|
Brain-damaged woman sued by Wal-Mart
Quote:
Seriously, they fucking sue her for more than she WON after legal fees? |
"We're being fair to the associates." Right, ask the other associates what they think of this.
This should be the exception that MAKES the rule. |
Funny, I just read and watched this at another message board I go to just about 5 minutes ago...
Anyway, here's a video regarding that report: Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit - CNN.com I could only imagine if Wal-Mart was responsible for death. I wonder what they'd do then. |
I don't understand. Wal-mart paid her medical expenses, that's like if the truck accident was worker's comp? I assumed it was a separate health plan (Blue Shield and etc) that paid it. But good god, 470,000 medical expenses? That must be some accident.
I didn't know Wal-mart has it OWN health plan. Or am I missing something here? |
wal-mart is seriously messed up. they don't care whether she lives or dies. maybe i should stop shopping there....
|
Yeah, this is the sort of thing I hate Wal-Mart for. I don't boycott the place, but I avoid it as much possible.
|
"Company pursues legal rights and abides by contract!"
GOD DAMN EVIL BASTARDS HOW DARE THEY ARGARGALGREALHGALKDSGAJSLFASF. I AM NEVER SHOPPING THERE AGAIN*. You people. *After the next time I go there, I swear I'll never go there again! You guys believe me, right? |
Quote:
Won't even get into their work ethics and the amount of kiss-ass you have to endure/supply to get anywhere, but this shit takes the cake and is probably going to be the nail for me to never ever work for them again. (Well, I shouldn't say NEVER, but it's definately going to be a last resort option.) I feel real bad for the lady in this situation with them though. Wal-mart has enough damn money and I could see if the accident was wal-mart related where they could try to recover "damages" they paid out to help the person recover, but this wasn't even a wal-mart related injury, was it? Yeaaaa. I can almost bet if this accident happened while she was working, then they would try to prolong paying anything out and having all sorts of investigations going on to NOT pay her the money. I know that this is the case from not only having to deal with sexual harassment and being called a liar and that I "misunderstood" everything said to me and that it "didn't need to go to court" from when my mother fell down and just about shattered her ankle at wal-mart due to negligence from their employees not keeping clean floors. This shit here just pisses me off even more. I agree with her husband, they on't need the money. All they're doing is robbing someone who needs it and the money had NOTHING to do with Wal-mart at all. I can imagine Sam Walton is just spinning in his grave about all this shit. |
Skills, are you talking to me? Because I haven't bought a damn thing there in well over 5-6 years. And what's outrageous (aside from this provision existing in the first place) is that they're asking for more money than the lady wound up walking away with--money that is going straight into medical care for her.
|
Skills, come on. Even if it's completely in the company's rights to do what it is they're doing, it doesn't change the fact that they are heartless.
|
Quote:
What the company was asking for is within their legal rights to do so, however, and I think the overall negative reaction to the enforcement of a bloody contract, no matter how unfortunate it is for the family involved, is silly and hyperbolic. It's not like they're breaking the law, here. |
I guess the devil is in the details.
While it's an upsetting story, I'm going to have to go with Skills on this one. Knowing how Walmart tends to treat its employees, this should come as no surprise from anyone here, or elsewhere. They're infamous for "fine print" clauses, and anyone who considers signing a paper with Walmart really, really really ought to read everything thoroughly. Like Skills said, Walmart is legally under no obligation to let the family have their money. Don't act like Walmart is the only major corporation to fuck people over. You guys with you "I AM NEVER SHOPPING AT WALMART AGAIN" are in for a rude awakening: many, many, many corporations give people the shaft. They're not out to lose money - they're in it to make money. They're not expected to be the moral pinnacles of society. Yes, it's a sad story. I recognize that. But really. Apart from the whole "F U WALMART" shit, why would the family constantly REMIND her that her son is dead?? Seriously, she's braindead. Why cause her more pain - EVERY DAY - telling her that her son is dead when she has pretty much no short term memory? That's AWFULLY cruel if you ask me. You know those situations where white lies are permissible? I think this is the perfect time for that. |
Need I remind you, Skills, that morality and legality are not the same? Nobody's debating the legal process here. But saying "shit sucks, get on with your life" isn't a whole lot better than the LOL BOYCOTT reaction. What will probably ensue from this publicity is the possibility of the family getting volunteer donations, and that's a good thing.
|
I don't think I ever said they were, actually. I certainly wasn't saying "You're SOL, get on with it" either, I was just thinking it was silly to run around with a boycott threat because of a situation which is pretty much unsurprising as fuck considering the corporate entity we're dealing with here.
The morality/legality link is pretty strong in this case, though. You either do the right moral thing and the wrong legal thing, or the wrong moral thing and the right legal thing. Doesn't seem to be a win win, really. Shame there is no real way to seperate it. Even if that's what I tried to do, that's what people are focusing on. =\ Quote:
|
Quote:
|
As callous as it may sound, I can understand Wal-Mart's position. Foremost, they're abiding by the legal terms of their insurance contract. It's an entitlement that they're allowed to pursue. Their existence isn't as a charity organization; it's unrealistic to expect them to serve as one.
But more importantly, I can see how the corporation is trying to prevent itself from being wedged into setting a precedent, one that could be milked by others. It might be the morally correct act to absolve the Shank's debt but is it fiscally responsible in the long-term? The answer is a crystal clear "no." See, if the Shanks are given favor, it will open the next similar case up for a similar claim, citing the Shank's case as precedent. Should Wal-Mart decline to absolve that debt, unlike the Shank's, they'd be setting themselves up for a lawsuit, likely one claiming "preferential treatment." If the plaintiff is a member of a minority, it could easily become a race or gender issue. This is only more bad publicity, not to mention the associated legal fees, unrecouped medical expenses, and settlements for nebulous claims of "defamation", "anguish" and "suffering." You have to see it in the long-term. Today's charity is tomorrow's day-to-day expectation. Where does this money come from? Paying out to exorbitant medical claims, legal fees and damage control only drives prices up in compensation. This is a horrible business strategy and Wal-Mart is intelligent enough to avoid setting foot down that path. Yes, I sympathize with the Shanks. I sympathize greatly. No amount of money can negate the damage. But this is a matter of black and white print, not what is morally just. Even as a judge, I couldn't, in good conscience, rule against Wal-Mart here. (However, an equitable solution, one that is practically disingenious, is for Wal-Mart to officially collect the due total from the Shanks - who do have the money. Then, Wal-Mart could cut the Shanks a check for an equal sum and present it as a charitable gift. This satisfies the terms of the insurance contract, warding off precedent. Yet it also provides a happy ending for the Shank family, and significantly saves Wal-Mart's reputation. Additionally, the money could be used as a charitable deduction on Wal-Mart's taxes and the two figures would approximately cancel each other out. Everybody wins!) |
Quote:
I'm observant enough to note that the tag says "in case of accident while cleansing these pantaloons, Wal-mart reserves the right to recall this article of clothing and take your wallet." |
Considering the amount of things Walmart does that are actually illegal, this should surprise no one. I have various reason I never shop there, including the fact that I don't have any perticularly close to here. The only things I've ever bought at Walmart was City of Heroes: Good vs Evil Edition when it was a Walmart exclusive and a Wii.
|
You know, I don't quite understand this knee-jerk tendency to boycott Wal-Mart whenever they get bad press. I follow the reasons one would boycott a corporation in general, but Wal-Mart certainly seems to get the brunt of it. It's hardly proportionate. Verizon, McDonald's, Texaco, United Airlines - they've all done some shitty things in the past but they've escaped a lot of their aggressors. Not Wal-Mart, though. They fire a single mother over a possible false positive on a drug test and suddenly idiots come crawling out of the woodwork. ARGH WE WILL NEVER BUY CULOTTES FROM YOU AGAIN! People who have no connection to the issue at all are up in arms. If you were a single mother, or a druggie, I could understand some indignance, but cripes. If your only purpose in visiting Wal-Mart is videogames and Little Debbie cakes, what the fuck do you care?
Yeah, Wal-Mart does some shitty things. I still shop there because I require objects now and then and do not want to pay more than is truly necessary for, say, Listerine. I don't particularly care for Exxon's business practices but dang if I still don't need gasoline every few weeks. Practicality outweighs principle, sometimes. Folks, if you're going to draw a line somewhere, don't do it over your own throats. |
This proves that Capitalist Companies drain the money out of the free people!! LET US JOIN HANDS AND ENTER THE REVOLUTION!
|
You know i was just gonna suggest the same thing Crash suggested, i think that's the sound choice , because a kind act here might secure them a lot of sympathy and well let's face it, people are gonna shop there more 'cuz they feel "warmer" to them.
The real question here is, can anyone actually convince them of doing that? As i think their lawyers must have suggested something similar. |
I already never shop at Wal-Mart so~
it's still a major-league bummer that they won't let this one go. I'm not saying they should be obliged to because that's something that only an expert in contract law and medical plans should say, but it's still a seriously douchebag move. Furthermore I'm seconding the guy who said that the publicity should attract personal donators to the poor lady's cause. I wonder, though, if Wal-Mart will feel obliged to that money as well? shit sux |
Quote:
|
Quote:
She can still cover her expenses even after the case (assuming legal fees did not run them dry), it just looks really bad because she's mentally stunted and her son just died in Iraq. If I was Wal-Mart I would not attempt to be flexible no matter how bad this case may be, because it gives a lot of other people room to try and wiggle out of contract with their sob stories. This is really bad, and it sucks for the Shanks, but I have to side with Wal-Mart. |
Quote:
I take it you were one of those people who were horrified about those pictures of American soldiers sexually abusing muslim prisoners a few years ago. "Hey, I pay soldiers to murder people, not sexually harass them!" |
You're talking about Wal-Mart like it's a single person making the decision. Look at it this way, you really want to be the one exec that recommends to all the shareholders that you give away 200k of their money just to be nice?
Say goodbye to your job. Say goodbye to your career. Say hello to a nice big lawsuit because you, as a director or officer, are personally liable for mismanagement of the company. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
(Obama supporter. Fucking JOKE.) |
Quote:
I think those sorts are called "schizophrenics." |
Quote:
|
Am I the only one who noticed that Wal-Mart waited three years before suing them? They were notified by the attorney about the decision, and didn't take immediate action. Isn't there a statute of limitations on something like that?
|
Quote:
Situations like this is more throwing salt on the wounds then anything else for people who already hate Wal-Mart. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm really glad that Walmart was able to protect their interests in this case. If the contract said that they get their money back if a settlement is made, then by golly, they should get their money back. I mean, if a poor man was suing the Shank's for that same money because of a contract they had with him, but they weren't giving it to him, would you still side with the Shanks?
If walmart goes under, where will I get my Little Debbie cakes? |
Quote:
If you're expecting to find humanity in war, you need to come to your senses. If you're giving a shit about people that you'll never meet who live on the other side of the world doing things that do not directly affect you, you need to rethink your life. What it has to do with this case is that its the same stupid reaction. Someone is offended that a company sticks to its contract? How dare they! Someone strips a prisoner of war and sexually molests them instead of shooting them in the face? How awful they are! |
Yeah and we should also euthanize brain damaged people because they're a drain on our resources, I mean nobody really gives a shit about them anyway
|
Quote:
What's your opinion on the Nanking Massacre? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Just stop posting because nobody actually cares about your opinion and you're just wasting your time
Everyone on the internet is probably laughing at you too |
|
Quote:
I mean - what does a brain damaged person give back to society? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do I think it was terrible? Sure. Do I give a shit about it? Not especially. I mean, how many countless millions were killed, burned, maimed and raped through the Crusades. I don't care about that either - and anyone here who says they do is lying. The only difference between Nanking and the Crusades is the number of people dead and the time involved. Burroughs once said something to the effect of "We now live in a nation where we are not allowed to mind our own business". We're seen as callous or bitter people if we don't care about some plight on the other side of the world or people starving or mass murder. Yeah, that shit is terrible - but I don't see the news media anchors giving up their salary to help starving people in Africa and I don't see people on GFF sending donations to needy families. The difference here is that I don't put on airs to any of that. I don't give a shit about people I don't know. Why? Because this world would be a hell of a lot better off if we cared about people we knew instead of pretending to care about people we don't. |
What I'm saying is that if people here are so moved by these terrible things - go join the Peace Corps and actually do something about these horrors. Otherwise, you're just a joke.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Not to sound heartless, but I think the real fault is in the original lawsuit. If her condition cost $470k to treat, then they should have been able to sue - successfully - for $470k, PLUS some additional amount to cover Debbie's living expenses in the future, pain and suffering, etc. etc. How can you win less than the "reasonal treatment cost"?
Interesting "tactic" divorcing the wife so she can claim extra aid, there. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's like going into a filesharing forum and telling them that filesharing is bad, and acting like some internet hero because you've reported someone to the RIAA. *in the sense that I wouldn't be donning a black avatar to mourn an untimely demise |
Of all the things to hate Wal-Mart for, collecting on a half-million, interest-free loan (which they would never have to repay unless they actually had that money) so that she could pay her medical bills is pretty low on the list.
|
Quote:
The opinion is the single element of a person which *should* be attacked. Unlike any other trait, they're something you choose to have -- and they can be horribly wrong. My opinion is that fish can breathe oil! My opinion is that housecats should be crushed by pyramids! My opinion is that Star Wars is real! Those are bad, bad opinions -- and they should certainly be called stupid. (Similarly, you must have a very low self esteem to complain with a straight face that you feel excluded because someone is smarter than you are. Buck up, pal.) |
Re-read my post, I'm all for calling bad opinions stupid. But I'm against limiting the admissibility of opinions based on degree of connection, which you're doing a lot of since it gives you more targets.
Now try again. |
Quote:
(Is this a "we agree to disagree" on the idea of amount, and then agree on the basics? Or...) |
No, I'm talking about this whole spiel about "armchair critics". You can basically go into every argument and apply a similar line of reasoning -- and spin it in whatever possible way to give it validity -- but it doesn't contribute a damned thing to the discussion, which means it's irrelevant and disruptive.
|
Always... always read the fine print.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
(I'll gladly make this my last post in this thread if you really do think that this is disruptive.) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I signed up for awordaday by email from urban dictionary. Today's word seem to pertain to this thread quite well.
Quote:
|
I know what LeHah is saying, I just don't entirely agree with him. He seems to think that it's a binary thing: either you absolutely don't give a shit, or you go out and sign up for the fucking Peace Corps, and everything in-between is a waste of time.
Now, it is a waste of time in the sense that we're certainly not helping the woman by posting in this thread (Bigblah mentioned that bringing attention to the case might cause some people to donate, but that's kind of vague, and unless you're the one doing the donating, it's in fact just 'slacktivism'), but is it a waste of time in a broader sense? The woman doesn't benefit, but the people who discuss this case might. I believe in dialectic reasoning, i.e. that 'the truth is born in disputes'. People aren't born with beliefs implanted in their brain. No one is going to just wake up one day and decide to join the Peace Corps or donate money to a mentally disabled woman. However, the very fact that this case is being discussed and its morality and legality argued or defended is bringing the people closer to truth. Of course, all that is irrelevant if one thinks that discussions don't matter and the truth is just something that you come up with in your own head (by 'thinking for yourself'). In that case, arguing about anything on the internet is indeed pretty pointless. I personally think believing something like that is not a mark of strong character, but rather of mental laziness and close-mindedness. The internet can be a pretty scary place if you approach it that way. Just imagine, you post something on the internet, and it's open to criticism for literally millions of people, who all have the potential to make you question your beliefs. Of course it's always easier to dismiss all those millions as brainless lemmings (as per the quote of Mr. Bradbury) in fell swoop, and keep believing that your personal truth is the ultimately correct one. |
Quote:
|
We really need a Freud emoticon.
|
Quote:
|
As president, I will ensure that this poor woman benefits from my American Health Choices Plan. I will also provide tax credits to help Wal-Mart pay for health care.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I also feel Wal-Mart is being a bit of a dick, but on the other hand, they did write it in the small print. Ignorance is not bliss in a court of law. |
Quote:
|
I assure you that I am a very humorous person. During my mission to Bosnia I was accompanied by the famous comedian Sinbad, and received his personal tutelage while dodging sniper bullets.
|
Give her more than two posts to see if she'll be any good. Like, this second post made me chortle a little.
|
Quote:
The first phrasing warns the person that it will happen, and the second that it might. With the second phrasing, Wal-Mart would still be upholding the contract even if they didn't sue. I wish I had a copy of the contract.... |
UPDATE: Wal-Mart, apparently caving to pressures from outraged consumers, has reversed its decision in the Shank's case - and is modifying its policy to prevent both similar cases and future abuses.
Wal-Mart: Brain-damaged former employee can keep money - CNN.com Perhaps there is such thing as bad publicity after all. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.