Walmart is Evil

[mvforza]

I won't get down on anyone who shops there, because it's not my place to criticize anyone's financial stability or consumer choices. However, I thought I'd make you all aware of Walmart's ruthless business ethic. If you would like more info, I suggest watching the movie "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price"

Here's a recent tragedy, sorry for the long read, it is very informative though:

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.


Debbie Shank, 52, has severe brain damage after a traffic accident in May 2000.


The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

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.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

Don't Miss
Sound off: 'Anderson Cooper 360°' Blog
'Anderson Cooper 360°' Daily Podcast
'Anderson Cooper 360°'
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money. Watch this couple's story »

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.



Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."

[Quick Orange]

I'm devil's advocate tonight

I have one thing to say in this sad story- Wal-Mart employs more people than US active duty military. If they let everyone slide, eventually the money is gone. Look at it this way: $200,000x1.5 million employees= $300 billion. To let her slide would be to set a precedent to the other 1.5 million employees. Sounds like a $300 billion bad choice. Wal-Mart is a business just like any other.

[JMS]

Don't people read the contracts that they are signing anymore?
People tend to see only what they might get out of something but dismiss anything they may not like, but when the chickens come home to roost it is always someone else's fault!
Does nobody take responsibility for their own actions anymore?

[mvforza]

I do agree with both of your posts. I guess it's just sad that it happened, and that Walmart feels the need to recoup the money they spend on their employees. I guess considering everything else that goes on with Walmart, I'm biased. It just makes me sick how people (especially Chinese factory workers) continue to get screwed by outsourcing... the high cost of low price

[Nickelking]

I gotta say that I hate walmart as well, but this case is one of the rare times I agree with them. It's standard practice for any insurance to prevent double dipping. I'm more concerned about the fact that they paid about 600k in legal bills and their lawyer tries to foist the bad guy title on wal-mart.

Long story short; I hate walmart, but not because of this.

[Quick Orange]

It's true, it's extremely sad. Once again though, Wal-Mart is a business. Their prime goal is to make money. The contract that that unfortunate woman signed is binding. Wal-Mart isn't trying to be an asshole, they're just running their business. Yeah, they are typically the one on the shady "evil" end, but this time is definitely an exception.

[Mike_ratliff]

The problem is Walmart does this with everything...
Remember their Buy American adds? Our local radio station had a contest to see who could locate the largest list of countries where Walmart's products were produced.
They hire the most part time employees of any large business in our area, and offer the least benefits. Walmart employees get most of their benefits from welfare. Their profitable business practices hurt local communities, and our society in general.

This case is just one example of their policies.

I shop at Walmart only when I can't get an item elsewhere, and frankly I'd be happy to go without if Walmart would leave our community alone.

Walmart got it's first store in my town by circumventing local zoning laws, and bribing a city counselman to later zone them in. They tried to add a super center less than a mile away, and when the town fought back Walmart sued! It cost our community several hundred thousand dollars to fight Walmart's frivilous law suit. They had no right, they wanted to circumvent our local zoning laws again, and this time there wasn't a politician to bribe, because we'd already seen what damage they do to small communities.

[mvforza]

Mike, If this is too personal, feel free not to answer, but what part of central california do you live in? I suppose my example of Walmart's "evilness" was poor because they are legally entitled to what they are doing. My argument is just that their business ethics are some of the worst in the world

[JMS]

Gugi will be posting any time now!

[Nickelking]

Mike, If this is too personal, feel free not to answer, but what part of central california do you live in? I suppose my example of Walmart's "evilness" was poor because they are legally entitled to what they are doing. My argument is just that their business ethics are some of the worst in the world

Now that I'll agree with wholeheartedly! I've yet to have to buy something there... though I did come close to looking for some MAAS in my local one.

Edit: there were a few moments recently though where the flap over the story from the original post made me think I may have been too hard on them. Then I remembered that they really are all that I despise about corporate america.