If you haven't seen CNN recently, Wal-Mart, retail giant that grossed $90 billion in the third quarter of last year, is suing an ex-employee,Debbie Shank, because of medical expenses. They evidently paid out $470,000.00 and are suing Debbie for the same amount. Debbie was in an automobile accident two years ago which rendered her brain damaged and she currently resides in a nursing home because family can't care for her. In fine print of the agreement with Wal-Mart medical insurance, if Debbie receives settlement with a third party, which she did, then Wal-Mart is no longer responsible for her medical expenses. Debbie settled with the trucking company that collided with her for $1 million. After legal fees, there was $417,000.00 left which was put in Debbies trust for her nursing home. To top it all off, her son died in Iraq, she went to his funeral, but cries everytime she's told he's dead because of her severe brain damage.
Does this seem right or wrong to you? True, to be fair to the 1.2 million wal-mart employees. But isn't it also true that Debbie has suffered enough? This story is debateable and Wal-Mart has said that this case is " unbelievably sad". So, they have a heart. But, how big?
I, personally am slightly torn, because as a fair minded person, I do believe that what you do for one you must do for all. So, if Wal-mart permitted Debbie to receive $470,000.00, in similar cases with different associates, they must do the same thing right? The majority of me feels that Wal-mart should bribe a judge to allow the Shanks to win. That would be a win-win situation. Wal-mart would bring the case to court in order to set an example that they don't negotiate contracts easily, but also the Shanks would live in what peace they may have left.
Right or Wrong: Walmart Sues Brain Damaged Woman
By Rayko - Posted on March 27th, 2008
Tagged: None
I think you pretty much cut to the heart of the matter in the last paragraph.
Wal-Mart pretty much has to defend it health insurance contract in court. It is a matter of fairness to other employees and to shareholders. Health insurance is also a major cost item and if they don't defend themselves then their premiums will skyrocket.
But they have other options too. For example Wal-Mart contributes millions to various charities. There is no reason why this person's trust fund could not be one of those charities. They could take the money away with one hand and give it back with the other.
Rayko Jane
Hawaii Resident
Love your answer. Did you rate me?? Maybe I'll just have to write to CNN with your answer and give you credit, of course. Thanks
"they (Walmart) have a heart"
There is no such thing as corporate personhood. That's an important point to remember. Sure, you meant the CEO and the board of the company, but as a point of clarification, a business does not have feelings.
I submit to you that a company that
a)does not offer pensions to full-time employees,
b)avoids paying a living wage
c)weighs the 'risk-benefit' of a product as opposed to calling it hazardous and keeping it off the market
has no purpose in the United States market. In other words, it shouldn't have the right to exist.
Thank you for those opinions expressed in the post!
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
And throw hundred of thousands of people out of work and force consumers to buy food and products from the traditional retail stores at the much higher prices that they used to charge before Wal-Mart came to town.
I can see how that will make everybody better off.
I hold shares of Wal-Mart stock in my 401k and I can see how that will make me better off.
Not!
You know what, you're right. Everyone would be "better off" executing their local businesses and strapping on a yellow smiling faced apron. Why not?
That way we'll be more dependent on a company that doesn't offer living wages and we'll be wage slaves for the rest of our lives. Maybe then they'll build company houses for us and pay us less than the rent so we're indebted for the duration.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Everybody predicted catastrophe for local business when Wal-Mart came to my town of 15,000
The fact is our economy got better. A very few marginal businesses might have gone bust. They were probably headed down the tubes anyway. Most of the good businesses got better. They improved customer service. Or they brought in high quality product lines to compete with Wal-Mart's cheap stuff. Or they expanded their selection so that where Wal-Mart might have one widget they have a broad selection.
I've lived in this town most of my 50 years and in the last 10 since we got a Wal-Mart it has never been healthier economically. So much so that we recently got a Home Depot. And again people predicted catastrophe for the local hardware stores but we have not lost a one. Instead, a bunch of new small businesses have sprung up in the same neighborhood and we have become a regional shopping destination.
If people hated Wal-Mart I doubt it would be so successful.
It's wonderful to hear that your economy is so healthy you can have a Home Depot.
It makes sense to me that those local businesses would have to become specialists and more efficient. That's swell. But it makes no sense to me that, without that let's go local, Ethel spirit, those businesses could survive under the low price shelf of Wal-Mart.
To me, this says more about your town than it does about the so-called positive effects of Wal-Mart.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
How in the heck does Walmart honestly expect a braind dameged woman in a nursing home to pay back the money? It's not like she can work! I mean, she can't even remember that her son is dead!
Walmart is a company with a clause on their health care pay-out that says if she gets a settlement they no longer pay the medical bills. Pure and simple. As people, we naturally feel for this woman and think it is cruel and pointless for Walmart to demand the money. But this is not a person we are talking about. Like it was said above, companies are not people.
When the family (on behalf of the woman) settled, they automatically owed back the money used from Walmart. They probably did not realize this conundrum, but it exists and it is now their responsibility as the living relatives of the woman (and financial caretakers) to pay back.
No, it isn't fair, no we as community members may not like paying money back to a multi-billion dollar business that doesn't need it, but that is what a contract is for. If we permit contracts and clauses to be broken and ignored because the circumstances are unfortunate then we have undermined our legal system.
The Heathen's Guide
PRIDE
ENVY
GLUTTONY
multi-billion dollar business that doesn't need it
Wal-Mart is just a name on a legal document. Like all public corporations, Wal-Mart is owned by millions of shareholders and a lot of them are small shareholders who hold that stock to fund our retirement or otherwise make our lives better.
When you say Wal-Mart does not need money what you are saying is that myself and lots of people like me don't need that money. I frankly don't think you know the economic circumstances of millions of Wal-Mart shareholders and are therefore qualified to make that judgement. Personally, I want Wal-Mart to make as much money as it legally can.
I am a businessman though and I realize that often the best way to make money is to spend money in ways that increase business and profitability. That is why businesses advertise. One of the best forms of advertisement is the publicity and positve name recognition that comes from acts of charity. Walmart's profitability and my enlightened self-interest might (or might not) be best served by and act of charity which portrays Wal-Mart as a caring corporate citizen and earns it positive name recognition and community goodwill. Wal-Mart has people who specialize in figuring out this sort of thing and as a shareholder I'll leave it to them to make that decision.
That is completely different then saying that money should be confiscated from Walmart shareholders to pay for a situation that they in no way caused.
Frankly, since you are so quick to decide that money should be taken out of my pocket to fund this woman's problems, how about if I suggest that your family's home should be confiscated to fund this woman's medical care? How is that any different?
Rayko Jane
Hawaii Re
I hope you weren't referring to anything I said, because my opinion was that I think the family is responsible to pay back the money because of the contract fine print. I simply said I understand that most people don't want the "big bad multi-billion dollar company" to get the money because, as most people see it, Walmart "doesn't need it". I know shareholders own the stock, I own stocks myself, and they are the funding for the company. I simply was stating the public view of walmart. I in was in no way "so quick to decide that money should be taken out of" anyone's pockets, let alone your own. I believe quite the opposite.
The Heathen's Guide
PRIDE
ENVY
GLUTTONY
You are right. I misread the intent of your post. My apologies.