Proof Wal-Mart is EVIL! They sued disabled woman!

[Join The Paul Side]

Watch this video. This poor lady enrolled in Wal-Mart's insurance program. She had a bad accident that left her with brain damage. She has short term memory loss. Her son recently died in Iraq and she can't remember it. Now Wal-Mart is trying to get back almost a half million dollars that was spent treating her. It's such a sad story. Wal-Mart made 90 billion in profits last year, yet want to take half million from a disabled woman. I hate those greedy corporate bastards. :mad:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/03/24/kaye.walmart.lawsuit.cnn?iref=videosearch

[uncollapse]

"I hate those greedy corporate bastards."

I am indignant too.

[Kludge]

Haha.. I saw this on CNN a couple days ago and was going to post a thread on it, but couldn't find a link. I couldn't believe they brought up WM's profits.

[coyote_sprit]

Do you think Walmart will pay a lawyer 1 million dolalrs to get 470k back? I wouldn't doubt it.

[Kludge]

Do you think Walmart will pay a lawyer 1 million dolalrs to get 470k back? I wouldn't doubt it.

WM most likely has a host of lawyers on salary. Might as well use them.

[hopeforamerica]

Oh my, that is so sad. Walmart needs to suffer for this!

[Truth Warrior]

Nothing personal, just business. :p Abolish corporate personhood!

[BenMuldowney]

an even better version with a "look for the union label" clip at the end:

http://rattube.com/blog1/2008/03/27/walmart-sues-disabled-ex-employee/

[born2drv]

So the disabled lady's family wishes to collect twice, once from Walmart to pay medical expenses, and again from the settlment of the trucker who injured her in the accident?

Walmart is well within it's rights to collect it's money back, I'm so sick of people saying "company X has billions they don't need all that money, I deserve some of it".... People need to have more respect for the property rights of others, even if they're large corporations. This socialized/legalized theft of property from others needs to stop.

[dannno]

Wal-Mart made 90 billion in profits last year,

No, I think you mis-heard. That was their 3rd quarter profits from last year... I can't go back and check, the firewall at my work blocks second attempts at videos sometimes..

[rockandrollsouls]

born2drv, that's a ludicrous statement. That's not why the family is suing for the money. Do a little research. Your entire statement is a failed attempt at trying to understand this legal issue. Be gone.

[dannno]

Walmart is well within it's rights to collect it's money back, I'm so sick of people saying "company X has billions they don't need all that money, I deserve some of it".... People need to have more respect for the property rights of others, even if they're large corporations. This socialized/legalized theft of property from others needs to stop.

Until Ron Paul gets into office and/or we abolish the Federal Reserve, these companies are being subsidized at the expense of the poor working and middle class, and I will fight for people over corporations almost every time.


Edit: and you might be wrong?

[OptionsTrader]

I do not care to learn the facts of the case, however I will say this: there is nothing inherently wrong with suing a disabled person. If an individual wants to be treated fairly, they need to be prepared to be treated like anyone else.

[Sandra]

No judge will let her collect twice. They will make her pay back all and then some. i know of someone who got TMJ in a car accident, she sued the driver's insurance co. and won. A year later she sued the driver, the court didn't take kindly to it and made her pay all court fees and the driver's lawyer. In the end, she lost way more than she won. She blamed the court for not telling her she couldn't sue the driver after accepting the ruling for the insurance. So she said she asked the judge why they took the case anyway, and the answer was "we needed to make an example out of you".

[dannno]

I do not care to learn the facts of the case, however I will say this: there is nothing inherently wrong with suing a disabled person. If an individual wants to be treated fairly, they need to be prepared to be treated like anyone else.

She has brain damage and can only remember things that happened to her before the accident.. she doesn't remember that her son died in iraq recently.

[born2drv]

why don't you watch the clip again ......

they had walmart pay every penny of their medical expenses.... that's fine, she was covered.

However they then settled a lawsuit against the trucker, or their insurance company, etc, for the losses.... they won. Now Walmart is trying to get some of it's money back, since it should have been the trucker who was responsible for the accident and therefor expenses. Therefor the trust account that was opened in this woman's name has been frozen and the family is suing to get it back.

The husband even said right on the clip that without the money, he can't pay for his medical expenses fighting cancer, or put his son through college. But that's not Walmart's fault, why should Walmart have to pay for his medical expenses and his son's college education?

Instead of being happy Walmart paid all her medical bills and cooperating to assist Walmart get it's money back, they decided to keep the pay out from the settlement. If they needed more money for long term care, or pain and suffering, or whatever, they should have sued the trucker for more money.

I have sympathy for this woman and her husband and the situation they are in, But it's 100% wrong for them to expect a corporation to pay more then their fair share just because "they're rich and they don't need the money".

[mconder]

First off, I'd say her attorney sucked for only getting 400K. She deserves more like 2million.

[dannno]

First off, I'd say her attorney sucked for only getting 400K. She deserves more like 2million.

Ya, I hope they aren't using the same attorney who got her into this mess?

[yongrel]

Oi vey! Sometimes, this forum sounds like denniskucinichforums.com. I worry that I clicked the wrong link.

Walmart ain't evil; they're just in business.

[Sandra]

When the judgement aginst the trucking co was handed down, Wal Mart was in fact loaning the money for expediant care for it's employee to prevent out of pocket expenses from her. I have no idea as to why she was awarded less than expenses unless there was the possibility that the accident was partially her fault.

[OptionsTrader]

Oi vey! Sometimes, this forum sounds like denniskucinichforums.com. I worry that I clicked the wrong link.

Walmart ain't evil; they're just in business.

Yep. WalMart is no more evil than the millions of customers that shop there for low prices.

[dannno]

Oi vey! Sometimes, this forum sounds like denniskucinichforums.com. I worry that I clicked the wrong link.

Walmart ain't evil; they're just in business.

They abuse our government that has been racked by corporate interests, and they are partially responsible for the poor state of our government through their lobbying efforts.

They also encourage their employees to get government assistance... do you know how many billions of dollars the tax payers subsidize to WalMart between benefits and the Federal Reserve??

They're individual actions maybe technically be legitimate, but they are causing an evil plague on our country. It is all the fault of the Federal Reserve.

[dannno]

Yep. WalMart is no more evil than the millions of customers that shop there for low prices.

Whether you shop their or not, you are subsidizing WalMart with your taxes.

No other company is able to take advantage of the government as much as WalMart. Keep ignoring them, though.. They're good people ;)

[dannno]

WalMart uses it's government subsidies to lower their prices below the market threschold for what would be considered "fair" market pricing for their goods. Consumers are tricked into the low prices, driving out their competition. Their competition cannot compete because WalMart is being subsidized by the government. Wake up.

[yongrel]

Whether you shop their or not, you are subsidizing WalMart with your taxes.

No other company is able to take advantage of the government as much as WalMart. Keep ignoring them, though.. They're good people ;)

But if that's true, it's not Walmart that is evil; it's the system. Walmart takes advantage of the system, just like Target, Sam's Club, Home Deopt, Lowe's, KMart, etc do. Guess who else? The consumer.

I agree that the subsidies recieved at all levels of industry from production to consumption are wrong, but I do not single out specific pieces of the system.

It would be like arresting the professional dog walker who uses public parks for his business. I may not agree with the concept of public property, but I'm not going to punish or target the individual who is making the most money from the system. I target the system as a whole.

[dannno]

I may not agree with the concept of public property, but I'm not going to punish or target the individual who is making the most money from the system. I target the system as a whole.

One day you will realize they ARE the system. They have the most interest in upholding the system. They own the media and convince everybody else of whatever they want. They own our government and the government does their bidding. This entire endeavor is evil, and they are apart of it.. They ARE the machine.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Watch this video. This poor lady enrolled in Wal-Mart's insurance program. She had a bad accident that left her with brain damage. She has short term memory loss. Her son recently died in Iraq and she can't remember it. Now Wal-Mart is trying to get back almost a half million dollars that was spent treating her. It's such a sad story. Wal-Mart made 90 billion in profits last year, yet want to take half million from a disabled woman. I hate those greedy corporate bastards. :mad:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/03/24/kaye.walmart.lawsuit.cnn?iref=videosearch

but... it's the government regulations that give Wal-mart their power. Well, yeah, they also produce some good products at competitive prices. No, I'm not pro-walmart, I'm pro-free enterprise :p Walmart is making their stuff in China and selling it here. Our manufacturing base sucks lol. thank the socialists!

They won't be done until we all starve to death, then they'll come back afterwards and tell us that we didn't have true socialism, so we should try again.

[yongrel]

One day you will realize they ARE the system. They have the most interest in upholding the system. They own the media and convince everybody else of whatever they want. They own our government and the government does their bidding. This entire endeavor is evil, and they are apart of it.. They ARE the machine.

I think that's a bit melodramatic.

Obviously, Walmart has an enormous interest in maintaining the status quo. However, it is unreasonable to single them out because they are far from being the sole beneficiary of the system. The consumer too is guilty of taking advantage of the subsidy racket, since they directly profit from others tax-dollars by recieving lower prices from retailers.

But it would be a bit silly to target only one cog, when the rest of the gears are churning happily along.

We're on the same side: The goverment should not be intervening in the market place.

[dannno]

No, I'm not pro-walmart, I'm pro-free enterprise :p

WalMart is pro-socialism because big, over-reaching government allows them to create their own rules within the government that benefit them.

I have a lot of friends who are anti-corporate America and they think that the Democrats will save us from the big corporations... So I have to convince THEM that the government is evil and causing the evilness in large corporations and the government will NOT save us from them.

Then I come here and I have to convince you guys that the corporations are just as much apart of our government as our politicians, and yes, they are in fact evil, and we should fight them every chance we get because they are propping up our flawed system... So why can't we, as citizens, go to court and fight them within the legal system and take them down? As long as it's legal, it's simply helping to counter-balance what they are doing with the system.. Why would you discourage this, I don't get it? It's all free-enterprise, according to some here taking advantage of the system is free-enterprise, so is this then, right?

[angelatc]

So the disabled lady's family wishes to collect twice, once from Walmart to pay medical expenses, and again from the settlment of the trucker who injured her in the accident?

Walmart is well within it's rights to collect it's money back, I'm so sick of people saying "company X has billions they don't need all that money, I deserve some of it".... People need to have more respect for the property rights of others, even if they're large corporations. This socialized/legalized theft of property from others needs to stop.

That was my thought on the matter, too.

[dannno]

That was my thought on the matter, too.

Good, because you are wrong. She didn't do jack. She can't, she has a bad memory, she can't think, she has brain damage. She can't do anything, yet you blame this on her. That makes sense.

[angelatc]

Good, because you are wrong. She didn't do jack. She can't, she has a bad memory, she can't think, she has brain damage. She can't do anything, yet you blame this on her. That makes sense.

I do not really care whose fault it was. The money isn't hers to keep. A sad sad story doesn't mean the property rights change, unless you're a socialist. I am not.

[jason43]

That story is really sad, her son died in Iraq too.

What a tragedy for that family... Walmart would do good to just ask for donations or do a fundraiser for her if they really wanted to recoup that money. Then they could stand on principle and... you know... have a soul too...

[Green Mountain Boy]

I do not really care whose fault it was. The money isn't hers to keep. A sad sad story doesn't mean the property rights change, unless you're a socialist. I am not.

Property rights? The disabled woman had insurance with Wal-Mart, meaning she had a contract with them. I don't see any legitimate reason for Wal-Mart to back out of their contract just because they feel they can.

[angelatc]

Oi vey! Sometimes, this forum sounds like denniskucinichforums.com. I worry that I clicked the wrong link.

Walmart ain't evil; they're just in business.

I think that all business has the capability to have an evil side.

But if you ever try to bring a new idea to the retail market, you will find that Wal-Mart is likely the only store that will talk to you, and will not extort $10,000 per store shelf fees from you for the privelege of displaying your product.

People that think the model is as simple as "vendor buys product from supplier then sells product to consumer" are naive.

Wal-Mart's buyers are known in the business as being honest. If they're not honest, they get fired.

[jason43]

Why not organize a moneybomb for this lady?

Fuck Walmart, its not their problem, Why dont we go viral with some fundraiser vids on youtube and donate money on a certain day to help her out?

[Green Mountain Boy]

And what's with all the coporate-greed-is-virtuous-objectivism crap around here? Do you know what the world would be like if there were a million little Ayn Rands walking around. Holy sh*t, i don't want to imagine that.

[seapilot]

Government is the root of the problem, they do not follow the rule of law plain and simple. Walmart is easy to attack, at least they provide something to people that give them thier money.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501598.html
Wal-Mart at Forefront of Hurricane Relief
Cliff Brumfield, executive vice president of the Brookhaven-Lincoln County Chamber of Commerce, said he was impressed with Wal-Mart's preparations.

"They were ready before FEMA was," he said.


Counter view from an organization that despises Walmart:http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc/katrina102805.cfm
Debunking Wal-Mart's Hurricane Relief Efforts

Admission at the end that the Government is a failure, but Walmart is not much better, notice how they only address problems and not solutions. Wonder how much immediate Hurricane relief Organic consumers gave. Not a fricken dime Id bet.

Looked at in a broader context, the hurricane relief efforts of Wal-Mart, while mostly laudable, come across as somewhat less than heroic. The relatively ordinary accomplishments of the company looked extraordinary only because of the spectacular failures of government officials. Just because political hacks such as Michael Brown could not get the job done does not mean that big business is the solution to all our problems.

[angelatc]

Property rights? The disabled woman had insurance with Wal-Mart, meaning she had a contract with them. I don't see any legitimate reason for Wal-Mart to back out of their contract just because they feel they can.


Wal-Mart paid her medical bills, then the trucking company reimbursed her for medical bills. But she didn't pay the medical bills, so she should not have been reimbursed.

Do you have a health insurance policy? Go read it. I guarantee you that if you read the contract, the insurance company that wrote it clearly says the same thing that hers did.

[jason43]

If this is such a problem, why not just raise the measly 100K that the vid says they need so they don't go bankrupt?

[angelatc]

And what's with all the coporate-greed-is-virtuous-objectivism crap around here? Do you know what the world would be like if there were a million little Ayn Rands walking around. Holy sh*t, i don't want to imagine that.

Wal-Mart sells products. Apparently they sell a lot of them. They also provide a lot of unskilled workers jobs. And that pisses you off because.....?

[angelatc]

If this is such a problem, why not just raise the measly 100K that the vid says they need so they don't go bankrupt?

Partly because as far as I'm concerned her son can work his way through college.

[angelatc]

WalMart is pro-socialism because big, over-reaching government allows them to create their own rules within the government that benefit them.



What rule did Wal-Mart create? Heck, Chicago created an anti Wal-Mart law. It demanded that big box stores would have to pay workers more than other businesses.

[New York For Paul]

Instead of being happy Walmart paid all her medical bills and cooperating to assist Walmart get it's money back, they decided to keep the pay out from the settlement. If they needed more money for long term care, or pain and suffering, or whatever, they should have sued the trucker for more money.

I have sympathy for this woman and her husband and the situation they are in, But it's 100% wrong for them to expect a corporation to pay more then their fair share just because "they're rich and they don't need the money".

The real issue is the insurance companies. The are regulated by the state. They have lobbyists that put limits on damages. It could be that the trucker only had 500 K in insurance. Everyday people win judgements against under Insured wreckless drivers and come up short.

Many insurance companies payouts are influenced by the stock market. That is where they park their money before they payout.

For instance, Warren Buffet, the richest man in the US owns Geico insurance, a very profitable company. When the market is up, the insurance companies are less likely to fight against large settlements. When the market is down, the insurance companies will lie, cheat and steal and harrass victims to try and wear them down so that companies like Geico, Allstate and others can pay out less insurance claims.

[Green Mountain Boy]

Wal-Mart sells products. Apparently they sell a lot of them. They also provide a lot of unskilled workers jobs. And that pisses you off because.....?

The fact that they sell products doesn't piss me off. Nor does the fact that they sell a lot of them.

I just don't agree with their business practices, that is all. I am not bashing capitalism or their right to make money.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What rule did Wal-Mart create? Heck, Chicago created an anti Wal-Mart law. It demanded that big box stores would have to pay workers more than other businesses.

that punishes unskilled workers. no work!

[angelatc]

The fact that they sell products doesn't piss me off. Nor does the fact that they sell a lot of them.

I just don't agree with their business practices, that is all. I am not bashing capitalism or their right to make money.

Like I said earlier, in the retail world they're known as some of the most brutally honest players in the game. Which practices do you dislike? Beware of liberal propoganda is all I'm saying. Some of it is true, most of it isn't.

And note that Wal-Mart was forced to offer insurance when they began to run out of legal workers. Proof that the market can work.

Sadly, that's also about the same time they jumped on the "lobby Washington for socialized medicine" bandwagon.

[CurtisLow]

I blame the lawyer for not getting enough money or not understanding the clause in the WM health Ins. $475,000 is nothing for those kind of injuries.

Should have been about 5 million.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I blame the lawyer for not getting enough money or not understanding the clause in the WM health Ins. $475,000 is nothing for those kind of injuries.

Should have been about 5 million.

aim above your expectations...settle for less :p

[dannno]

Sadly, that's also about the same time they jumped on the "lobby Washington for socialized medicine" bandwagon.

Billions of dollars every year... we spend on WalMart employees so that they can keep their prices artificially low... The only reason they can get away with it is because they are in areas where they have driven other companies out with their artificially low prices and people don't have a choice but to work for them...

Do you know what "externalizing costs" is? WalMart is GOD of externalizing costs, from cheap labor to taking advantage of taxpayers and anti-American anti-union behavior.

The whole thing is evil, evil, evil... even if their individual actions can be justified, they are evil as a whole.

[angelatc]

I blame the lawyer for not getting enough money or not understanding the clause in the WM health Ins. $475,000 is nothing for those kind of injuries.

Should have been about 5 million.

That's sort of what I thought! What kind of a second-rate lawyer didn't know that this would happen? Again, it is not just Wal-Mart's insurance. ALL health insurance policies carry the exact same clause.

[New York For Paul]

It could be that was all the money they could collect. Yes the injury deserves more money from a moral view, but legally, if the guy only has minimum insurance, the insurance company is only going to pay what they are contractually obligated to pay.

If the trucker is poor, it may not be worth it to continue to get a judgement against him because the trucker won't be able to pay.

Those large payouts are never simple and many times very difficult to get and collect.

[angelatc]

Billions of dollars every year... we spend on WalMart employees so that they can keep their prices artificially low... The only reason they can get away with it is because they are in areas where they have driven other companies out with their artificially low prices and people don't have a choice but to work for them...

WalMart is GOD of externalizing costs, from cheap labor to taking advantage of taxpayers and anti-American anti-union behavior.

The whole thing is evil, evil, evil... even if their individual actions can be justified, they are evil as a whole.

Do you know even know what "externalizing costs" is? There are at least 2 or 3 types. Forcing suppliers to lower their prices is evil? Sorry, but the suppliers are in business for the same reason Wal-Mart is.

You're right - if the government would stop socializing life, then Wal-Mart would be forced to pay higher wages. But the labor market decides wages, not Wal-Mart.

And spare me the sob story about the demise of the poor little Mom & Pop shop. My family, which is quite large, all live in rural America, and they were all thrilled to have Wal-Mart come to their towns. (Remember, Wal-Mart started out selling in areas that established corporations wouldn't even bother with!) Until Wal-mart got there, they were stuck shopping at places that had 2 year old electronics. And the owner of that Mom & Pop grocery shop was quite often gouging the captive customer.

They're not evil. They're just masters at the game they didn't even create. If you're a business person, externalizing costs is viewed as a good thing. Youactually are telling me that Wal-Mart should pay higher costs? That's like saying they should subsidize their competition. Socialized business? Spare me.

There aren't supposed to be price protection laws to protect small business from larger businesses in a free market.

Unions are far more detrimental to the American economy than Wal-Mart. Again, labor costs should be decided by the market. Workers vote with their feet.

[angelatc]

It could be that was all the money they could collect. Yes the injury deserves more money from a moral view, but legally, if the guy only has minimum insurance, the insurance company is only going to pay what they are contractually obligated to pay.

That's a very astute observation.

[rvl]

Do you think Walmart will pay a lawyer 1 million dolalrs to get 470k back? I wouldn't doubt it.

No, they will! they are liekly trying to send a message to all of their employees as tacky as it is.:mad:

[Join The Paul Side]

That story is really sad, her son died in Iraq too.

What a tragedy for that family... Walmart would do good to just ask for donations or do a fundraiser for her if they really wanted to recoup that money. Then they could stand on principle and... you know... have a soul too...

That's what I'm saying! They are a filthy rich corporation. They don't have to collect this money from her, but they want to which is sad and pathetic of them given that she and her family need the money more than they do. They should do the charitable thing and let her keep it. I'm sure they can write it off one way or another, but their actions show they truly don't have souls. :(

[yongrel]

That's what I'm saying! They are a filthy rich corporation. They don't have to collect this money from her, but they want to which is sad and pathetic of them given that she and her family need the money more than they do. They should do the charitable thing and let her keep it. I'm sure they can write it off one way or another, but their actions show they truly don't have souls. :(

That sounds an awful lot like wealth redistribution. Advocating that the wealthy should give away their money because... they have lots of it?

[New York For Paul]

Large corporations like that don't watch their costs in many cases. The lawyers on staff need something to do to justify their bills so they keep cases going even when they could be settled out of court.

Of course, if Wallmart uses an outside law firm, the potential for prolonging the legal cases no matter what cost goes way up.

The law firm is only too happy to keep fighting when their client is wallmart. They have very little incentive to settle or work something out.

[angelatc]

No, they will! they are liekly trying to send a message to all of their employees as tacky as it is.:mad:

It's tacky not to let people steal $500,000?

[yongrel]

It's tacky not to let people steal $500,000?

Apparently. Welcome to denniskucinichforums.com

[angelatc]

Large corporations like that don't watch their costs in many cases. The lawyers on staff need something to do to justify their bills so they keep cases going even when they could be settled out of court.

Of course, if Wallmart uses an outside law firm, the potential for prolonging the legal cases no matter what cost goes way up.

The law firm is only too happy to keep fighting when their client is wallmart. They have very little incentive to settle or work something out.

I am pretty sure that Wal-Mart knows exactly how much this case will cost them. Watching costs is what Wal-Mart does best, and they do it across the board in their business strategy, not just their sales strategy.

[angelatc]

The fact that they sell products doesn't piss me off. Nor does the fact that they sell a lot of them.

I just don't agree with their business practices, that is all. I am not bashing capitalism or their right to make money.

Which practices, specifically, do you disagree with?

[Kraig]

I can't believe so many people are taking the woman's side and claiming Walmart is "evil" because of it. The woman's insurance policy clearly stated that she would not receive coverage IF a settlement was collected through the court system - it was. The husband was very much aware of this, and they even quoted him saying it in the article that I read.

This story, however sad the circumstances may be, is a perfect example of people trying to take what they knowingly do not rightfully own using the claim of "need" rather than any form of rightful ownership. This is also an example of people wasting taxpayers money by abusing the court system, when they knowingly are asking for what is not theirs. I am betting that they were aware of this before hand, but were hoping to either double dip to receive money from both systems, or were hoping to get more from the settlement and went back to Walmart when that didn't work out.

[angelatc]

that punishes unskilled workers. no work!

Wal-Mart changed plans and moved the store to an economically depressed area just barely outside the city limits. So a couple of thousand people got jobs, the city people got the cheap shopping alternative hey wanted, and the city of Chicago gets zero tax money from the sales.

Brilliant move, city planners.

[Kraig]

That's what I'm saying! They are a filthy rich corporation. They don't have to collect this money from her, but they want to which is sad and pathetic of them given that she and her family need the money more than they do. They should do the charitable thing and let her keep it. I'm sure they can write it off one way or another, but their actions show they truly don't have souls. :(

Take the money you spend on any and all luxury items, anything that does not meet the bare necessities level - food, shelter, transportation - and then you will have put your money where your mouth is, but you will still have no rightful claim on how any other person or organization chooses to spend their money.

[angelatc]

I am betting that they were aware of this before hand, but were hoping to either double dip to receive money from both systems, or were hoping to get more from the settlement and went back to Walmart when that didn't work out.

I have to admit that I would probably be inclined to hope that Wal-Mart didn't notice my settlement if I were in her shoes.

This is where the "liberal media" slant comes from. I'll bet Olbermann votes them a worst person.

[New York For Paul]

Cutting costs and engaging in legal fights don't go together too well.

How is a wallmart MBA suppose to know when a lawyer does too much research for a case or files one too many motions?

The legal research and writing run up the costs. Is an MBA suppose to tell the lawyer, write those legal briefs more quickly?

We are not concerned about quality so much as quantity.

Just like it is hard to rush a surgeon during an operation, although they try, good medicine and probably good lawyering might be incompatible with keeping costs down.

What I have noticed at Wallmart and other big box retailers is that many of the front line staff seem very demoralized. I presume they feel they don't get paid enough.

What I see time and again are many cashiers who really don't care and fail to ring up items that cost ten, twenty, fifty dollars a piece. I then think about how this happens all across america and the millions and billions of free merchandise that is given to people each year by disgruntled employees who feel they don't get paid enough.

I don't know if Walmart watches its costs on things like this.

[Kraig]

And what's with all the coporate-greed-is-virtuous-objectivism crap around here? Do you know what the world would be like if there were a million little Ayn Rands walking around. Holy sh*t, i don't want to imagine that.

What would it be like if there were a million little Ayn Rand's running around? The world would be at peace because every single person you would describe as a "little Ayn Rand" would be living by the philosophy that they need to take care of themselves, everyone you described would know that they cannot use force or pity to survive - they would survive off of the honest products of their mind and efforts.

You obviously have a very limited and weak understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and Ron Paul's for that matter. It is your viewpoint of fear that has allowed tyrants of all ages to gain power.

[amy31416]

Take the money you spend on any and all luxury items, anything that does not meet the bare necessities level - food, shelter, transportation - and then you will have put your money where your mouth is, but you will still have no rightful claim on how any other person or organization chooses to spend their money.

Agreed.

If the law forced charity, that is essentially, socialism. Don't we have too much of that already?

It would be just swell if Wal-Mart donated the money to this family, but they are fully in their rights not to. Think of how much more unfortunate this could have been if that woman was working somewhere else and didn't have insurance at all.

[Kraig]

I have to admit that I would probably be inclined to hope that Wal-Mart didn't notice my settlement if I were in her shoes.

This is where the "liberal media" slant comes from. I'll bet Olbermann votes them a worst person.

I am not saying I am a completely innocent person and would never ever try to do something along those lines, but if I did and I was caught, I certainly wouldn't go running to the government to ask them to give me what is not mine.

...and I would hope that none of you would defend my dishonest actions.

[angelatc]

Cutting costs and legal fights....Wal-Mart caught grief from other retailers when a memo leaked indicating they no longer going to press charges in shoplifting cases for amounts under a specific amount...$50 maybe?

Again, you're absolutely delusional if you think that Wal-Mart doesn't know to the absolute penny how much each and every aspect of their operation costs. And yes, I entirely expect that their legal team is on a budget, and if they can't perform they'll be replaced.

The fact that you made such a statement means you really know very little about the inner-workings of Wal-mart. They are indeed cost driven, and strikingly efficient in absolutely every aspect of their operation. I can't stress that enough.

Buying low, and selling cheap is not their entire business strategy.

Wal-mart does not "waste"money in any aspect of their operation.

Why do you think the cashiers are under surveillance? It's so they can't give away stuff to their friends and family by not ringing it up when they go through the line.

You're pretty naive if you think there's any cost what-so-ever that Wal-Mart does not scrutinize.

And any person who is backwards enough to let people steal from the same people who supply her paycheck deserves less than minimum wage. Morals don't come from salaries.

It's a chicken and an egg thing: Is she morally bankrupt because she earns so little, or does she earn so little because she is morally bankrupt?

[angelatc]

I am not saying I am a completely innocent person and would never ever try to do something along those lines, but if I did and I was caught, I certainly wouldn't go running to the government to ask them to give me what is not mine.

...and I would hope that none of you would defend my dishonest actions.

Exactly. I'm not so morally deficient that I wouldn't be embarrassed when I got caught. And I'd probably lose sleep at night worrying about getting caught. There wouldn't be a chip on my shoulder, that's for sure.

[Sandra]

I am not saying I am a completely innocent person and would never ever try to do something along those lines, but if I did and I was caught, I certainly wouldn't go running to the government to ask them to give me what is not mine.

...and I would hope that none of you would defend my dishonest actions.

Although I would love love love to see the accident report as well as her lawsuit history! Sounds as though this lady has done this before. Sorry guys, I'm jaded, I used to work at a courthouse and this kind of crap was the bulk of the cases.

[PennCustom4RP]

Although I would love love love to see the accident report as well as her lawsuit history! Sounds as though this lady has done this before. Sorry guys, I'm jaded, I used to work at a courthouse and this kind of crap was the bulk of the cases.

I saw the pic of this wreck, the front of the Semi was inside of her van, on the drivers side, she is lucky to be alive, so I doubt this was a scheme, just her misfortune.

As others who have defended the Walmart position in this, I agree, there was a clause in her company insurance that stated that if any award was received, that Walmart would be reimbursed for their outlay paying her medical bills. A contract is a contract, and has to be followed, regardless. Walmart fan or not,(I'm not especially, though they are convenient, would rather they bought and sold American products, not Chinese)
It is sad she was so severely injured, and that her son had recently died in Iraq, but bad shit happens to good (and bad) people every day.

[New York For Paul]

Cutting costs and legal fights....Wal-Mart caught grief from other retailers when a memo leaked indicating they no longer going to press charges in shoplifting cases for amounts under a specific amount...$50 maybe?

Again, you're absolutely delusional if you think that Wal-Mart doesn't know to the absolute penny how much each and every aspect of their operation costs. And yes, I entirely expect that their legal team is on a budget, and if they can't perform they'll be replaced.

The fact that you made such a statement means you really know very little about the inner-workings of Wal-mart. They are indeed cost driven, and strikingly efficient in absolutely every aspect of their operation. I can't stress that enough.

Buying low, and selling cheap is not their entire business strategy.

Wal-mart does not "waste"money in any aspect of their operation.

Why do you think the cashiers are under surveillance? It's so they can't give away stuff to their friends and family by not ringing it up when they go through the line.

You're pretty naive if you think there's any cost what-so-ever that Wal-Mart does not scrutinize.

And any person who is backwards enough to let people steal from the same people who supply her paycheck deserves less than minimum wage. Morals don't come from salaries.

It's a chicken and an egg thing: Is she morally bankrupt because she earns so little, or does she earn so little because she is morally bankrupt?

You might be right. It does not sound like a great place to work where they squeeze their workers. There are some companies that measure their employees pencils and they must be used all the way before they get another pencil at work.

I do know that the employees do not ring up all items many times. I don't know if it is on purpose, but it appears to be a long standing problem. They do have have receipt checkers at the exit, but they can't examine everything that goes on.

So they may know down to the dollar how much money they lose to incompetence or or how much the cashiers fail to ring up things for their friends and family.

[angelatc]

So they may know down to the dollar how much money they lose to incompetence or or how much the cashiers fail to ring up things for their friends and family.

Not talking about the receipt checkers. I'm talking about the surveillance over the cashiers. Cameras, I suppose. They don't talk about that too much.

But I can absolutely guarantee you that they know exactly how much money they lose to theft. They know that hiring and catering to the lowest class of wage earners maximizes these problems. They know they lose more in theft than any other operation. They factor every dime of that into the cost of their items.

They also pay considerable attention to the distribution costs, including fuel costs. They're quite green in that respect.

Again, you apparently have no idea how hard they work to keep costs low. There are books about it. Remember, they started out servicing rural areas that other big retailers rejected because there "wasn't any money to be made." They didn't do that by running their business like all the others.

There has never been an operation that strived to lower costs by running as efficiently as Wal-Mart does.

Personally I find it a nothing short of a miracle that Wal-Mart even manages to get people to even show up to work, but they do.

"Squeezing their employees.." sob! Go run a business, then come back and talk to me. Asking somebody to run items across a scanner and put them in a bag isn't anything special. When RFID grabs hold, those people will be wishing they had those jobs back, because stocking shelves doesn't pay better.

[New York For Paul]

Not talking about the receipt checkers. I'm talking about the surveillance over the cashiers. Cameras, I suppose. They don't talk about that too much.

But I can absolutely guarantee you that they know exactly how much money they lose to theft. They know that hiring and catering to the lowest class of wage earners maximizes these problems. They know they lose more in theft than any other operation. They factor every dime of that into the cost of their items.

They also pay considerable attention to the distribution costs, including fuel costs. They're quite green in that respect.

Again, you apparently have no idea how hard they work to keep costs low. There are books about it. Remember, they started out servicing rural areas that other big retailers rejected because there "wasn't any money to be made." They didn't do that by running their business like all the others.

There has never been an operation that strived to lower costs by running as efficiently as Wal-Mart does.

Personally I find it a nothing short of a miracle that Wal-Mart even manages to get people to even show up to work, but they do.

"Squeezing their employees.." sob! Go run a business, then come back and talk to me. Asking somebody to run items across a scanner and put them in a bag isn't anything special. When RFID grabs hold, those people will be wishing they had those jobs back, because stocking shelves doesn't pay better.

Actually I just went to Wallmart this afternoon. I did notice all the cameras in the roof. I never paid attention to them before. Yes Wallmart may track all of its costs, but I know a lot of incompetent employees work there and give alot a stuff away, probably by mistake. I then think how these mistakes are multiplied by all the stores in the chain and think what a large number that is.

On a lighter note.
The story about the college kid living in Walmart over springbreak was funny.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12061682/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zmd7WKlwkE

[Fox McCloud]

anti-union behavior.

Um....I don't think you'll find unions very popular in this forum.

In essence, in most cases, unions have the result of the workers telling the business owner how to operate things, and not the business owner running things as he pleases.

While I don't always like all of Wal*Mart's practices (I'm not making a decision on this particular incident until I see all the evidence), but I proudly praise them for not allowing unions.

[brianewart]

I'm so sick of people saying "company X has billions they don't need all that money, I deserve some of it".... People need to have more respect for the property rights of others, even if they're large corporations. This socialized/legalized theft of property from others needs to stop.

Correct. In fact, that is kind of what Ron Paul is all about.

[angelatc]

I read on another forum that insurers are actually required by law to sue to recover costs in incidents like this.

[Caulfield]

I hate those greedy corporate bastards.

Wow. Like socialism much?

[PennCustom4RP]

Wal-mart caved into public bitching and gave in, dropping their lawsuit to recover these monies from the disabled woman. Was on CNN AC360...I'm sure the headline will follow.

[amy31416]

Wal-mart caved into public bitching and gave in, dropping their lawsuit to recover these monies from the disabled woman. Was on CNN AC360...I'm sure the headline will follow.

I think that was actually smart on Wal-Mart's part, whether it was right or wrong on paper--that's one way that the public exercises their control in a free market. That's the way we get companies to stop polluting, that's how we get them to be responsible.

I agree that the official law allowed them to recoup their money, but it would have been stupid because they would have lost more in public opinion and therefore, possibly more than the $400k or so in sales and attorney fees.

Now, I'm going to go slip on something in Wal-Mart and get mine. ;)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Wow. Like socialism much?

Corporations are not natural elements of a truly free market. So you can take your corporatism and shut it up your ass.

[coyote_sprit]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/walmart.decision/index.html