the family. In other situations, business is business is business. Don't expect compassion so readily out of corporations. That's not always GOOD business, unless it serves them and/or their image (marketing possibilities) well.

[bishopnl]

That's not always GOOD business, unless it serves them and/or their image (marketing possibilities) well.

It's not ALWAYS good business...but it is sometimes.  In this case, I'd say it was a smart move by Wal-Mart, marketing wise.

[Nelle]

I think we've all agreed... several times... with that same sentence.

[Ashlea]

Just because I'm (as I like to say often) the meanest person I know.... let me be clear that "we've not all agreed."  I think Wal-mart opened themselves up now to even greater scrutiny. The "we will review on a case by case basis" is one horrific statement. Talk about litigation.

*S* And for the wal-mart haters- you might be surprised to know that Wal-mart is 6th in the WORLD on charitable giving. If you include the Walton family they're 2ND. Also, check out your own insurance policy. Most of them have this same clause. It only makes SENSE that if after suing, you win back money that has already been paid to insurance, that the insurance is reimbursed. If you paid someone and then they won back the money that you paid them wouldn't you expect reimbursement?

But then...."they don't need that money anyway." I love the socialist ideals that we all embrace so readily.  Since WHEN did we start looking down at people that did well? Since we did we get angry with businesses that are actually profitable?

I guess about the time we all made it our business to exploit such businesses into doing business our way. Also, about the time when FEELINGS started reigning over morals and character. No offense but I'd rather keep my word and find myself on the street.

[Chérie]

Spoken like a true Arkie. 

[Nelle]

I dunno...


I'd have to agree in some ways about many *other* corporations not based in Arkansas... unless there's some other point to your "spoken like a true Arkie" comment?

[Chérie]

Also, check out your own insurance policy. Most of them have this same clause. It only makes SENSE that if after suing, you win back money that has already been paid to insurance, that the insurance is reimbursed. If you paid someone and then they won back the money that you paid them wouldn't you expect reimbursement?

Actually Ashlea - you know I love you and I hate to disagree with you - I don't think you should be expected to pay back insurance money. You pay out of the ear for insurance monthly - most healthy people never even use it. Why should you pay back the insurance company? The lawsuit money isn't to cover healthcare costs, its compensation for being out of work, their negligence, pain and suffering, etc etc.

If someone were just suing for the cost of healthcare that would be completely different. Of course, I believe that insurance is a scam and that healthcare should be socialized.

I know this is a touchy subject, most of us agree that lawsuits are an outrageous way of people trying to get rich quick. People sue over the most mundane issues. 

I for one, get sick of seeing these sleazy lawyers on late night television trying to get their hand in the next big lawsuit.

So no - I wouldn't pay the insurance money back - but I probably wouldn't have sued in the first place... Karma is a funny thing.

[Chérie]

One more thing, and then I'm done analyzing Ash...

*S* And for the wal-mart haters- you might be surprised to know that Wal-mart is 6th in the WORLD on charitable giving. If you include the Walton family they're 2ND.

As for the charity giving, it doesn't suprise me that Wallyworld and the Walton family would have a tax planning strategy.  I'm sure its a great one. I'm not sure just how much compensation they see for their donations each year, but I'm sure they get a good percentage back.

If they were really giving from the bottom of their hearts, and not just for that reimbursement at the end of the year - I'd be much more impressed.

Sometimes I wonder how much people would give in tithing and the church offering if the government didn't consider it a tax deduction.

[Ashlea]

It's amazing that we have such opposing views....LOL It's quite fun actually...

Spoken like a true Arkie.

LOL Danni, you should know by now that I'm a big coporation loving, money grubbing, republican and that I'd say that about any business.

As for the charity giving, it doesn't suprise me that Wallyworld and the Walton family would have a tax planning strategy.  I'm sure its a great one. I'm not sure just how much compensation they see for their donations each year, but I'm sure they get a good percentage back.

If they were really giving from the bottom of their hearts, and not just for that reimbursement at the end of the year - I'd be much more impressed.

Sometimes I wonder how much people would give in tithing and the church offering if the government didn't consider it a tax deduction.

But Dan, don't you think that's an extremely jaded, cynical view? How do you KNOW they're not giving from the bottom of their hearts? You can't read into everything... it'll kill you.

BTW- Kev says you're hurting his feeling second guessing his company like that. (according to him he would say "feelings" but since he works for Wal-Mart he only has one - greed)  lol  I think he's looking for a fight. You need to call soon. 

[Chérie]

When did he start working there?

Actually, when I was typing that up - I thought to myself... "Wow you're really cynical..." but then it hit me that I'm just being realistic...

I will probably give you a call this week - its just been so hectic with school and work...

[Ashlea]

*LOL* Kev doesn't work at one of the stores. He works at one of their Optical Labs....he's worked there for about 7 years I think.

You are cynical.... just on a few things. I'll let it go tho....I mean you are a liberal and that's kinda just IN you guys. 

I know all about the "hectic" part. It seems like we've been doing tons of junk getting ready for the baby.


I haven't really talked to anyone on the phone in weeks.  I'm so tired and miserable these days that I usually come home and go straight to bed. Seriously. I cannot wait until this baby is here so I can get some of my energy back.

[MelodyB]

ADDED: I, however, have little objection to a company testing someone who has been acting high, giving them reason to believe they're high, like falling asleep on the job, staggering. Up to that, it's unreasonable search and seizure of bodily fluids. Also, I would rather see an independent lab used, not the company's own lab.

I do that.....Im not high....I dont think.

[Sis]

ADDED: I, however, have little objection to a company testing someone who has been acting high, giving them reason to believe they're high, like falling asleep on the job, staggering. Up to that, it's unreasonable search and seizure of bodily fluids. Also, I would rather see an independent lab used, not the company's own lab.

I do that.....Im not high....I dont think.