Brain-damaged woman sued by Wal-Mart

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!)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.