But see, i havn't done that. i havn't even asked anyone to join me in not shopping at walmart. i havn't even called by decision a "boycott". One person does not a boycott make. You can shop wherever you want. i havn't suggested YOU do otherwise.
i havn't suggested that shopping at walmart makes one heartless (i have not at all used the word "asshole" to describe anyone here). i HAVE and will continue to suggest that insisting on boiling this case down to walmarts legal RIGHTS based on a contract and defending their actions and decisions in this individual, and very unique case, causes me to speculate on just what, if anything resides in one's chest.
Yes, but if anyone sees a different side of the argument than you, they are "heartless" and "everything that's wrong with America."
You see how that kind of name-calling is counterproductive?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
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.
Your article was misrepresenting NET REVENUE as NET PROFIT, and you were more than happy to spread that distortion of fact.
I bet you're probably one of the same people that harps on others for using "bad sources", huh?
I'm gonna start ragging on you, cause you're really being a prick in the way you treat others on here.
You can google finance just about any fucking company on the stock exchange, fyi. Try it sometime, before you start quoting erroneous figures.
Your article was misquoting GROSS REVENUE as NET PROFIT. I bet you're probably one of the same people that harps on others for using "bad sources", huh?
I'm gonna start ragging on you, cause you're really being a prick in the way you treat others on here.
You can google finance just about any fucking company on the stock exchange, fyi. Try it sometime, before you start quoting erroneous figures.
See that:
Income After Tax 13,290.00
In Millions of USD (except for per share items)
13.2 THOUSAND MILLION = 13.2 BILLION
and my question would be,
JUST WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
:cool:
Look, i quoted the article i cited, and, besides, i don't give a fuck. It was never the point. The point is the fucking company is worth BILLIONS. Many billions. They aren't some little ma and pa grocery store. Suing this woman for 200 (or so) grand is just stupid, gutless, heartless and greedy. Thats the point. The point is not what is their legal RIGHT. The point is what is their human and ethical OBLIGATION.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
i havn't avoided the question. i've answered it rather clearly. Not suing this woman does not equal giving "handouts" to everyone that gets sick or sprains a wrist. No, walmart shouldn't be pressured to stand out on the corner and hand out hundies to everyone who passes by with crutches or an arm sling, as you make it sound. It doesn't take much to see the uniqueness of this scenario. It all comes down to what you use to fill that open cavity in your chest where a heart, perhaps, once was.
Yes it does amount to a handout when - by the terms of their agreement - they are entitled to that money out of the settlement received. The people refused to give it to them and so suing was the only way to get it back. They would have won the lawsuit, so dropping it is the same as a gift.
This the only thing personal that I'll say - when you continue to make personal attacks based on some comments in a thread you look pretty foolish. Especially since you really know nothing of me or of how big of a heart I have.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Look, i quoted the article i cited, and, besides, i don't give a fuck. It was never the point. The point is the fucking company is worth BILLIONS. Many billions. They aren't some little ma and pa grocery store. Suing this woman for 200 (or so) grand is just stupid, gutless, heartless and greedy. Thats the point. The point is not what is their legal RIGHT. The point is what is their human and ethical OBLIGATION.
So are you saying if this was a ma and pa grocery store that gave their employees health insurance and one of them got a big settlement after an accident where their insurance paid out a bunch of money to cover medical expenses, then it would be ok for the store and their insurance company to try and recover some of their costs? Because honestly I don't see how it makes any difference, and I still think it is the fault of the woman's lawyer who should have sued the truck driver for enough to cover her long term care and her medical bills. It seems obvious to me that if she asked for that money as well she probably could have gotten it.
So are you saying if this was a ma and pa grocery store that gave their employees health insurance and one of them got a big settlement after an accident where their insurance paid out a bunch of money to cover medical expenses, then it would be ok for the store and their insurance company to try and recover some of their costs? Because honestly I don't see how it makes any difference, and I still think it is the fault of the woman's lawyer who should have sued the truck driver for enough to cover her long term care and her medical bills. It seems obvious to me that if she asked for that money as well she probably could have gotten it.
To a ma and pa grocery store, the amount of money would make a difference. To Wal-Mart it doesn't. Wal-Mart can do without the money, easily. Ma and pa might have kids who also want to go to college, or a sick mother who needs care or whatever, perhaps they are struggling to pay the bills. Then, though it would be extremely sad, it would be understandable. Destroying a family to save a family seems kind of ridiculous. Wal-Mart can easily miss the money, and not a single family is destroyed by it.
Also, yes, it is the fault of the lawyer. But I don't think whose fault it is matters. Wal-Mart had the opportunity to save a family, or to push them into misery and more problems. And they had ever right to do the latter. Pointing out whose fault it is is irrelevant to me because to me this whole case is more about humanity, compassion and caring for other people. Instead of turning our backs and saying, well, not my fault they got a shitty laywer, not my fault the signed the contract, well, Wal-Mart has every right to take the money back... but saying, damn, that's fucked up, I'd like to help them no matter whose fault it might be.
You have to give Wal-mart credit for this decision. It was the right thing to do, the humane and thoughtful thing to do.
I applaud Wal-mart!!!!
But know1 is right, her attorney may have in fact been short-sighted and negligent. Although, we don't know that for sure.
It is very possible he was aware of the stipulation in the contract and did try to get more money to make sure this woman would get the medical/health care and attention she requires; but the court's decision may have not been what he asked for.
We don't know for sure, because we don't have all the details of the proceedings and case.
I also agree that there should be some kind of more reasonable (and less greedy) regulation or cap on the permitted percentage an attorney can take/charge.
To a ma and pa grocery store, the amount of money would make a difference. To Wal-Mart it doesn't. Wal-Mart can do without the money, easily. Ma and pa might have kids who also want to go to college, or a sick mother who needs care or whatever, perhaps they are struggling to pay the bills. Then, though it would be extremely sad, it would be understandable. Destroying a family to save a family seems kind of ridiculous. Wal-Mart can easily miss the money, and not a single family is destroyed by it.
You are correct for this one instance, but then again if Wal-Mart gets into the business of financially helping everyone who needs it, then they couldn't afford it either.
For the record, I applaud Wal-Mart for giving this woman and her family a financial gift. That is their prerogative. What I didn't like is all the people crying foul and pushing them to do it when they were really in the right to get their money back.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
This is obviously a very good cause, for a woman and her family who were victims. Wal-mart comes off smelling liek roses, now. great job out of them!!
I'd rather see a family such as this one get the "handout", than, some lazy, unwilling to work for a living druggy or thief; who sits around all day doing nothing or partying ...or commiting criminal acts all day.
Seems like an excellent cause. If I had the kind of money Wal-mart has, I'd give her all of it and then send an extra $50,000 grand a year; just to make sure her kids and husband all well taken care of. Just for the sake of helping.
This is obviously a very good cause, for a woman and her family who were victims. Wal-mart comes off smelling liek roses, now. great job out of them!!
I'd rather see a family such as this one get the "handout", than, some lazy, unwilling to work for a living druggy or thief; who sits around all day doing nothing or partying ...or commiting criminal acts all day.
Seems like an excellent cause. If I had the kind of money Wal-mart has, I'd give her all of it and then send an extra $50,000 grand a year; just to make sure her kids and husband all well taken care of. Just for the sake of helping.
It doesn't make a difference to the woman.
Where it makes a difference is in the media.
Try these two news headlines on for size:
"Wal-Mart drops lawsuit against disabled woman"
"Wal-Mart gives $400K to disabled woman"
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
As stated in a BP/ammaco thread and it holds true here...
there's what's legal, and then there's the right thing to do.
the humane thing. The human thing. The thing that says "I value human beings over profits, human beings are not garbage."
As for being legal, It's amazing what business practices qualify as "legal" in the age of the Bush administation. Especially since fascist corporate scumbags seem to be in control of a decidedly pro-corporation legal system.
Wal mart could have done the right thing if for no other reason than good publicity.
but as usual, they showed their true colors and didn't let us down.
As for being legal, It's amazing what business practices qualify as "legal" in the age of the Bush administation. Especially since fascist corporate scumbags seem to be in control of a decidedly pro-corporation legal system.
.
Why is walmart bearing all the blame in your mind. What about the trucking company that had to be sued in order to pay the woman her damages in your mind where to they rank in comparison to walmart, higher or lower on the corporate scumbag scale?
Why is walmart bearing all the blame in your mind. What about the trucking company that had to be sued in order to pay the woman her damages in your mind where to they rank in comparison to walmart, higher or lower on the corporate scumbag scale?
Anyone who sells out another human being for profit has no right to live, period.
BTW after my previous post I read that WM has reversed their decision.
shame is truly the only language these "people" understand.
anyone who believes they did it out of the goodness of their hearts is as deluded as they are.
Anyone who sells out another human being for profit has no right to live, period.
BTW after my previous post I read that WM has reversed their decision.
shame is truly the only language these "people" understand.
anyone who believes they did it out of the goodness of their hearts is as deluded as they are.
But in the end how do you really know what walmart would have done with the money, if they didn't have to pay this woman? I mean yes it could have gone to corporate dividends, but at the same time it might have gone to a scolarship or charity fund.
But in the end how do you really know what walmart would have done with the money, if they didn't have to pay this woman? I mean yes it could have gone to corporate dividends, but at the same time it might have gone to a scolarship or charity fund.
Let's get U2 to do a charity concert for Wal mart, perhaps then they could do both.
bottom line, you're either with them (corporations) or with us (human beings)
When I find a corporation without human beings involved I'll actually have a choice to make. Greed, selfishness, and heartlessness are not corporate policies they are human behaviors that are found everywhere humans are including where they work. The people who work at Walmart did nothing wrong, unethical, or greedy by requesting a refund for the medical expenses they prepaid for their employee after it was paid for again by the trucking company through a lawsuit. Walmart is the victim of misplaced blame in this case. By the same logic Walmart is evil in this case so are the doctors who saved her life and charged her so much money for it.
Greed, selfishness, and heartlessness ARE, in fact, whats wrong with America in my opinion.
Yes, but just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them greedy, selfish or heartless, although it might make you ignorant (which, come to think of it, i'll add to your list of "things wrong with America").
For all you know, someone you slandered on this thread could have given $1,000 to charity yesterday. You don't know anything about anybody here. But it sure is easy to talk shit and name-call on a message board.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Let's get U2 to do a charity concert for Wal mart, perhaps then they could do both.
bottom line, you're either with them (corporations) or with us (human beings)
Of course because corporations are actually run by some evil, dark-side of the force style entity and not run by shareholders and officers who are actual people.
I still think it is the fault of the woman's lawyer who should have sued the truck driver for enough to cover her long term care and her medical bills. It seems obvious to me that if she asked for that money as well she probably could have gotten it.
Does this shed a little more light on the matter?
excerpt from the original posted story.
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.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
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.
naturally, so basically the lawyer got his cut though right?
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
As stated in a BP/ammaco thread and it holds true here...
there's what's legal, and then there's the right thing to do.
the humane thing. The human thing. The thing that says "I value human beings over profits, human beings are not garbage."
As for being legal, It's amazing what business practices qualify as "legal" in the age of the Bush administation. Especially since fascist corporate scumbags seem to be in control of a decidedly pro-corporation legal system.
Wal mart could have done the right thing if for no other reason than good publicity.
but as usual, they showed their true colors and didn't let us down.
Thank you! Thats really all i've been saying.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
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.
Not really, if the lawyer knew he was going to take that much he should have been smart enough to sue the trucking company for 1.5 or 2 million. Why didn't he?
Yes, but just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them greedy, selfish or heartless, although it might make you ignorant (which, come to think of it, i'll add to your list of "things wrong with America").
For all you know, someone you slandered on this thread could have given $1,000 to charity yesterday. You don't know anything about anybody here. But it sure is easy to talk shit and name-call on a message board.
It isn't the disagreeing with me i have a problem with. Its the agreeing with and defending walmart for suing this woman.
Furthermore if you, or anyone else in this thread screaming about how fine they are with walmart suing this woman can show me proof that they donated a grand to charity yesterday, i'll eat my fucking hat.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Not really, if the lawyer knew he was going to take that much he should have been smart enough to sue the trucking company for 1.5 or 2 million. Why didn't he?
Maybe he did, but the "settlement" reached, after two years, was for $1 million. I'd like to know if Walmart's suit also had a claim against the trucking company for the same amount of money.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
So are you saying if this was a ma and pa grocery store that gave their employees health insurance and one of them got a big settlement after an accident where their insurance paid out a bunch of money to cover medical expenses, then it would be ok for the store and their insurance company to try and recover some of their costs? Because honestly I don't see how it makes any difference, and I still think it is the fault of the woman's lawyer who should have sued the truck driver for enough to cover her long term care and her medical bills. It seems obvious to me that if she asked for that money as well she probably could have gotten it.
Honestly, not really. At least in the case of the "Ma and Pa" grocers, i could understand it as a matter of relativity. 250 k might be a huge deal to them. A matter of "life or death" you might say for their small buisness, and personal livelihood. To be honest, for me, it would still be a difficult thing to do, but at least the ethics of it would be debateable. In the case of walmart, it is simply inexcusable. There have to be at least 6 or 7 of the fucking places in MY metropolitan area with more being built as i type this. There is no ethical excuse for them. None.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I love shopping at Walmart. No one beats their prices on anything. On a typical visit I save 20-30%. More power to 'em! Keep rollin' back those savings!
i seriously hope that was a joke. I recently went to a walmart in north carolina, that place had a supermarket,whatever a normal walmart has, a nail salon, a food area, and a tanning place all in one. it disgusted me. To think all of these people in this small north carolina town are limited to this absolute garbage store.
Why would it be a joke? If you read my other post you'd see where I gave 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.
The Walmart by me has all the things that you mentioned above plus an eyeglass center. That's where I just got a new pair of glasses, exam and all. It cost me about half of what it would have cost me at a regular eyeglass center and the glasses are exactly the same.
That's one of the things that's great about this country. You have freedom of choice where to shop. If you choose not to shop at Walmart, then that's up to you. Maybe you like spending 20-30 percent more for the same item, I care not to. I choose to shop at Walmart and will continue to do so until they go out of business, which I don't see happening in the near or distant future.
Why would it be a joke? If you read my other post you'd see where I gave a couple of examples.
The Walmart by me has all the things that you mentioned above plus an eyeglass center. That's where I just got a new pair of glasses, exam and all. It cost me about half of what it would have cost me at a regular eyeglass center and the glasses are exactly the same.
That's one of the things that's great about this country. You have freedom of choice where to shop. If you choose not to shop at Walmart, then that's up to you. Maybe you like spending 20-30 percent more for the same item, I care not to. I choose to shop at Walmart and will continue to do so until they go out of business, which I don't see happening in the near or distant future.
LONG LIVE WALMART!
There is nothing wrong with shopping at Walmart. I think the problem here is to highlight how this corporation treats its employees, especially, after putting out this hugh documentary about how Walmart is all about taking care of their employees. People are in business to make money, but at some point, when it truly is pocket change and a person's quality of life is at sake do you need both pockets full or is there another way?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
There is nothing wrong with shopping at Walmart. I think the problem here is to highlight how this corporation treats its employees.....
I don't work for Walmart. Therefore I don't give a shit how they treat their employees. If they are treated so badly why does anyone work there at all? Maybe they should all get together and form a union if they feel that they're being treated so badly.
I don't work for Walmart. Therefore I don't give a shit how they treat their employees. If they are treated so badly why does anyone work there at all? Maybe they should all get together and form a union if they feel that they're being treated so badly.
I shop there for the savings, not the atmosphere.
Plus I don't know about anywhere else, but at the walmart I go to most of the people working there don't really have very good customer service skills. If walmart was to close, they probably couldn't get a job at a grocery store or a department store so really without walmart they wouldn't have a job at all (which would lead to more people collecting unemployment insurance and other forms of social assistance).
Comments
Yes, but if anyone sees a different side of the argument than you, they are "heartless" and "everything that's wrong with America."
You see how that kind of name-calling is counterproductive?
for the least they could possibly do
Greed, selfishness, and heartlessness ARE, in fact, whats wrong with America in my opinion.
Your article was misrepresenting NET REVENUE as NET PROFIT, and you were more than happy to spread that distortion of fact.
I bet you're probably one of the same people that harps on others for using "bad sources", huh?
I'm gonna start ragging on you, cause you're really being a prick in the way you treat others on here.
You can google finance just about any fucking company on the stock exchange, fyi. Try it sometime, before you start quoting erroneous figures.
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=bi&q=WMT
click on "annual" in the top right, then click on "income statement" on the left.
See that:
Income After Tax 13,290.00
In Millions of USD (except for per share items)
13.2 THOUSAND MILLION = 13.2 BILLION
and my question would be,
JUST WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Look, i quoted the article i cited, and, besides, i don't give a fuck. It was never the point. The point is the fucking company is worth BILLIONS. Many billions. They aren't some little ma and pa grocery store. Suing this woman for 200 (or so) grand is just stupid, gutless, heartless and greedy. Thats the point. The point is not what is their legal RIGHT. The point is what is their human and ethical OBLIGATION.
Yes it does amount to a handout when - by the terms of their agreement - they are entitled to that money out of the settlement received. The people refused to give it to them and so suing was the only way to get it back. They would have won the lawsuit, so dropping it is the same as a gift.
This the only thing personal that I'll say - when you continue to make personal attacks based on some comments in a thread you look pretty foolish. Especially since you really know nothing of me or of how big of a heart I have.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So are you saying if this was a ma and pa grocery store that gave their employees health insurance and one of them got a big settlement after an accident where their insurance paid out a bunch of money to cover medical expenses, then it would be ok for the store and their insurance company to try and recover some of their costs? Because honestly I don't see how it makes any difference, and I still think it is the fault of the woman's lawyer who should have sued the truck driver for enough to cover her long term care and her medical bills. It seems obvious to me that if she asked for that money as well she probably could have gotten it.
To a ma and pa grocery store, the amount of money would make a difference. To Wal-Mart it doesn't. Wal-Mart can do without the money, easily. Ma and pa might have kids who also want to go to college, or a sick mother who needs care or whatever, perhaps they are struggling to pay the bills. Then, though it would be extremely sad, it would be understandable. Destroying a family to save a family seems kind of ridiculous. Wal-Mart can easily miss the money, and not a single family is destroyed by it.
Also, yes, it is the fault of the lawyer. But I don't think whose fault it is matters. Wal-Mart had the opportunity to save a family, or to push them into misery and more problems. And they had ever right to do the latter. Pointing out whose fault it is is irrelevant to me because to me this whole case is more about humanity, compassion and caring for other people. Instead of turning our backs and saying, well, not my fault they got a shitty laywer, not my fault the signed the contract, well, Wal-Mart has every right to take the money back... but saying, damn, that's fucked up, I'd like to help them no matter whose fault it might be.
naděje umírá poslední
I applaud Wal-mart!!!!
But know1 is right, her attorney may have in fact been short-sighted and negligent. Although, we don't know that for sure.
It is very possible he was aware of the stipulation in the contract and did try to get more money to make sure this woman would get the medical/health care and attention she requires; but the court's decision may have not been what he asked for.
We don't know for sure, because we don't have all the details of the proceedings and case.
I also agree that there should be some kind of more reasonable (and less greedy) regulation or cap on the permitted percentage an attorney can take/charge.
You are correct for this one instance, but then again if Wal-Mart gets into the business of financially helping everyone who needs it, then they couldn't afford it either.
For the record, I applaud Wal-Mart for giving this woman and her family a financial gift. That is their prerogative. What I didn't like is all the people crying foul and pushing them to do it when they were really in the right to get their money back.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
And what difference does it make if is a handout?
This is obviously a very good cause, for a woman and her family who were victims. Wal-mart comes off smelling liek roses, now. great job out of them!!
I'd rather see a family such as this one get the "handout", than, some lazy, unwilling to work for a living druggy or thief; who sits around all day doing nothing or partying ...or commiting criminal acts all day.
Seems like an excellent cause. If I had the kind of money Wal-mart has, I'd give her all of it and then send an extra $50,000 grand a year; just to make sure her kids and husband all well taken care of. Just for the sake of helping.
It doesn't make a difference to the woman.
Where it makes a difference is in the media.
Try these two news headlines on for size:
"Wal-Mart drops lawsuit against disabled woman"
"Wal-Mart gives $400K to disabled woman"
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
there's what's legal, and then there's the right thing to do.
the humane thing. The human thing. The thing that says "I value human beings over profits, human beings are not garbage."
As for being legal, It's amazing what business practices qualify as "legal" in the age of the Bush administation. Especially since fascist corporate scumbags seem to be in control of a decidedly pro-corporation legal system.
Wal mart could have done the right thing if for no other reason than good publicity.
but as usual, they showed their true colors and didn't let us down.
Why is walmart bearing all the blame in your mind. What about the trucking company that had to be sued in order to pay the woman her damages in your mind where to they rank in comparison to walmart, higher or lower on the corporate scumbag scale?
Anyone who sells out another human being for profit has no right to live, period.
BTW after my previous post I read that WM has reversed their decision.
shame is truly the only language these "people" understand.
anyone who believes they did it out of the goodness of their hearts is as deluded as they are.
But in the end how do you really know what walmart would have done with the money, if they didn't have to pay this woman? I mean yes it could have gone to corporate dividends, but at the same time it might have gone to a scolarship or charity fund.
Let's get U2 to do a charity concert for Wal mart, perhaps then they could do both.
bottom line, you're either with them (corporations) or with us (human beings)
Yes, but just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them greedy, selfish or heartless, although it might make you ignorant (which, come to think of it, i'll add to your list of "things wrong with America").
For all you know, someone you slandered on this thread could have given $1,000 to charity yesterday. You don't know anything about anybody here. But it sure is easy to talk shit and name-call on a message board.
for the least they could possibly do
Of course because corporations are actually run by some evil, dark-side of the force style entity and not run by shareholders and officers who are actual people.
Does this shed a little more light on the matter?
excerpt from the original posted story.
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.
naturally, so basically the lawyer got his cut though right?
Thank you! Thats really all i've been saying.
Not really, if the lawyer knew he was going to take that much he should have been smart enough to sue the trucking company for 1.5 or 2 million. Why didn't he?
It isn't the disagreeing with me i have a problem with. Its the agreeing with and defending walmart for suing this woman.
Furthermore if you, or anyone else in this thread screaming about how fine they are with walmart suing this woman can show me proof that they donated a grand to charity yesterday, i'll eat my fucking hat.
Maybe he did, but the "settlement" reached, after two years, was for $1 million. I'd like to know if Walmart's suit also had a claim against the trucking company for the same amount of money.
Honestly, not really. At least in the case of the "Ma and Pa" grocers, i could understand it as a matter of relativity. 250 k might be a huge deal to them. A matter of "life or death" you might say for their small buisness, and personal livelihood. To be honest, for me, it would still be a difficult thing to do, but at least the ethics of it would be debateable. In the case of walmart, it is simply inexcusable. There have to be at least 6 or 7 of the fucking places in MY metropolitan area with more being built as i type this. There is no ethical excuse for them. None.
Why would it be a joke? If you read my other post you'd see where I gave a couple of examples.
The Walmart by me has all the things that you mentioned above plus an eyeglass center. That's where I just got a new pair of glasses, exam and all. It cost me about half of what it would have cost me at a regular eyeglass center and the glasses are exactly the same.
That's one of the things that's great about this country. You have freedom of choice where to shop. If you choose not to shop at Walmart, then that's up to you. Maybe you like spending 20-30 percent more for the same item, I care not to. I choose to shop at Walmart and will continue to do so until they go out of business, which I don't see happening in the near or distant future.
LONG LIVE WALMART!
There is nothing wrong with shopping at Walmart. I think the problem here is to highlight how this corporation treats its employees, especially, after putting out this hugh documentary about how Walmart is all about taking care of their employees. People are in business to make money, but at some point, when it truly is pocket change and a person's quality of life is at sake do you need both pockets full or is there another way?
I don't work for Walmart. Therefore I don't give a shit how they treat their employees. If they are treated so badly why does anyone work there at all? Maybe they should all get together and form a union if they feel that they're being treated so badly.
I shop there for the savings, not the atmosphere.
Plus I don't know about anywhere else, but at the walmart I go to most of the people working there don't really have very good customer service skills. If walmart was to close, they probably couldn't get a job at a grocery store or a department store so really without walmart they wouldn't have a job at all (which would lead to more people collecting unemployment insurance and other forms of social assistance).