Before this story went 'round the Interweb:
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." (Source)
After the story went 'round the Interweb:
"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." [...]
"We wanted you to know that Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with you to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care," Curran said.
"We are sorry for any additional stress this uncertainty has placed on you and your family."
The publicity apparently worked for the family: Wal-Mart dropped its lawsuit to recoup money from a brain-damaged former worker. Link
Previously on Neatorama: Wal-Mart Wants Disabled Woman's Long-Term Care Money Back
It's not just youtube and yahoo.
(By the way I like your watermark in the comment box.)
Your thoughts?
That said, it is easy to become jaded about the bad they do that we fail to see the good (however little there is...oops...there I go again) they have done and continue to do.
Here is an article I ran across. A bitter pill for me to swallow, but reminds me to try to keep an open mind about Wally World.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=405747
Agreed. I still will not shop there, but perhaps a little less venom from me.
Just a little. :)
This wasn't always the case. Before the 1840's, corporations were issued limited articles of corporation and forced to break up after a set amount of time. One of the issues addressed in each corporation's initial filings was how it would benefit society. If there was no societal benefit, they wouldn't be allowed to incorporate.
Of course, one the Industrial Revolution hit the States, a few powerful people were able to change the laws, eventually granting corporations the same rights as any citizen (except for the vote). It's pretty awful.
I think if we went back to the old method, we wouldn't have so many damned corporate scandals. People would get together, make some money, do some good, then part ways. No more perpetual ownership of ideas by single organizations, etc.
Then Wal-mart came.
Now the downtown area is filled with insurance providers, loan agencies etc (whoever will pay the rent). All the wonderful neat shops are gone now. Why bother going to the local hardware store for nails and a free bag of popcorn, when you can just pick them up with the rest of your shopping at Wal-mart? Why buy locally crafted gifts, when you can shop for cheap clothes and gifts at walmart? Why bother going to the toy store when walmart sells cheaper toys from china? Bakeries, sweet shops, gift stores, all gone now. And (not so) coincidentally the majority of them "closed" after Wal-mart came in.
Now, the whole town is so dependant on wal-mart we couldn't boycot or close it down if we wanted to.
The other grocery store couldn't compete and closed down years ago. Where would we get groceries? How would we get hardware/household goods? Its the only game in town. It squashed everything and created a local monopoly.
Wal-mart is evil, if you hear of one going into your town, do everything you can think of to stop it. Because once its there... it takes over.
That said, I'm astonished at some of the comments in favor of Wal-Mart's original decision. Even if the contract was valid under libertarian ethical principles, we shouldn't confuse natural rights with moral rightness.
Did any of you people actually do your research or generically beat the "ALL CORPORATION ARE TEH EVIL" drum?
This family was lent money to cover her medical expenses by WalMart until such time as she was able to successfully sue for damages and recover the money at a later date. When she did sue successfully, WalMart asked for their money back. Otherwise, she would be compensated twice.
Stop being such liberal bandwagoners and read the fine print here, the woman was lent money...now she had to pay it back. It doesn't matter what kind of company WalMart is, or how much money they make...she is stealing if she doesn't return it.
I understand her situation is awful, but the moral outrage here is that she is somehow obligated to as much money as she can obtain, regardless of the legality.
What Walmart did may be nefarious, dastardly, just plain bad, but when an insurance company can get some funds back, it can help to keep rates lower. That $400,000+ is going to be spread out amongst all Walmart employees, be sure of that. (Assuming Walmart is self insured?)
She should have sued for pain, suffering, diminished earning capacity. If her lawyer was a proper greedy lawyer, he would have had her family members sue as well.
What walmart did may have been morally wrong, but her double dipping on her medical bills isn't exactly saintly either.
It's nice that Wal-Mart did it, even though they had every right not to. So what if it was only to save face?
It's not a case of legality, morality, or ethics. In fact, the Shanks seem to be the ones working the system. For example, he divorced his wife so she could get more money out of Medicaid. That's not very honest or fair to others who are not cheating the system.
Now the cost of benefits and access to those benefits for other Wal-Mart employees will increase. Is that "right"?
@Meursault: no borderline about it. Wal-mart is evil all the way through.
All Wal-Mart wanted to do was recoup the money that they rightfully were owed. She collected on bills that Wal-Mart already paid for her, why would she get to keep the money?
Sometimes I wonder how bleeding hearts get so myopic, and don't have a bit of logical sense in their body. It's actually amazing you guys can breath.
I dont know if that accident happened while she was at work or not but apparently Wal-Mart payed for her medical expense... it's just a cheap shot to come and claim that money after she won a lawsuit for the damage that was done to her.
The way I see it, it's like Wal-Mart wasted some money so that she live long enough to make money out of a lawsuit and then drain all that money back.
I can almost hear "Thank you, come again." from some Wal-Mart representative.
All the bleeding hearts need to look at logic;
Say you get in a car accident that was not your fault. You can not collect on the damages because the at fault driver is not insured or it was a hit and run. your insurance company pays the costs for you to get better and fixes your car. A year later the at fault party comes back and pays you all the damages. is that your money or the car insurance company that in good faith fronted those costs?
He carefully removes the bird from his mouth, pats down the birds feathers, smooths him down and pops him back on his perch, all the while grinning endearingly at granny.
When i heard that WalMart had backed down I got that image so vividly.
you know that as soon as the internet focus drifts away from this poor woman, Sylvester will be up on a precariously stacked tower of chairs desperately trying to scoff that pain in the arse little bird once more.