Wal-Mart sues disabled employee....and wins

[yg17]

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/03/18/business/031908shankruling.txt


A former Wal-Mart employee has reached the end of the road for legal recourse against her former employer.

Debbie Shank, of Cape Girardeau, Mo., will have to reimburse Wal-Mart almost $500,000 following a bitter legal dispute over the rights to her settlement money from a traffic accident that left her brain damaged, disabled and penniless.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear her case, and let stand a ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis that Shank pay Wal-Mart $470,000 the retailer spent on her medical care.

Jim Shank, Debbie's husband, contemplated the future of his family and fielded calls from the media on a stormy Tuesday in the St. Louis area.

"She's 52 and she's going to live a life in a nursing home. I just got a call today from the head nurse, and (Debbie) hasn't eaten in a couple days and she's talking about wanting to die," Shank said. "It makes the visits hard."

His wife remains severely brain damaged and disabled in a semi-private room of a nursing home that her family is unsure it will be able to afford after Wal-Mart is paid. The settlement money, plus almost $52,000, is now owed to Wal-Mart.


Shank's frustration over mounting medical bills and uncertainty over the future care of his family were directed at the retail giant where Debbie worked nights stocking shelves.

"Be a human being; don't be a corporation," Shank said, "for the sake of one lady who is going to be miserable for the rest of her life. Take your victory. Let us pay some bills and get some quality of life."

The case received national media attention, not only because of the severity of Debbie Shank's injuries, but because of the insurance clause that made it possible for her former employer to collect on her lawsuit settlement with the trucking company responsible for her injuries.

The subrogation clause, common to employee health care contracts, including the one Shank signed with Wal-Mart, says that if the injured party collects damages from an accident on which the company has paid medical expenses, the company has first dibs on it.

Wal-Mart has not wavered from its statement on record about the case, maintaining that money recovered is returned to the health plan, not to the business.

"While the Shank case involved a tragic situation, the reality is that the health plan is required to protect its assets so that it can pay the future claims of other associates and their family members. This is done out of fairness to everyone who contributes to and benefits from the plan," Wal-Mart said in a statement.

The Shank's attorney, Maurice Graham of St. Louis, said in a prior interview with The Morning News that the case was "among the most dramatic of inequities." Graham could not be reached for comment following the high court's rejection of the case.

Union-funded Wal-Mart Watch led a campaign to raise $5,000 to aid the Shank family, which the Service Employees International Union matched and placed in a trust fund. Now, Wal-Mart Watch spokeswoman Stacie Lock Temple is concerned that the money raised for the family might end up back in Wal-Mart's hands.

"If on top of losing the settlement money, the money we raised and others raised trying to right the terrible injustice, ends up going to Wal-Mart, that is absolutely egregious," Temple said.



Just when you thought the company couldn't get any more evil. The company had $11 BILLION in profit. This $470,000 isn't even pocket change to the company. And what the article fails to mention, but was mentioned by Keith Olbermann tonight, was that just days after the settlement in Wal-Mart's favor, her son was killed in Iraq. And because her short term memory has been severely damaged, every day the family has to explain to her that her son has died in Iraq and she reacts as if she has never heard the news before. This company never fails to disgust me. Unfortunately, I still have to shop at Wal-Mart for the next 7 weeks since that's the only thing available in the town I live in, but once I graduate college and move back to a large city, I will never, ever step foot in a Wal-Mart or Sams Club again. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

[KingYaba]

>>The subrogation clause, common to employee health care contracts, including the one Shank signed with Wal-Mart, says that if the injured party collects damages from an accident on which the company has paid medical expenses, the company has first dibs on it.

Read the fine print, people. Don't sign your name if you don't like...

But anyway,I don't feel sorry at all. Wal-Mart paid for her medical costs. But she collected the half mill from the trucking co. anyway. She signed her name on the contract... Just another silly attack on Wal-Mart to rile the troops.

[sushi]

>>The subrogation clause, common to employee health care contracts, including the one Shank signed with Wal-Mart, says that if the injured party collects damages from an accident on which the company has paid medical expenses, the company has first dibs on it.

Read the fine print, people. Don't sign your name if you don't like...

But anyway,I don't feel sorry at all. Wal-Mart paid for her medical costs. But she collected the half mill from the trucking co. anyway. She signed her name on the contract... Just another silly attack on Wal-Mart to rile the troops.
Well said, and I agree.

Don't sign if you don't agree with what the contract states.

[dukebound85]

>>The subrogation clause, common to employee health care contracts, including the one Shank signed with Wal-Mart, says that if the injured party collects damages from an accident on which the company has paid medical expenses, the company has first dibs on it.

Read the fine print, people. Don't sign your name if you don't like...

But anyway,I don't feel sorry at all. Wal-Mart paid for her medical costs. But she collected the half mill from the trucking co. anyway. She signed her name on the contract... Just another silly attack on Wal-Mart to rile the troops.

i agree completely. if you agree to it, be able to deal with the results.

although i feel sorry for her, why should walmart have to be responsible for any more than what they agreed to be?

this is fair and even saying that, people need to realize life is not fair all the time and doesnt give you handouts...

[cycocelica]

If they didn't do this, it would be unfair to the rest of the employees.

I hate Wal-Mart as much as the next person, but unfortunately I have to side with them. She signed, so she is at fault, sadly.

[EricNau]

Let's see if I understand this correctly:

Debbie Shank was involved in a tragic accident and received compensation from the negligent party. Walmart, who has been paying her medical bills throughout this entire process, and will continue to pay her medical bills for the rest of her life, has claimed the money awarded to the Shank family to recoup the money spent on her medical bills. Correct?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. When she was awarded the settlement money, it was given to cover medical bills and other expenses resulting from the accident. Since Walmart is the one actually paying for these fees, and not the Shank family, it only makes sense that Walmart be reimbursed for their costs.

[KingYaba]

although i feel sorry for her, why should walmart have to be responsible for any more than what they agreed to be?

Wal-Mart held their end of the bargain by honoring the healthcare contract. This lady, on the other hand, attempted to swindle the company out of $500,000 that is rightly owed. I don't see how this makes Wal-Mart evil, yg17.

[benlangdon]

wait so...
she got her bills paid by wallmart right?
then the trucking company paid her a settlement of 500,000, right?
so if she gives the money to wallmart they are really not paying them 500,000 of their own money, right?


i think this article is to brief and does not have enough facts to make my opinion

[Iscariot]

The following questions are raised:


Was the settlement intended to cover long-term care?
Was any of the settlement intended to cover lost wages?
Was any of the settlement for non-medical damages?
How much did Wal-Mart pay in medical costs?
Is any of Mrs. Shanks long-term care covered by Wal-Mart's health plan?


Which all have dramatic implications on the fairness of the ruling and of Wal-Mart's health care plan. Without answering these, it's impossible to address.

[benlangdon]

see this is why i love MR.
people on here are not all dramatic and see things blurred by their emotions.
wow, people on forums, not fighting like kids, only on an apple forum :D
what a concept

[iBlue]

see this is why i love MR.
people on here are not all dramatic and see things blurred by their emotions.
wow, people on forums, not fighting like kids, only on an apple forum :D
what a concept

stick around, that happens too.

[Iscariot]

see this is why i love MR.
people on here are not all dramatic and see things blurred by their emotions.
wow, people on forums, not fighting like kids, only on an apple forum :D
what a concept

In all fairness to those who have looked at it emotionally, Wal-Mart doesn't exactly have a great history of fair employee treatment. Their average wages fall well below liveable wages, and their health-coverage is far from trend-setting. I don't want to characterize Mrs. Shanks specifically, but I'm sure that considering the low rate of pay, many Wal-Mart employees are poorly educated and wouldn't understand the majority of their employee contract and (in this case) the rights they were signing away. This raises questions of personal accountability vs. corporate accountability.

[skunk]

'm sure that considering the low rate of pay, many Wal-Mart employees are poorly educated and wouldn't understand the majority of their employee contract and (in this case) the rights they were signing away.What right? The right to be paid twice? :confused:

[Iscariot]

What right? The right to be paid twice? :confused:

The right to some some of the damages paid. See questions 3 and 4 in my previous post as to why this might be relevant.

[j26]

The following questions are raised:


Was the settlement intended to cover long-term care?
Was any of the settlement intended to cover lost wages?
Was any of the settlement for non-medical damages?
How much did Wal-Mart pay in medical costs?
Is any of Mrs. Shanks long-term care covered by Wal-Mart's health plan?


Which all have dramatic implications on the fairness of the ruling and of Wal-Mart's health care plan. Without answering these, it's impossible to address.

Too true. Part of this compensation is likely to have been for non-medical damages (the "pain & suffering", and loss of earnings). While anything paid for medical expenses is validly Wal-Marts, what was paid outside of that should be for her and the family.

[skunk]

Of course I mean that if the medical expenses are specifically covered by the payout, it is only right that if WalMart covered it in the interim they should get that amount back. Anything not specifically earmarked to cover what WalMart have paid for should be for the victim, including the money raised by WalMart Watch, natch.

[Abstract]

After all the questions asked so far, I still don't really understand that story entirely.

I interpret the story this way: Walmart has spent a total of $470,000 on medical expenses for this lady, and is no longer paying anymore bills. They paid for the cost of medical. That's it. Walmart has a right to claim back what they paid in medical costs if the victim reaches a settlement with whomever was to blame (ie: the trucking company). Since the family's winnings is only around $500,000 from the case, Walmart pretty much gets all that money back (this is where I think I may be wrong. Maybe the family gets more than this, but only has around $200,000 or $300,000 after paying back Walmart, which they don't expect to be enough money to care for the wife). The family doesn't get money from Walmart anymore for their expenses, and now have no extra money from this case to help them pay their expenses.


I don't know. I don't think much of employee contracts because it's usually just a "sign here now" type of deal for really basic jobs. It's the equivalent of internet contracts where you click on "Agree" without reading it. I know this doesn't mean the family deserves the money though. Legally, they don't.

[WildCowboy]

The issue is that, after attorneys' fees and such brought the woman's settlement with the trucking company down to $417,000, Wal-Mart asked for $53,000 more than that amount. Plus interest and Wal-Mart's attorneys' fees, as allowed by her contract.

Her settlement money was paid directly into an irrevocable trust to be used only for her long-term care and set up at the request of the court.

My understanding is that the court ruling said that Wal-Mart can only have what is left in that trust fund, which is about $277,000.

CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html)

[elcid]

First of all, the husband even said that it was their right to take the money, he just wishes they didn't.

But how do you give the money back while no setting a precedence?

And how did the lawyer not look at the wal-mart contract when coming up with an amount for the trial?

This is like the sub-prime bail out thread. Contracts are set up so that emotion doesnt get in the way. Everyone knows going into it what the terms are and it is signed. Walmart was in their right, and if they caved on this one it would set a precedence for every employee to challenged such clauses in their contract.

Can't let emotion get into these things.

[Full of Win]

If she settled for just her med bills - then her lawer should be held to account for this.

[stevegmu]

In all fairness to those who have looked at it emotionally, Wal-Mart doesn't exactly have a great history of fair employee treatment. Their average wages fall well below liveable wages, and their health-coverage is far from trend-setting. I don't want to characterize Mrs. Shanks specifically, but I'm sure that considering the low rate of pay, many Wal-Mart employees are poorly educated and wouldn't understand the majority of their employee contract and (in this case) the rights they were signing away. This raises questions of personal accountability vs. corporate accountability.

What is a 'livable wage?' The fact that they do offer healthcare packages and pay over minimum wage says they do treat employees fairly. Being a Walmart cashier isn't meant to be a job for those who are primary earners for a family. It is a job mostly for immigrants' wives (at least in my area) the elderly/retirees, high-school and college students, and the mentally and physically challenged.

[Lord Blackadder]

Wal-Mart is Satan. Every time I think I've heard the worst thing they're involved with something like this happens. I can say no more.

[stevegmu]

Wal-Mart is Satan. Every time I think I've heard the worst thing they're involved with something like this happens. I can say no more.

What is it about this case that makes you think Walmart is Satan?


This company never fails to disgust me. Unfortunately, I still have to shop at Wal-Mart...

Ideology stops at the wallet.

[zioxide]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17029342/

Olbermann's clips about it there.


This is why I never shop at walmart.

[stevegmu]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17029342/

Olbermann's clips about it there.


This is why I never shop at walmart.

So you don't shop there because K. Olberman doesn't?

[Lord Blackadder]

What is it about this case that makes you think Walmart is Satan?

Nothing really, but I can't resist trashing Wal-Mart. I have an intense personal dislike for that corporation that borders on the irrational. ;)

In this case it's "read the fine print"...hard to argue with that.

[Ugg]

So you don't shop there because K. Olberman doesn't?

Does stevegmu and family shop there? Why or why not?

[Iscariot]

What is a 'livable wage?'

n.
A wage sufficient to provide minimally satisfactory living conditions


The fact that they do offer healthcare packages and pay over minimum wage says they do treat employees fairly.

No, it doesn't, it indicates that they are paying their employees as close to the legal minimum they can. By doing so they're putting a huge burden on the taxpayers as many Wal-Mart employees are relying on public programs to support themselves and their families. Estimates for California alone are that Wal-Mart employment policies cost taxpayers $86 million a year. [UC Berkeley] report commissioned by the House Committee on Education and Welfare estimates that a two hundred person Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers approximately $420,750 a year, or $2,103 per employee.

There are lots of other, documented cases of unfair treatment by Wal-Mart towards it's employees including failures to allow for mandated breaks, failure to meet international labor laws in outsourced work, full-time/part-time procedures, Wal-Mart managers creating fraudulant payroll records, the list goes on.

Much of this is more indicative of the size and scope of Wal-Mart (a large enough tree is bound to have bad apples) but demonstrates that your statement is lacking in factual veracity.

Being a Walmart cashier isn't meant to be a job for those who are primary earners for a family. It is a job mostly for immigrants' wives (at least in my area) the elderly/retirees, high-school and college students, and the mentally and physically challenged.

"Isn't meant"? Frankly, that's kind of a ridiculous statement. To begin with, no job is "meant" for anyone unless it's in a specialized field. Secondly, Wal-Mart has been sued multiple times over discrimination of the disabled. Thirdly, there aren't any good statistics on the profile of the average worker.

[zioxide]

So you don't shop there because K. Olberman doesn't?

No, I don't shop there because they are the epitome of what is wrong with corporate America.

[leekohler]

No, I don't shop there because they are the epitome of what is wrong with corporate America.

Not only that, but the stores are dreadful. ;)

[Gelfin]

Not only that, but the stores are dreadful. ;)

Indeed, I feel overdressed not wearing sweatpants, flip-flops and a stained wifebeater in a Wal-Mart.

What really strikes me as odd is how Target manages to run stores that are virtually identical to a Wal-Mart, but somehow come off less oppressively squalid. I've never really been able to put my finger on the nature of that tiny little gap between the two chains. Not that Target is fabulous, but I don't feel like I'm going to get the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" point-and-screech routine while walking through one.

[iJon]

Indeed, I feel overdressed not wearing sweatpants, flip-flops and a stained wifebeater in a Wal-Mart.

What really strikes me as odd is how Target manages to run stores that are virtually identical to a Wal-Mart, but somehow come off less oppressively squalid. I've never really been able to put my finger on the nature of that tiny little gap between the two chains. Not that Target is fabulous, but I don't feel like I'm going to get the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" point-and-screech routine while walking through one.

Well I wouldn't go to far as feeling overdressed but I do thing of these things all the time simply cause I am a Marketing major. I'm a huge Wal-Mart fan not only cause I'm from Arkansas but for many other reasons.

I shop at Target rarely but it is a nice environment. I usually buy items for the house like coffee tables and dishware from Target. They have much better styles and quality in my opinion. Wal-Mart is trying to clean up their image but it will be very difficult. At the end of the day though, for the stuff I need, Wal-Mart always has the stuff and cheaper than anyone else in town plus they are open all night which is when I like to do my shopping.

As for the woman in this case I do feel bad for her, but not because of Wal-Mart. She is fortunate that Wal-Mart paid her bills for her medical needs. Now she is complaining that they want it back, a common situation in every health care plan. This is just the media attacking Wal-Mart cause they are the market leader. I really don't think Target would have let this woman keep $400,000 either in this situation.

jon

[solvs]

This lady, on the other hand, attempted to swindle the company out of $500,000 that is rightly owed.
She's been so disabled by the accident, she doesn't even know what's going on, so I doubt she's trying to swindle anyone. The insurance was paying, then they got a lawyer to sue for more. After costs, they got about $417,000 total. Not just for medical expenses, that was all they got period. Walmart now wants everything they paid out back, plus interest. That's the part that gets me. The family didn't know they would be getting any money while receiving Walmart's for medical expenses. Walmart didn't pursue the company the family and their lawyers won the suit against. Their lawyers let Walmart's lawyers know what had happened, and Walmart decided all of the money won was for medical expenses and they deserved all of it back, and then some. The judge said they could only get what was left back. The Supreme Court doesn't want to hear the case at all. Her Husband, though still with her, had to divorce her so she could qualify for gov aid. Even then, he still works 2 jobs just to keep up. Walmart didn't see any of the money as pain and suffering or lost wages, they treated it all as medical expense, and asked for all of it back, plus interest.

Not saying they don't have the right to some of the money at least, or even that they don't have to try to get it back or else face precedent, but it is more bad publicity for a company that lately has had a lot of bad publicity for doing such things.

So you don't shop there because K. Olberman doesn't?
This shouldn't even be point out, but it's obvious he meant he doesn't shop there because of what they're doing that being pointing out, not just because he said so, try as you might to paint us all as dittoheads of the left.

Now she is complaining that they want it back, a common situation in every health care plan.
As I said, she doesn't even know what's going on. And it's not that common to want all of a settlement back. Especially considering, again as I said, they didn't pursue the company nor help the family sue them, and the family would have been worse off than if they hadn't sued at all, while Walmart wouldn't have gotten their money back. The family just wants her to receive care. Can't say I blame them.

This is just the media attacking Wal-Mart cause they are the market leader.
Like they don't have reason to? Walmart does a lot of despicable, even if technically legal, things. Can't help but feel sorry for the woman at least a little bit. The fact that her Son died in Iraq is just another reason to take pity on her. Of course they can do this, and may have to at least try for some of it, but it also brings up the question of whether they should be able to. They don't want the bad publicity, they shouldn't do things like this and expect people to not react negatively.

Legal yes, but still a crappy thing to do to a family that has been through so much, especially considering the perception they've already earned doing everything else they have (http://walmartwatch.com/).

[mactastic]

While Wal-Mart is well within their rights to pursue the money won in the settlement, it does go to show that the whole "if you don't force me to give, I'll give" thing is a load of hooey. My guess is that if Wal-Mart had dropped pursuit of the money they'll likely end up getting (sub $300k) they would have gotten that back multiple times from people who would shop there to support such a generous organization.

Nobody forced Wal-Mart to give charitably to someone, whom I think we all agree, is as deserving of assistance as they come. And so they didn't give.

But of course if we gut social assistance programs, the people of this country will make the opposite choice that Wal-Mart did, and will gladly help all these lazy Welfare Queens.

I bet that woman has like 6 plasma TVs in her house and rolls in a gold-plated Escalade when we're not looking.

[Cromulent]

and a stained wifebeater in a Wal-Mart.

People wear cans of Stella Artois in Wal-Mart? :)

[Badandy]

WalMart is just so evil


http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=405747

[Gelfin]

People wear cans of Stella Artois in Wal-Mart? :)

Now that's one I'd never heard. :)

Maybe you were already aware, but over here, this is a wifebeater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ashirtexample.jpg).

[mactastic]

Now that's one I'd never heard. :)

Maybe you were already aware, but over here, this is a wifebeater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ashirtexample.jpg).
As is this:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/statusainthood/ike.jpghttp://

[iJon]

WalMart is just so evil


http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=405747

Great post. Wal-Mart and motor carriers in general are some of the first on the scene for disaster relief. Wal-Mart has pretty much perfected the the art of supply chain logistics, so much that even the miltiary and Department of Defense use the same methods.

It's cause of these methods that Wal-Mart was more effected than FEMA when Katrina hit.

jon

[Iscariot]

WalMart is just so evil


http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=405747

Reminds me of when Bill Gates was still heavily looked down upon as a wealthy and greedy sumbitch.

[Lyle]

A former Wal-Mart employee who suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident won't have to pay back the company for the cost of her medical care, Wal-Mart told the family Tuesday.

"Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Wal-Mart Executive Vice President Pat Curran said in a letter. "We have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation."

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/walmart.decision/?iref=hpmostpop)

[ucfgrad93]

Update

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is dropping a controversial effort to collect over $400,000 in health-care reimbursement from a former employee who is confined to a southeast Missouri nursing home since she suffered brain damage in a traffic accident.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344818,00.html

[benlangdon]

CNN told the couple's story last week, prompting thousands of angry blog responses and at least two online petitions to boycott the company.


o no not the bloggers, please not the bloggers :p

[scotthayes]

Wal-Mart really really need to look where their priorities lie.

Yes they may be pulling the legal stand but that condition should never have been in the insurance policy.

Thank god I live in a country where I don't have to worry how I'm going to pay my medical bill and if I was ever in her position, the money would go for my care and not to pay back my medical bills.

[KingYaba]

She's been so disabled by the accident, she doesn't even know what's going on, so I doubt she's trying to swindle anyone.

Ah, you're right. It's the lawyer who is doing the swindling. ;) Seems from that update they are keeping the 400 grand anyway. Which is fine. People wrote (angry) letters to Wal-Mart and they responded positively. Kudos

[it5five]

It's cause of these methods that Wal-Mart was more effected than FEMA when Katrina hit.



I'd have though that putting a former horse judge in charge of FEMA also had a lot to do with it's reaction to Katrina.

[iJon]

I'd have though that putting a former horse judge in charge of FEMA also had a lot to do with it's reaction to Katrina.

It is what it is.

[solvs]

Great post. Wal-Mart and motor carriers in general are some of the first on the scene for disaster relief. Wal-Mart has pretty much perfected the the art of supply chain logistics, so much that even the miltiary and Department of Defense use the same methods.

It's cause of these methods that Wal-Mart was more effected than FEMA when Katrina hit.
Very commendable, but it doesn't change the bad things they do.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/walmart.decision/?iref=hpmostpop)
Update

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344818,00.html
Good to hear, just wondering why it took them so long.

o no not the bloggers, please not the bloggers :p
You make fun, but it seems to have worked.

Ah, you're right. It's the lawyer who is doing the swindling. ;)
The lawyer got his money. ;) Had they known Walmart wanted all of it, and then some, they might have won more in the suit. The husband is working 2 jobs though. He had to divorce her so she could collect gov help. Their other kid (the not dead one) doesn't have a college fund anymore. And they voluntarily released the info to Walmart. I'm sorry, I just don't see how anyone could think they were trying to swindle Walmart.

Also a little surprised people seem to be so callous about this. Sure, Walmart had every right to want some of their money back. But to ask for more than they gave them, only after the family won their suit, you have to admit given the situation, it doesn't make them look very good. So much for compassion. Only after public pressure did they reverse their decision. Pardon me for feeling worse for the woman and her family than Walmart for their self imposed bad publicity.

Seems from that update they are keeping the 400 grand anyway. Which is fine. People wrote (angry) letters to Wal-Mart and they responded positively. Kudos
They were only going to get about $270,000, which is all that's left. IMO it shouldn't have taken the bad publicity for them to do it. I get that corporations are all about money, that's what they're for, but people seem to think Walmart is evil and they seem to have no problem proving them right.

[iJon]

Very commendable, but it doesn't change the bad things they do.


Look, we could do this all day. Wal-Mart does plenty of bad things, they do plenty of good things. It's just the nature of being the world's biggest company. For every bad thing you tell me Wal-Mart does, I can point out and equally good thing.

jon

[solvs]

For every bad thing you tell me Wal-Mart does, I can point out and equally good thing.

But my point was that it doesn't matter how many good things they do, it doesn't change, nor does it make up for, the bad, which is pretty bad.

[solvs]

Gates: Businesses need to embrace the poor (http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9911683-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1023_3-0-5)

Again, doesn't excuse any past behavior, but it is still a positive thing for them to do.

[Iscariot]

Gates: Businesses need to embrace the poor (http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9911683-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1023_3-0-5)

Again, doesn't excuse any past behavior, but it is still a positive thing for them to do.

I'm wondering how much of Microsoft's policy is directly reflective of Gates.

[solvs]

I'm wondering how much of Microsoft's policy is directly reflective of Gates.
You mean his wife's, and not much (http://www.news.com/2100-1016_3-5188084.html), but more than you'd think (http://jay.leask.com/archive/2007/11/28/microsoft-coding-challenge-coding-for-charity.aspx).

They're still jerks though (http://www.microsoftsucks.org/).

[Naimfan]

Sad outcome.

Two concepts come to mind: contract of adhesion and Chapter 7.

[itcheroni]

Sad outcome.

Two concepts come to mind: contract of adhesion and Chapter 7.

I agree. A lot of people here seem to think if a person signs something, even if it's unjust, they should be held to the terms. But if you think of the surrounding circumstances, it is unfair. If Walmart moves into a town and run other businesses out of town, what choice do people have than to work at Walmart? Are they going to go unemployed or sign a contract with a clause that they would never imagine affecting them?

[stevegmu]

n.
A wage sufficient to provide minimally satisfactory living conditions




No, it doesn't, it indicates that they are paying their employees as close to the legal minimum they can. By doing so they're putting a huge burden on the taxpayers as many Wal-Mart employees are relying on public programs to support themselves and their families. Estimates for California alone are that Wal-Mart employment policies cost taxpayers $86 million a year. [UC Berkeley] report commissioned by the House Committee on Education and Welfare estimates that a two hundred person Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers approximately $420,750 a year, or $2,103 per employee.

There are lots of other, documented cases of unfair treatment by Wal-Mart towards it's employees including failures to allow for mandated breaks, failure to meet international labor laws in outsourced work, full-time/part-time procedures, Wal-Mart managers creating fraudulant payroll records, the list goes on.

Much of this is more indicative of the size and scope of Wal-Mart (a large enough tree is bound to have bad apples) but demonstrates that your statement is lacking in factual veracity.



"Isn't meant"? Frankly, that's kind of a ridiculous statement. To begin with, no job is "meant" for anyone unless it's in a specialized field. Secondly, Wal-Mart has been sued multiple times over discrimination of the disabled. Thirdly, there aren't any good statistics on the profile of the average worker.

Yes, I know the textbook definition. What dollar figure constitutes a 'livable wage?' In my neighborhood, a DINK couple would have to average around $100/hr to have a 'livable wage.'

They pay well over the minimum wage. 'As close to the minimum wage as possible' would be the minimum wage.

No large company- in California, or otherwise, costs the state money. They all employ citizens, provide goods/services for the community, and employ citizens.

Of course Walmart has been sued. In fact, they probably have the largest number of open lawsuits against them of any company in the US, or world for that matter. They are the largest private employer in the US and have very deep pockets.

The relatively low pay, and fact that people of limited intelligence/education/skills can get jobs at Walmart shows that such jobs are not meant to be careers, or to support a family with.

[skunk]

The relatively low pay, and fact that people of limited intelligence/education/skills can get jobs at Walmart shows that such jobs are not meant to be careers, or to support a family with.So you contend that "people of limited intelligence/education/skills" have no business trying to support a family?

[Iscariot]

Yes, I know the textbook definition. What dollar figure constitutes a 'livable wage?' In my neighborhood, a DINK couple would have to average around $100/hr to have a 'livable wage.'


Then I guess your neighbourhood falls outside of the definition, seeing as how it would provide more than minimally satisfactory living conditions, no? So it's kind of an untenable position.

[stevegmu]

Then I guess your neighbourhood falls outside of the definition, seeing as how it would provide more than minimally satisfactory living conditions, no? So it's kind of an untenable position.

If a 'livable wage' is one that would provide 'minimally satisfactory living conditions', then one who earns over the poverty level is earning a 'livable wage'. Correct?
A single person earning over $10210 is above the poverty level- according to the HHS.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/POVERTY/07poverty.shtml

The average hourly pay a Walmart employee earns is $9.68/hr.
http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/StateByState/

Assuming they are able-bodied, and work full time, they would earn $19360/year, which is well above the poverty limit, and thus a 'livable wage'.

[Sun Baked]

Too true. Part of this compensation is likely to have been for non-medical damages (the "pain & suffering", and loss of earnings). While anything paid for medical expenses is validly Wal-Marts, what was paid outside of that should be for her and the family.

Pain and suffering, past medical expenses, earnings, future medical expenses, etc.

I'd say Wal-mart would be entitled to the past medical expenses.

But this all depends on the settlement deal -- it may not have been broken down.

You can get screwed if you sign too quick and don't have an attorney, tax consultant, and an accountant look at any settlement's structure put forth to you.

If you ever lose one, definitely sit down with a lawyer and a tax consultant to make sure i can screw the winning party to the best of your ability -- and hope for giving them cash and a bankruptcy on the dotted line.

[solvs]

So you contend that "people of limited intelligence/education/skills" have no business trying to support a family?

Forget it, you're probably still on his ignore list too. :rolleyes: