i'm officially done with walmart

Biggest Wave

blackredyellow wrote:

I always hope people like you come across a serious situation in your life where you really need help with something, and nobody bothers to even look in your direction...

See, to me that would be perfect. I don't want any help from people. Once people help you they act as if you owe them something. Fuck that. I'd rather just lay down and die.

slightofjeff

Sad story.

Still won't keep me from shopping there, but more power to you.

slightofjeff

Biggest Wave wrote:

Compared to just about anywhere I've shopped.

Here's a couple of examples.

Deodorant that I use - $4.99 elsewhere; $3.42 Walmart - 31.46% savings
The coffee that I use - $8.49 elsewhere; $6.42 Walmart - 24.38% savings

That's only a couple that I can think of off the top of my head, but most of the time other items are about the same savings. Next time I'll remember to save my receipt.

I've got a Wal-Mart and another chain grocery store in my neighborhood. After buying groceries at the grocery store for a few months, I switched to Wal-Mart. Saved about $50 a month.

In this economy, that adds up.

Sorry about this poor woman's medical bills, but what do you want from me?

flywallyfly

Biggest Wave wrote:

That shit doesn't bother me. It's all about me. Always has been, always will be.

Wow. Human garbage. Flush.

DriftingByTheStorm

problem solved.

flywallyfly

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

would you please correct the grammar in your signature?

that "to"\"too" is really bothering me.
k?
thx

Thanks for pointing that out. What is really sad is I copied and pasted it from a bumper sticker website. Must be hundreds of them driving around the country like that...lol!

pjalive21

cornnifer wrote:

You folks are sick. Morally and etically bankrupt.
i sincerely hope you are not plowed by a large truck, rendered severely brain damaged, and then fucked by your dispicable employer. i wouldn't wish that on anyone. Even you. i have to say though, if it were to happen, i'd probably laugh my ass off.

seriously get a life....

im not backing wal mart in this but the law is the law, what are you going to do about it?

ok boycott wal mart...the 30 bucks you spend there isnt going to break them

just like people that want to boycott gas stations but fill up there everyday so they can drive their cars

good luck with that boycott

everyone knows wal mart sucks

DixieN

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

But Walmart is working on some of the largest scale "greening" initiatives in the world.

They are doing things like contracting with Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute to work on fuel use reduction devices for their delivery trucks ... in case you don't know, Wal-Mart has the largest privately owned fleet of big rig trucks in the world.

And Stone went scuba diving with Walton's son ... that's good enough reason for me to shop there.

Look.
Walmart is what it is - an extremely large multi-national corporation that, like ANY corporation cares mostly about one thing: profit. At least they are trying out "environmental"\ "sustainable" initiatives. That counts for something in my book.


[hey, i'm just playing devils advocate. seriously]

Wal-Mart is such a mixed bag. Or a chef's salad of good and bad. I swear. Although I'm not the biggest fan of Wal-Mart, I'll admit that I've been participating in a program that involves them for the past few months. It's a plastic bag recycling program at my kids' school. For every large plastic bag entirely filled with plastic bags, Wal-Mart gives the school $5. It's been a good, easy way to raise money for the school, and it's been good for the environment. But, for every really good thing that Wal-Mart does, you can name an equally bad thing. I'm not sure what to think about Wal-Mart overall, except to think that a corporation has status as an individual. And, it's just like an individual...an individual with a split personality or with multiple personalities where about half are sweetness and light and half are devils straight from hell.

stuckinline

just curious why aren't more people disgusted by this clause in the insurance policy?


"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."



why is that clause even included on the health plan?

DriftingByTheStorm

stuckinline wrote:

just curious why aren't more people disgusted by this clause in the insurance policy?


"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."



why is that clause even included on the health plan?

Because it was in the contract. Ergo, someone signed and agreed to it.

The other reason is, for me at least, because if it truly is completely abnormal and lacking in legitimacy, case law allows the offended party to claim unconscionability and the court will strike the contract as invalid.

So in theory, if this is truly unconscionable (as you seem to suggest), and the defense can prove it so, then the lady will not be forced to remit repayment to Walmart.

cornnifer

pjalive21 wrote:

seriously get a life....

im not backing wal mart in this but the law is the law, what are you going to do about it?

ok boycott wal mart...the 30 bucks you spend there isnt going to break them

just like people that want to boycott gas stations but fill up there everyday so they can drive their cars

good luck with that boycott

everyone knows wal mart sucks

i have no delusional thoughts that my conscious decision to not shop at walmart will "break" them. Quite the opposite. i know very well that it will not. They made 300 billion last year and my very small contribution to that is unnoticeable. Boycotts, as an effective means of accomplishing a goal, must be vast in their scope and i don't see that happening.
My decision is simply for personal satisfaction. i, PERSONALLY, will feel a little bit better knowing i didn't spend a single penny of MY money there. Knowing that i didn't sacrifice ethics and personal values to save a couple of pennies, is rewarding to ME.

As far as the law, i've already acknowledged the fact that the law is on their side. They are well within their legal RIGHTS. i'm not arguing legality here. i'm unconcerned with it. What i'm arguing are morals and ethics. The fine print in the contract states walmarts legal RIGHT to sue. It doesn't mandate that they do so, however. What it does is give them the option of doing so if they choose. Their choice to do so in this case is completely unethical and immoral. There is no way to defend their decision without completely divorcing oneself from any sense of ethics and morals. You seem completely comfortable in going forward with that divorce. Good luck with THAT.

trappedinmyradio

Biggest Wave wrote:

Most insurance plans nowadays have the same clause. The husband of the woman was hoping that Walmart would show some compation. Walmart said that they were showing compation by settling for less than the full amount owed. I have to agree with Walmart. Read the fine print before you sign up with a particular insurance carrier. Walmart is well within their rights. That's what they won in court. A contract is a contract.

they have classically had that same clause. the problem here is that they received a 1M settlement and the lawyers took over half of it...who is the real bad guy here...i say both!

lazymoon13

you must have seen hilary at walmart?

Kel Varnsen

Did no one know she would have to pay Wal-mart back? Not even her lawyers? If they did why didn't they sue for 1 million for herself plus for long term care plus an extra 470,000 to pay for the medical expenses she would end up owing walmart. One of her lawyers should have figured this into the settlement money she had asked for.

Biggest Wave

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Did no one know she would have to pay Wal-mart back? Not even her lawyers? If they did why didn't they sue for 1 million for herself plus for long term care plus an extra 470,000 to pay for the medical expenses she would end up owing walmart. One of her lawyers should have figured this into the settlement money she had asked for.

Good point. That's why I would blame the attorney before I would blame Walmart. Walmart is just doing what is legally within their rights.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

cornnifer wrote:

i have no delusional thoughts that my conscious decision to not shop at walmart will "break" them. Quite the opposite. i know very well that it will not. They made 300 billion last year and my very small contribution to that is unnoticeable. Boycotts, as an effective means of accomplishing a goal, must be vast in their scope and i don't see that happening.
My decision is simply for personal satisfaction. i, PERSONALLY, will feel a little bit better knowing i didn't spend a single penny of MY money there. Knowing that i didn't sacrifice ethics and personal values to save a couple of pennies, is rewarding to ME.

As far as the law, i've already acknowledged the fact that the law is on their side. They are well within their legal RIGHTS. i'm not arguing legality here. i'm unconcerned with it. What i'm arguing are morals and ethics. The fine print in the contract states walmarts legal RIGHT to sue. It doesn't mandate that they do so, however. What it does is give them the option of doing so if they choose. Their choice to do so in this case is completely unethical and immoral. There is no way to defend their decision without completely divorcing oneself from any sense of ethics and morals. You seem completely comfortable in going forward with that divorce. Good luck with THAT.

i agree with you there

stuckinline

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Because it was in the contract. Ergo, someone signed and agreed to it.

The other reason is, for me at least, because if it truly is completely abnormal and lacking in legitimacy, case law allows the offended party to claim unconscionability and the court will strike the contract as invalid.

So in theory, if this is truly unconscionable (as you seem to suggest), and the defense can prove it so, then the lady will not be forced to remit repayment to Walmart.

so, do YOU think this clause is "unconscionable" ?

SPEEDY MCCREADY

if we all boycotted a corporation or business that fucked over one of their employees...

we would all be unemployed........
walking around with no clothes on our back...
no food in or refrigerators....
no furniture....

blah blah blah.......

DriftingByTheStorm

stuckinline wrote:

so, do YOU think this clause is "unconscionable" ?

no. not really.
i'd be interested to hear a judge or jury's take on it.
However, I suspect they would find nothing unconscionable about it.

You do understand the intention of this clause right?

This is not much different from the way standard auto insurance policies are handled. If you are covered for damages in a car crash through your own provider, but SOMEONE ELSE hits you, WHO pays out the damages?

Your provider
or THEIRS?

In almost ALL such cases, either the LIABLE party pays out the damages, or your insurance covers you directly,
but then seeks REPAYMENT from the LIABLE PARTY'S insurer.

That's just how it works.

In this case, Walmart provided the lady with coverage, and they held good on their word.

However, when they found out that not only had they provided this coverage (400+ thousand dollars), but SO HAD THE LIABLE PARTY, obviously they were a bit put off. I'm not saying it isn't heartless, but it certainly makes sense. Walmart covered their employees expenses, even when the incident was something that occured because of another person's liability.

In this case the woman in question actualy received DOUBLE PAYMENT. The better question would be, if the lawsuit disbursement was for REAL DAMAGES (which it was, you don't get lawsuit money just because, its paid out only on assessed REAL DAMAGES incurred) ... so, if this woman already received a payout from the LIABLE party based on real damages, WHY then should Walmart also be on the hook to cover the loss? THE LIABLE PARTY ALREADY COVERED THE COSTS.

Basicaly, the argument you would have to put forth here is that this lady simply deserves to collect double because goddamnit, walmart just doesn't need it, and it sure would be the nice thing to do.

Well hell, i agree with you, it sure would be nice.
But come on now, this is the REAL world.


Now, CORNNIFER, Walmart did NOT make $300 BILLION last year or ANY year for that matter.

Walmart's Financial statements ... click on "Income Statement" top left if it defaults to Balance Sheet.

Walmarts NET AFTER TAX EARNINGS PER ANNUM:
12.8 BILLION for '07
up incrementaly year over year from
8.8 BILLION in '04

That may look like a 40% increase in profit in 3 years,
but inflation adjusted (30% dollar loss since '03) we are talking about a modest 15% net increase in operating income.

10 billion isn't chump change,
but it sure the fuck is not 300billion,
in fact it's only 3% of 300billion.
:cool:

lazymoon13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Now, CORNNIFER, Walmart did NOT make $300 BILLION last year or ANY year for that matter.

Walmart's Financial statements ... click on "Income Statement" top left if it defaults to Balance Sheet.

Walmarts NET AFTER TAX EARNINGS PER ANNUM:
12.8 BILLION for '07
up incrementaly year over year from
8.8 BILLION in '04

That may look like a 40% increase in profit in 3 years,
but inflation adjusted (30% dollar loss since '03) we are talking about a modest 15% net increase in operating income.

10 billion isn't chump change,
but it sure the fuck is not 300billion,
in fact it's only 3% of 300billion.
:cool:

I was assuming he was exaggerating on purpose. but who knows. good job pointing this out.