i'm officially done with walmart

know1

puremagic wrote:

So what if it was media pressure, it is not as if Walmart would have voluntarily dropped the lawsuit. Do you think Walmart would have sue if the amount won in settlement would have been less? How many companies sue employees for their settlements, especially from employees who have no hope of a working future?

This is a cruel loophole. Should employees not get accident insurance simply to avoid being sued by the company. What happens to the employees who's settlement doesn't provide for quality of life care for a disabling injury and they didn't have accident insurance? At some point, the company paychecks stop, sometimes even before a settlement is reached. The fact is if Walmart would have kept the money, this women's full care would at some point became the responsibility of the State. So, Walmart would end up getting paid and the taxpayer's would end up having to take care of Walmart's obligation for this woman. So you and I become her charity donors, not Walmart because they would have got their money + some extra.

Is it a cruel loophole when, from my understanding it is a pretty standard policy for most insurance companies?

If the settlement isn't large enough to provide quality of life care, than is that really Wal-Mart's issue...or the issue of the courts, jury and her lawyer?

slightofjeff

PaperPlates wrote:

Judge not lest you be judged.

Seriously. I have no problem with one person's decision to boycott Wal-Mart. It's America. You are free to shop or not shop where ever you choose, for whatever reason you choose.

But don't act like I or anybody else is an asshole because we do choose to shop there.

This is what I don't like about political extremism. It's all about shoving your beliefs and your convictions down someone else's throat, and they are the asshole if they don't swallow them.

slightofjeff

12345AGNST1 wrote:

the nerve i know! oh wait your from texas. ever heard of variety?

What does being from Texas have to do with anything?

What does variety have to do with anything?

Do you have a cogent argument against one-stop shopping, or are you just going to slur my home state for no reason at all?

cornnifer

know1 wrote:

For the third time, I'm asking a hypothetical question not about her but based on the principles of this situation. I don't need you to re-hash the details over and over although I think I know why you're avoiding the question. There are a lot of people out there who have very sad and difficult situations (many might be former employees). Should Wal-Mart be pressured to help them all through monetary gifts?

And yes - it is a gift at this point.

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.

puremagic

PaperPlates wrote:

Universal health care is the answer!!!!

Not really, the problem wasn't with providing her health care. The problem is clearly a loophole written into the policies. A loophole that allowed Walmart to sue her for any settlement she received.

puremagic

know1 wrote:

Is it a cruel loophole when, from my understanding it is a pretty standard policy for most insurance companies?

If the settlement isn't large enough to provide quality of life care, than is that really Wal-Mart's issue...or the issue of the courts, jury and her lawyer?

The money from the settlement could provide that care, now it becomes our responsibility because of greed. Walmart can afford to stay in court for years, can this woman or maybe even the next Walmart worker who gets injured on the job?

cornnifer

slightofjeff wrote:

Seriously. I have no problem with one person's decision to boycott Wal-Mart. It's America. You are free to shop or not shop where ever you choose, for whatever reason you choose.

But don't act like I or anybody else is an asshole because we do choose to shop there.

This is what I don't like about political extremism. It's all about shoving your beliefs and your convictions down someone else's throat, and they are the asshole if they don't swallow them.

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.

inmytree

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/walmart.decision/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

I guess Walmart had a change of heart...

Kel Varnsen

know1 wrote:

Is it a cruel loophole when, from my understanding it is a pretty standard policy for most insurance companies?

If the settlement isn't large enough to provide quality of life care, than is that really Wal-Mart's issue...or the issue of the courts, jury and her lawyer?

That is what I was thinking. Walmart definetly has a claim for damages, since if the truck didn't hit the lady, they wouldn't have had to spend the 1000's of dollars in her medical costs. So to me their options are either to sue the truck driver like she did, or let her sue him and then recover their costs through her. If it is unfair for walmart to try and recover their costs by using a lawsuit then wouldn't it also be unfair for the lady to sue the truck driver (because of his accident she has future medical costs that she should be allowed to recover).

Collin

know1 wrote:

Basically what has transpired here is that they've given a gift of a lot of money to the woman due to media pressure when they had absolutely no obligation to.

Therefore, do you think we should basically pressure Wal-Mart to give gifts of money to everyone who has been in an accident or needs financial help for medical bills or daily care? Because that's exactly what happened here.

No one forced Wal-Mart to drop this thing. No one. The people and the media stated their opinion i.e. that it's a heartless thing to do. And even though Wal-Mart is within their rights, Wal-Mart chose to drop it, not the media, not the people.

Do you think the media and the people would raise their voices, that this would be such an issue if it was about a guy who lost his little finger? No. No one would care. But in this case it's about a woman who has severe brain damage, her husband is working two jobs, legally divorced her for financial reasons, that while he's recovering from cancer and their son might not get to go to college because of this. On top of that, they lost their other son.

The media and the people stood up against the cold reality of the corporate 'real' world. They put people above profits and money, they stated their opinions, their disgust... but they did not force Wal-Mart to do anything.

Don't tell me Wal-Mart is the victim here. What happened to that "Yes, it's tragic but this is the real world?" mentality? Well, Yes, Wal-Mart probably dropped the whole thing not because of media pressure but to avoid a PR scandal or to save face. But that's the real world. Right? edit: It's a two way street. Sometimes you get to screw people over and be heartless and cold, and sometimes you're "forced" into a decision. Business, that's all.

Or perhaps, but less likely, they've realised that the woman needs the money a lot more than they do, that giving her the money is a noble thing to do even though they can legally take it back.

slightofjeff

cornnifer wrote:

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?

cornnifer

slightofjeff wrote:

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?

Greed, selfishness, and heartlessness ARE, in fact, whats wrong with America in my opinion.

DriftingByTheStorm

cornnifer wrote:

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.

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:

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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.

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:

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.

know1

cornnifer wrote:

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.

Kel Varnsen

cornnifer wrote:

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.

Collin

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

NMyTree

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.

know1

Collin wrote:

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.

NMyTree

know1 wrote:

Yes it does amount to a handout

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.