i'm officially done with walmart

Anon

I was way out of line and over the top in my reply to you Drifting and lazymoon13. I still stand by the fact i don't think the amount of profit Walmart made is relevant, but i do apologize for the way in which i delivered that to you. Was pretty lame.

Sorry guys.

lazymoon13

Pj_Gurl wrote:

I was way out of line and over the top in my reply to you Drifting and lazymoon13. I still stand by the fact i don't think the amount of profit Walmart made is relevant, but i do apologize for the way in which i delivered that to you. Was pretty lame.

Sorry guys.

awww that was very cool of you to post this. no hard feelings.

DriftingByTheStorm

love ya, Pj_Gurl.


you're still A-Okay in my book.

Don't think i'm not aware that we are in A Moving Train.
This is real life. Politics. Current Events. World Issues.
Obviously people are going to get pretty "passionate" in their opinions.
God knows i've been guilty of the same.

I try not to hold any of that against people on here,
unless it becomes a pattern, repeated consistently and maliciously.

NMyTree

Biggest Wave wrote:

Because that's what the contract says they can do. She signed a contract and the court said she has to pay it back as per that contract. Sad? Yes. Read before you sign is the lesson here.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Wal-mart's contract isn't valid. I think everyone realizes that the stipulation was in the contract and it is legal.

And you're right, people should take the time to read contracts and think long and hard (and all paper work ) before they sign anything.

But that's not the real issue, here.

This is about showing some heart and charity. This is about the human element.

Aren't Wal-mart the one's who boast about supporting good Christian values?

Yeah, I believe they do.

This case is a perfect example of why the health care system, the Health Insurance system and the corporate-infuenced judicial system.........is totally screwed up. They've been lobbying, paying-off and using their profit to buy out our politicians, laws and court system....for decades.

Health care/treatment and medication is at an absurdly high cost. All for the purpose of retrieving monumental profit margins for the big Pharm corporations and Insurance companies. We're not talking about modest profits or a reasonable profit margin. We're talking about mile high in the sky profit margins.

Is this what we want our country.....our world to continue to be about?

How about a little spiritual love and heart? How about some love and humanity?

We've already seen what the world has become when the mighty dollar/mighty profit takes precedent over everything else; including human lives and quality of life. It's a major fuckin' trainwreck.

Wal-mart's claims that it wouldn't be fair for their other employees in the plan, is absurd. My currently knowing a few people who work at Wal-mart and having done a part-time stint for extra christmas there.......over a decade ago; I am fully aware that their health insurance plan sucks barbwire. I never had it, because I was only there for a few months (a second job for me) for extra christmas money.

But in talking extensively to my then co-workers and a few friends from there I have retained over the years; I know full well that Wal-mart actually makes a real nice profit on their insurance plans and their employees get marginal benefits (at best) and still pay way too much out of their own pockets.

This is a sad story and Wal-mart are dispicable.

Good christian values my ass!

NMyTree

stuckinline wrote:

"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 that's how employers/corporations turn an even nicer profit, on your misfortune/bad health.

stuckinline wrote:

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

Because Americans have been brainwashed since they were born- by the media, by movies and certainly by a lot of parents; that profit takes a main priority over anything else. Human emotions, sympathy, empathy and extending a helping hand to fellow human beings is viewed as silly and stupid; by unfortunately way too many Americans.

It's truely sad.

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Cornnifer is seemingly basing an ENTIRE argument for Walmart not collecting on their contractual perrogative on ... what? ... ON THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT EARNED by Walmart per year.



:

To anyone paying attention, it should be pretty clear that i'm basing my argument on the fact that Walmart's pursuit of this is unethical and completely void of human decency. i don't really care if they grossed 300 billion or 3 billion. The point is they aren't going out of business because of 275 grand from a severely brain damaged woman. This woman and her family, on the other hand, needs that money to pay for her care. There is no way this is denfendable based on anything but a contract that outlines a right but in no way outlines an OBLIGATION. Somewhere i heard or read 300 billion. My entire argument is not based on that figure, however. Its obviously clear walmart isn't fuckin struggling. If you're willing to sacrifice a sense of human decency because of a contract, thats your choice. i'm not willing to do that.

meme

Biggest Wave wrote:

Because that's what the contract says they can do. She signed a contract and the court said she has to pay it back as per that contract. Sad? Yes. Read before you sign is the lesson here.

Or fight for the right to publicly funded health care for everyone.

cornnifer

For the record, this is from the article i linked directly to:

"In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion".


o.k. 90 billion, not 300 billion. You got me. Walmart is poor. Its a good thing for them they are able to get back this 200 thousand or so. :rolleyes:

know1

Wal-Mart can't decide to ignore it's own policies just because it's a sad situation, because soon it would have to ignore them all the time.

DriftingByTheStorm

cornnifer wrote:

To anyone paying attention, it should be pretty clear that i'm basing my argument on the fact that Walmart's pursuit of this is unethical and completely void of human decency. i don't really care if they grossed 300 billion or 3 billion. The point is they aren't going out of business because of 275 grand from a severely brain damaged woman. This woman and her family, on the other hand, needs that money to pay for her care. There is no way this is denfendable based on anything but a contract that outlines a right but in no way outlines an OBLIGATION. Somewhere i heard or read 300 billion. My entire argument is not based on that figure, however. Its obviously clear walmart isn't fuckin struggling. If you're willing to sacrifice a sense of human decency because of a contract, thats your choice. i'm not willing to do that.

I understand what you are attempting to get at Cornnifer.
However, what i am trying to point out is that your argument - wether you acknowledge it or not - is implicitly based upon some sort of internal assessment you have made regarding a profit level at which a company becomes "immoral" or "unethical" for demanding they be recompensed in a situation like this.

In short, you claim that Walmart is "unethical" for demanding recompensation is driven by your belief that walmart makes "too much" for this "trivial" pay-out to be of concern to them. This begs the question, either how big would the insurance pay out have to be for Walmart to seek collection without being considered "unethical" given their current net profit, or otherwise - how much must their net profit shrink for their collection in this case to not be considered unethical in a future case of similar amount?

Do you understand where, given the above explanation, your argument necessarily hinges on some personal evaluation of Walmart's profits and at what level those profits become too large for them to ethicaly seek collection in cases such as these? If your argument did not hinge upon this unspecified assessment, you would not have even mentioned a dollar amount of their profit in the first place.

Agree or disagree?
Explanation please.

boxwine_in_hell

cornnifer wrote:

i'm sure everyone has heard this story by now, but, i'll include a link anyway. In the past i've questioned walmart but stopped short of saying i would never shop there. i have finally declared that i will never spend another red cent there. This is some horrible shit. What greedy bastards.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html?iref=newssearch

Walmart does suck but to me health insurance companies are 10 times worse. They're a bunch of fucking assholes.

Sludge Factory

Pj_Gurl wrote:

I was way out of line and over the top in my reply to you Drifting and lazymoon13. I still stand by the fact i don't think the amount of profit Walmart made is relevant, but i do apologize for the way in which i delivered that to you. Was pretty lame.

Sorry guys.

I just wanted to commend you on this. It takes a really big person to apologize for something they said or the way it was said on this board and for you to be able to do that, you have my respect.

Most of the time I just see people trying to twist things around even if they maybe were a bit out of line.

know1

I think it's important to note that they did pay out originally. After she received an additional settlement to cover her fees, they sought reimbursement.

After all, she was essentially double-dipping.

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I understand what you are attempting to get at Cornnifer.
However, what i am trying to point out is that your argument - wether you acknowledge it or not - is implicitly based upon some sort of internal assessment you have made regarding a profit level at which a company becomes "immoral" or "unethical" for demanding they be recompensed in a situation like this.

In short, you claim that Walmart is "unethical" for demanding recompensation is driven by your belief that walmart makes "too much" for this "trivial" pay-out to be of concern to them. This begs the question, either how big would the insurance pay out have to be for Walmart to seek collection without being considered "unethical" given their current net profit, or otherwise - how much must their net profit shrink for their collection in this case to not be considered unethical in a future case of similar amount?

Do you understand where, given the above explanation, your argument necessarily hinges on some personal evaluation of Walmart's profits and at what level those profits become too large for them to ethicaly seek collection in cases such as these? If your argument did not hinge upon this unspecified assessment, you would not have even mentioned a dollar amount of their profit in the first place.

Agree or disagree?
Explanation please.

Disagree. Are you looking for a hard number? You want me to give you a cut off point, such as, if a company nets 90 billion its unethical but its acceptable if they only net say, 1 billion. So the cut off is $1,000,000,001? Is that what you're looking for? If so i can't give you a number. My point doesn't require one. All my point requires is about 1/2 of a heart. One half of a heart will allow a person to look at the situation, the circumsatancesand the GENERAL figures (exact figures are not even needed) and realize that walmart is simply out of line in pursuing this woman. The consideration that they netted 90 billion only makes it more clear. They are draining her account. They would have sued for more, but you can't squeeze water from a rock. You don't need to do the math to see it. Doing the math only helps to illustrate it.

DriftingByTheStorm

cornnifer wrote:

Disagree. Are you looking for a hard number? You want me to give you a cut off point, such as, if a company nets 90 billion its unethical but its acceptable if they only net say, 1 billion. So the cut off is $1,000,000,001? Is that what you're looking for? If so i can't give you a number. My point doesn't require one. All my point requires is about 1/2 of a heart. One half of a heart will allow a person to look at the situation, the circumsatancesand the GENERAL figures (exact figures are not even needed) and realize that walmart is simply out of line in pursuing this woman. The consideration that they netted 90 billion only makes it more clear. They are draining her account. They would have sued for more, but you can't squeeze water from a rock. You don't need to do the math to see it. Doing the math only helps to illustrate it.

They NETTED 13 billion.
You just did it again.
Lol.

Again, I understand what you are trying to get at,
i'm just forcing you to revisit your argument and understand that although you don't view hard numbers as important to the case here, it is asking a lot for corporations to think and act (or especialy, to have emotion) like INDIVIDUALS do. Yes, corporations are legal "individuals", but it doesn't take much involvement or undestanding of them to get that they just are not capable of rationalizing as an organization like a sole person can.

This decison (to seek recompensation) was likely that made by multiple attorneys, supervisors, executives, and so forth. They are looking at policy guidelines and numbers. They aren't sitting down and wrestling with their feelings for this poor woman.

And while i am certainly not asking you to give me a dollar value in specific, i am asking you to understand that at some point there does become a dollar value relationship between payout and net income that indeed makes that payout MATERIAL.

By saying the actual amount earned by Walmart is immaterial, you are in effect denying that to even consider such relationships is of importance in business.

cornnifer

know1 wrote:

Wal-Mart can't decide to ignore it's own policies just because it's a sad situation, because soon it would have to ignore them all the time.

The fuck they can't! How long have you only been able to see the world in stark black and white without noticing a single shade of gray? This is quite obviously a unique and extreme case scenario. She didn't trip on a crack in the sidewalk and fracture her big toe. She was plowed by a truck, is confined to a wheelchair, and has no short term memory! Oh, well, i guess. Walmart HAS to sue her for everything she has left because if they don't, they would have to show mercy to the NEXT employee who gets plowed by a truck and winds up, for all practical purposes, brain dead.
SHEESH!

polaris

i think the moral of the story with wal-mart and so many other things ... is that people only look at the things that matter to them ... so, if you can get a mug for 20 cents at wal-mart - that's good ... nevermind that it's made from some 11 year old in an asbestos factory in china or that because they choose to buy mugs from china - the store down the street that stocks mugs from the next town closes shop and the workers that made the mugs lose their jobs ...

obviously, i'm just making up examples here ... but the point is - everything is interconnected ... if your own personal being is all that matters to you - i think wal-mart is great for you ... if you care about the bigger picture - you might want to reconsider ...

know1

cornnifer wrote:

The fuck they can't! How long have you only been able to see the world in stark black and white without noticing a single shade of gray? This is quite obviously a unique and extreme case scenario. She didn't trip on a crack in the sidewalk and fracture her big toe. She was plowed by a truck, is confined to a wheelchair, and has no short term memory! Oh, well, i guess. Walmart HAS to sue her for everything she has left because if they don't, they would have to show mercy to the NEXT employee who gets plowed by a truck and winds up, for all practical purposes, brain dead.
SHEESH!

If you're a company as large as Wal-Mart, you have to be rigid about your policies or you have everyone taking advantage of them.

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

They NETTED 13 billion.
You just did it again.
Lol.

Again, I understand what you are trying to get at,
i'm just forcing you to revisit your argument and understand that although you don't view hard numbers as important to the case here, it is asking a lot for corporations to think and act (or especialy, to have emotion) like INDIVIDUALS do. Yes, corporations are legal "individuals", but it doesn't take much involvement or undestanding of them to get that they just are not capable of rationalizing as an organization like a sole person can.

This decison (to seek recompensation) was likely that made by multiple attorneys, supervisors, executives, and so forth. They are looking at policy guidelines and numbers. They aren't sitting down and wrestling with their feelings for this poor woman.

And while i am certainly not asking you to give me a dollar value in specific, i am asking you to understand that at some point there does become a dollar value relationship between payout and net income that indeed makes that payout MATERIAL.

By saying the actual amount earned by Walmart is immaterial, you are in effect denying that to even consider such relationships is of importance in business.

First of all the 90 billion comes directly from the article i linked to. i quoted it a few posts ago. You can go back and read it. Who are you? The fucking book keeper for walmart? Besides it still doesn't matter. If their is a hard number, first of all you'd have to cut out your fucking heart and replace it with a charred rock and a business 101 textbook to recogize it. secondly, if there is a hard number, its waaaay below even the 13 billion you keep insisting on.

NMyTree

know1 wrote:

Wal-Mart can't decide to ignore it's own policies just because it's a sad situation, because soon it would have to ignore them all the time.

What I suggest is that they change their policy, rather than ignoring their current policy. And then as a good gesture, grant the woman/and her husband the money; so he can afford to provide her with the proper quality care she needs.

Crazy, I know.

Whether you realize it or not, Wal-mart turns a profit through their employee "Health Plan Insurance" policy, as well as turning a profit from their sales. maybe theyn can actually show some heart, here.