Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit
By Randi Kaye
CNN
JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.
The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.
Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.
It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.
Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.
Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.
Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.
The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.
The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.
"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.
In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.
Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.
"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.
The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.
Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.
"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.
The family's attorney agrees.
"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.
"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."
Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.
Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.
Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.
Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.
For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."
"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."
Source (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)
Everyone who has this insurance should opt out of it and get decent insurance. Leaving a family destitute isn't what they had in mind when they paid all that money into the insurance in the first place. They take too much from their employees, and I wouldn't shop there at all if it wasn't the cheapest place to get lots of things.
I can understand that "legally" WalMart is within their rights, and I can see that if they make an exception for one person they set theirselves up to have to make exceptions for others which would make them susceptible to their employees wanting all sorts of exceptions.
But why couldn't they just out of the goodness of their hearts, make a donation to help this family out? Just how many employees could they expect to have such extenuating circumstances and need this kind of help, per year?
I give a 100 :great: and 1,000 :clap2: to the husband for staying with her. Yes, a husband and wife is supposed to be there for each other no matter what, but it seems as though it is becoming all to uncommon to see people sticking to their vows when the rubber meets the road.
Quote from: Sis on March 26, 2008, 09:32:01 PM.... They take too much from their employees, and I wouldn't shop there at all if it wasn't the cheapest place to get lots of things.
Walmart is the place that finally took me in and gave me a chance at employment when others wouldn't because of my disability and lack of employment record so they're not all bad.
*sigh* Unfortunately, Walmart will give you a job, but that's about it. They are much better to their customers than they are to their employees.
I found that out when a friend of mine got hurt at work. She was treated like a criminal.
I read this on Neatorama:
"Legally, Wal-Mart is in the right. But morally, I don't think so. There's a Wal-Mar near where I work, and I shop there quite often. But after reading this, perhaps it's time to go to Target, which is a just little farther away."
Quote from: bsr on March 27, 2008, 12:47:56 AM
Quote from: Sis on March 26, 2008, 09:32:01 PM.... They take too much from their employees, and I wouldn't shop there at all if it wasn't the cheapest place to get lots of things.
Walmart is the place that finally took me in and gave me a chance at employment when others wouldn't because of my disability and lack of employment record so they're not all bad.
They hire people because they need workers. No offense to anyone here, but I've noticed that Wal Mart usually hires anyone who applies.
QuoteBut why couldn't they just out of the goodness of their hearts, make a donation to help this family out? Just how many employees could they expect to have such extenuating circumstances and need this kind of help, per year?
That's a great idea...if they are bent on getting their money, they could collect it, then turn around and donate say, a million dollars for the long term care of the lady. That way, everybody's happy, and it makes Wal-Mart look generous instead of the way they look now.
QuoteThey hire people because they need workers. No offense to anyone here, but I've noticed that Wal Mart usually hires anyone who applies.
And isn't that a good thing for people who don't have employment history or might have trouble finding work elsewhere?
Quote from: bishopnl on March 27, 2008, 01:29:16 PM
QuoteThey hire people because they need workers. No offense to anyone here, but I've noticed that Wal Mart usually hires anyone who applies.
And isn't that a good thing for people who don't have employment history or might have trouble finding work elsewhere?
Yes, but it doesn't mean they're saints :)
I do love me some Wal*Mart. I am headed there in just a little while. I have two more things I need to get before my trip. Then I am DONE.
BTW...I dont agree with the way they treated that woman, but I do love the store.
Quote from: MelodyB on March 27, 2008, 01:38:52 PM
BTW...I dont agree with the way they treated that woman, but I do love the store.
I agree. I shop at Wal Mart all the time for things I need, but don't agree with this outcome.
I do, however, understand that rules are rules even if they're stupid.
Quote from: apostolic_girl04 on March 27, 2008, 01:33:48 PM
Yes, but it doesn't mean they're saints :)
Nope, they are far from saints....they have good and bad points.
Quote from: apostolic_girl04 on March 27, 2008, 01:06:23 PM
Quote from: bsr on March 27, 2008, 12:47:56 AM
Quote from: Sis on March 26, 2008, 09:32:01 PM.... They take too much from their employees, and I wouldn't shop there at all if it wasn't the cheapest place to get lots of things.
Walmart is the place that finally took me in and gave me a chance at employment when others wouldn't because of my disability and lack of employment record so they're not all bad.
They hire people because they need workers. No offense to anyone here, but I've noticed that Wal Mart usually hires anyone who applies.
That is true they hire anybody
Quote from: bishopnl on March 27, 2008, 02:06:08 PM
Quote from: apostolic_girl04 on March 27, 2008, 01:33:48 PM
Yes, but it doesn't mean they're saints :)
Nope, they are far from saints....they have good and bad points.
Like everyone.
Quote from: teacheroftheLord on March 27, 2008, 04:36:30 AM
*sigh* Unfortunately, Walmart will give you a job, but that's about it. They are much better to their customers than they are to their employees.
For me I figure its a launching pad to work from to further my education and people skills. I may not stay at Walmart permanetly but I'm glad to have some kind of job seeing as how several factories in this area have closed down putting the unemployment rate pretty high in this area.
That's good that you consider it a "launching pad". My roommate used to work there and the people who work there more than a few years are called "lifers" and are basically deemed by their coworkers to be unsuccessful.
(At least at the store she worked at, from her perspective)
There's several at the store I work at that have been there over 5 years. How long I actually end up workimg at walmart depends really on where God directs my life.
Travis and I actually wish that we could avoid shopping there, but its really impossible.
After abandoning the stores in the smaller towns in our county, they built 3 "SUPER" stores in Wichita Falls. We have a city of about 120,000 - I'm not sure why we need 3 huge Walmarts.
We try to shop at Target as much as possible - I've never really heard anything bad about their store, and the quality is so much better. The only time we shop at Wallyworld is when we need to save a buck or two.
I wish I had lived in the days of "Mom & Pop" stores, I would have certainly shopped there have avoided all the BigBoxMarts.
I hate wal-mart... Its probably the worst company in the world...
I could tell you stories, (just from working in security) but Im not at liberty to discuss them
I just know, that is a Company that was at one time based on Moral Values, and now its ridiculously hypocryitical.
I wish I could afford to shop at small stores..... Things like meat and produce are usually better in my meager experience than Wal-mart's
I hate Wal-Mart. Maybe it's just around here, but our Wal-Marts are too crowded, dirty and slow. I used to buy groceries there, but after having to wait in line for no less than 30 minutes to check out, a line that was backed up into the clothing section, I decided I had had enough. Having only three lines open on a busy Friday is just ridiculous. And it wasn't a one time thing. They always had only a few lines open. Plus, I don't like shopping in such a big place.
Food Lion costs more, but the price is worth it in my opinion. I buy what grocery items I can at Target (which is cheaper than our grocery stores) and buy the rest at Food Lion.
***edited in***
Forgot to add that I can be at Wal-Mart in about 2-3 minutes, but am more than willing to drive the 20 minutes to Target. lol :)
I hate Target. Their customer service department, IMO, stinks. If I can avoid shopping at Target for the rest of my life, then I'm gonna.
I do agree about the groceries though...Wal-Mart is definitely NOT the best place to buy groceries. We get ours at Shop-N-Save or a local Park-N-Shop.
Quote from: bishopnl on March 27, 2008, 02:06:08 PM
Quote from: apostolic_girl04 on March 27, 2008, 01:33:48 PM
Yes, but it doesn't mean they're saints :)
Nope, they are far from saints....they have good and bad points.
Hey! I know quite a few saints who work at Walmarts! Hee hee
Actually, I hate the fact that they drug test all the time. Not right. When my friend, a lifetime saint, got hurt, they tried everything they could to "Prove" she was high when she hurt her back unloading stock. BLAH!
I have heard stories from Target, too, but most of them were local problems in Northern Minnesota. Since the very first Target started in my home town, I just assumed they all treated their staff badly. Maybe not, though.
Hey I read somewhere where Kmart that a coustomer got hurt in their store due to an employee error cant remember what but it was the employees fault. They tried to get the coustomer to take a drug teat. They did it and the records showed it negetive but they did throw it out in court saying that wasnt right.
My guess they were trying to find a reason to not have to pay out lol
I think if any company can find a way out of paying someone money, they will. This is just an extraordinary case where it looks like the company is being stingy and mean.
I shop at Wal Mart for some groceries, but only those in cans and boxes. Never for produce or meat.
Quote from: bishopnl on March 27, 2008, 07:07:06 PM
I hate Target. Their customer service department, IMO, stinks. If I can avoid shopping at Target for the rest of my life, then I'm gonna.
I've only had to deal with their customer service once or twice and had no problems with them. :)
local customer service always seems to be contigent on the actual local staff. Maybe they're all a mess on the corporate level? Target is just too pricey for me. I don't know how much the products differ though. I know with K-mart, a lot of the clothing I've had for Hannah has malfunctioned.
I prefer not to shop at Wal Mart, but, living where I do, we have NOTHING here. We have to go an hour in one of two directions. What do we see when we get there? ? ? Wal-Mart.
We used to have some small businesses around here. It was great, they were basically privately owned, and the people runing them made there living from them. I loved shopping at them, but, in the past 7 years, they have all closed down due to people leaving town and buying at Wal Mart. As far as working for Wal Mart, I worked for them for about 4 months. I didn't mind working for them.
I don't know about where ya'll live, but the Wal-Mart here doesn't just hire anybody. You have to go through 3 interviews, and drug tests and then some just to work there. I've heard it was a really hard place to get into. I had no trouble, because I had good experience and a clean record, but whatever. I did hate that I had to drive out of town to do the drug test, and I had to take off work at my first job to do it. It was only available certain days and hours.
We have very long lines here. Management is terrible with planning schedules. Most of the schedules come from Bentonville, but our management is suppose to review and approve it. They don't review it and so we end up short handed. They don't care cause they don't listen to anyone complain.
Other than terrible scheduling, it's a pretty good place to work. There are problems just like with any business, but all in all, it's good.
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i286/auntbeezer/customsmileys/remoteImage-8.jpg)
:worship:
Oh Praise the Lord!!
BOL
Quote from: teacheroftheLord on March 28, 2008, 05:44:26 AM
I don't know about where ya'll live, but the Wal-Mart here doesn't just hire anybody. You have to go through 3 interviews, and drug tests and then some just to work there. I've heard it was a really hard place to get into. I had no trouble, because I had good experience and a clean record, but whatever. I did hate that I had to drive out of town to do the drug test, and I had to take off work at my first job to do it. It was only available certain days and hours.
My roommate worked with a guy who was a total druggie and he worked there for about 4 or 5 years before they finally fired him. (They didn't fire him for drugs..it was because he never showed up for work).
Drug tests = guillty until you prove yourself innocent.
Quote from: Sis on March 28, 2008, 05:41:04 PM
Drug tests = guillty until you prove yourself innocent.
Yep. That's the beauty of employment.
I think that it would be in Wal-Mart's best interests to go ahead and recoup the $200,000 they are legally entitled to, but then turn right around and make a nice donation to the woman's health care fund (say, $500,000). ...... Or maybe give the donation first, then recoup the 200 grand?
My (http://www.myspacesmilies.com/smilies/sign0134.gif)...
Unfortunately there are times when Wally-World seems to be the only option when it comes to employment or consumer needs. I'm not a big fan of them myself; they can go fly a kite as far as I'm concerned. These days I work as an IT consultant and am currently working towards my CCNA - there'd be (http://www.myspacesmilies.com/smilies/sign0138.gif) you'd get me in the door at Wal*Mart unless I wind up at their corporate office.
Thankfully, we do the majority of our shopping at other nearby stores whose prices are competitive. Though I admit I'll walk into a Wal*Mart store and head to the electronics section, if only to let other customers know they're probably better off purchasing computer parts through NewEgg. :grin:
We absolutely dispise Wal*Mart. When we first lived in Tulsa, I loved the Wal*Mart supercenters as we don't have any of those in Maryland. I thought it was wonderful to buy everything at one place. Plus, it was only 7/10 of a mile from where we lived. However, after a while, I got smart. We shopped for food at Reeser's and none food items at Wal*Mart. Since I didn;t work much when we lived in Tulsa, going to the mall or any other store to buy other types of items was out. When we moved to Kansas City, we did all of our shopping at Wal*Mart and again it proved to be just too expensive. Occassionally, if we need something in an emergency then we will go to Wal*Mart, but it's once in a blue moon. Additionally, I found out that Wal*Mart doesn't treat their disabled employees very well and since I have a disability, you can bet we aren't giving them our money anyway.
Now, we shop at either PriceChopper with our discount card or Hy-Vee for groceries and Target or Kohl's. During the holidays I worked at Macy's part-time and really enjoyed it. It ws the first time in at least two years that I could afford to shop at the mall. Oh well, some things must come to an end. :P
you wanna know whats bad? ... as much as I HATE wal-mart... I go there almost everyday... lol
Kevin has worked for Wal-Mart Optical Lab for about 7 years now. This is not the Optical clinic in one of their stores. Their optical labs are completely separate factories where they ship, manufacture, and provide customer service for their lenses.
So, with the personal experience we have from that added with the fact that I work approximately 10 minutes away from Wal-Mart World Headquarters I can say that they are no different from any other huge corporation. Yes, they have issues, but they all do. Their issues are put in the mainstream news more frequently simply because they're the "world's largest retailer." :) The bigger the corporation; the more problems you're going to have.
I feel awful for this woman, however EVERYONE that works for Wal-Mart will tell you that their insurance is FAR from great. (trust me, I know) However, if you work for a company and sign up for the insurance within that company then what right do you have to complain whenever they follow the policy you signed? (I will be surprised after all the media coverage if some behind the scenes backroom deal isn't cut and this woman receives all of her money back)
They SHOULD take up a collection/donation for this woman. I'm sure that many Wal-Mart employees would gladly give money. However, they are well within their rights to look as greedy and disgusting as they want to.
Before someone goes crazy and starts calling me a Wal-mart loyalist- I tell my husband they're "communist" all the time. LOL I hate shopping there just because it's a hassle. Always busy...always waiting in line at checkout....and I just hate grocery shopping. That's why Kev does it. He actually ENJOYS grocery shopping. How sick is that? lol
As for the drug test issue - MOST responsible companies drug test employees that have accidents on the job. This is also wal-mart company policy and if someone doesn't agree with the company policy then they shouldn't be working there. Also, most insurance companies will REQUIRE that a drug test be taken after an injury on the job before they will hear any claim. (not just a wal-mart policy) I myself have no problem with this. I kinda like the fact that the person running the forklift and putting up groceries is probably not going to run into me while I'm walking down the aisle because he's high. (and if he DOES run into me because he's high, the chances of him continuing to work there are extremely slim because he'll be DRUG TESTED)
After working internally for an employment agency, I can honestly say that the only people ever annoyed or offended at having to submit to a drug test were the ones that tested positive.
The above message has been brought to you today by the Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice.
....and her husband David Schiwmer.
My employer does mandatory random drug testing. You never know when you'll get hit up to pee in a cup. The longest I ever went between tests was two years. On another occasion I was hit three times in one week with one more the following week.
I wouldn't mind random drug testing even if most employers didn't do it.
It's true that the only people who really mind are those who do drugs.
I mind and I don't do drugs, but I'm on certain meds that might set one of those stupid tests off. I won't work for ANYONE who does it. It's my body and the fluids therein are private. I have and will continue to refuse to work for anyone who orders it. They're hiring me for my time and expertise, not body parts.
If you don't agree, so be it. But because people have blindly just obeyed the companies who take more and more liberties, we're in this mess. It's all socialism. They think they know what's best for you, even more than you.
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.
*HUGS* NYC and bodegas on every corner, specialty stores and trader joes... takes me a week to get everything I need and I get quite a work out walking around my neighborhood hauling groceries or hopping the train into the city... but so far I've resisted the temptation to drive over to jersey and go to walmart! its nice to support a local family grocer
LOL however I have to admit... I've been to walmart twice in the past week 'cause I'm in georgia visiting family and thats just the place to go for everything here... don't blame walmart... blame the culture that does a celebration when walmart comes to town (ie. the cherryville story LOL)
I don't mind walmart, they have their right to their policies and I have a right to not support them... they serve a consumer need (everything affordable and in one place) and they do very well with it. I feel for the lady but she should have read the fine print - and her lawyer and advisors should have read it too, it sounds like a reasonable/expected caveat from an insurer, I can't imagine they are offering the only insurance with a policy like that
Again, it's not socialism. :) You're not MADE to work there, are you? If the person that owns that company wants to drug test an employee then they are within their right to do so or terminate the employee for refusal. It's THEIR company.
Socialism would be telling that company that they could NOT randomly enforce drug tests upon their employees.
Read the information about drug testing.....
http://godplace.com/forum/index.php?topic=28010.0
I agree with the research. It isn't reliable and it's against our basic rights.
so business do not have a right to expect their employees to be drug free? ???
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.
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.
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 (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/walmart.decision/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
Does that mean that Walmart isn't evil anymore? Ahhhh *snaps fingers*
Quote from: Sis on April 02, 2008, 06:45:30 PM
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.
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?
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?
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. :-)
QuoteWell, 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. ;)
Wow. Maybe I won't get the heebie jeebies now when walking into the store...
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.
QuoteThat'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.
I think we've all agreed... several times... with that same sentence. :)
:) 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.
Spoken like a true Arkie. ;)
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?
Quote from: Ashlea on April 05, 2008, 06:29:41 AM
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.
One more thing, and then I'm done analyzing Ash...
Quote from: Ashlea on April 05, 2008, 06:29:41 AM
*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.
It's amazing that we have such opposing views....LOL It's quite fun actually...
QuoteSpoken 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. :)
QuoteAs 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. ;)
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...
*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.
Quote from: Sis on March 31, 2008, 05:22:15 PM
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. :o
Quote from: MelodyB on April 07, 2008, 03:29:25 AM
Quote from: Sis on March 31, 2008, 05:22:15 PM
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. :o
:laughat: