i'm officially done with walmart

Options
1…45679

Comments

  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,800
    NMyTree wrote:
    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"
    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.
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    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.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

    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?
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    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.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    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.
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    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)
  • chipboy
    chipboy Posts: 137
    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.
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    cornnifer wrote:
    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
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    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.
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    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.
  • Pacomc79
    Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    puremagic wrote:
    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?
    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.
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    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."
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    puremagic wrote:
    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.

    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?
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    slightofjeff wrote:
    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."
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    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.
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    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.

    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."
  • Biggest Wave
    Biggest Wave Posts: 686
    Biggest Wave wrote:
    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!
    12345AGNST1 wrote:
    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.
    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.


    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!
  • puremagic
    puremagic Posts: 1,907
    Biggest Wave wrote:
    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.
  • Biggest Wave
    Biggest Wave Posts: 686
    puremagic wrote:
    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 shop there for the savings, not the atmosphere.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Biggest Wave wrote:
    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).

Categories