Just one of the many ways Wal-Mart cheats the world and passes the savings on to you.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by JayP

It's just a sob story with no wrong-doing by Wal-Mart. This is proven by this:

"This girl needs the money more than they do"

They know that Wal-Mart is doing nothing wrong, but they still want them to bend the rules for them.

I'm sure I could walk into any Wal-Mart in Calgary and find employees who need Wal-Mart's profits more than the executives. It doesn't mean they should get it.

###. I absolutely hate people who make arguements to me on the basis of a person or company has a lot of money and that someone who has little amounts of money somehow has some sort of "Social Justice" right to that wealth. Absolute BS. If equal outcome was the goal of society then nothing would ever get done.

[Ford Prefect]

Wal-Mart does stuff like this all the time. Try Googling "Wal-Mart dead peasants insurance" and you'll find lots of links like this:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...nce/P64954.asp

What a wonderful corporate culture. They're not alone though ... Disney, Dow, Proctor & Gamble, Cadbury ... they all do stuff like that.

These life insurance policies are a real winner for corporations. Not only do they cash in when the night janitor kicks the bucket, but in the meantime the premiums are a write-off, plus they can secure credit using the life insurance policies, and then write off the interest on these loans. It's great for business. However, the practice always reminds me of some lyrics from a John Lennon song ... "There's room at the top they are telling you still, but first you must to learn how to smile as you kill, if you want be like the folks on the hill."

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Wal-Mart does stuff like this all the time. Try Googling "Wal-Mart dead peasants insurance" and you'll find lots of links like this:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...nce/P64954.asp

What a wonderful corporate culture. They're not alone though ... Disney, Dow, Proctor & Gamble, Cadbury ... they all do stuff like that.

Of course they do. They are public companies. There are laws in place that demand that public companies watch their dollars and cents properly. Even if the CEO of WalMart was having a nice rosy day and wanted to let this slide, he'd be explaining it to a security commission.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Wal-Mart does stuff like this all the time. Try Googling "Wal-Mart dead peasants insurance" and you'll find lots of links like this:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...nce/P64954.asp

What a wonderful corporate culture. They're not alone though ... Disney, Dow, Proctor & Gamble, Cadbury ... they all do stuff like that.

Yeah but keep in mind that the insurance companies providing such insurance need to make money selling those policies. Meaning that corporate America is actually net down after paying premiums for these policies. The reason why they use them is because some people in a company do many times more productive work than the typical hire who would replace them. By taking out life insurance on their life it ensures that should their star salesman die unexpectedly they can recoup some of that lost productivity that won't be replaced by someone else. It in no way takes away anything from employees.

[Ford Prefect]

4X4 and Cowboy ... absolutely. It's a sound business practice and perfectly legal in most jurisdictions. But legal doesn't make it ethical. Each to their own, it's a free country and all that. And I'm free to not shop at Wal-Mart, which is a freedom I practice as a result of their ethics and corporate culture.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

4X4 and Cowboy ... absolutely. It's a sound business practice and perfectly legal in most jurisdictions. But legal doesn't make it ethical. Each to their own, it's a free country and all that. And I'm free to not shop at Wal-Mart, which is a freedom I practice as a result of their ethics and corporate culture.

Certainly. But double dipping isn't ethical either.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Certainly. But double dipping isn't ethical either.

Sorry, I'm missing your point.

[MarchHare]

Its because people are jealous of success that is not their own. If these people that hate Wal-Marrt so much owned one and saw the profits, I don't think they would hate them so much. People have a choice to not buy from there or buy big company products but they do it anyways and still complain.

That has nothing at all to do with it. I'm not jealous of Wal-Mart's success, but I don't give them my business because I don't believe they're an ethical company. Their poor corporate citizenship has been documented far and wide (although I agree that in this particular case Wal-Mart has done nothing wrong). Likewise with Sony; I stopped giving them my business after last year's DRM rootkit fiasco.

It's entirely possible -- and indeed, it's desirable -- for companies to be both successful financially while at the same time exhibiting ethical behaviour and being good corporate citizens.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Sorry, I'm missing your point.

He's referring to the fact that the woman in the article won a $700 000 settlement to pay for her medical expenses, but still wanted Wal-Mart to pay $470 000 for the medical expenses.

It's not too ethical to want to pocket a couple hundred thousand dollars when it's supposed to go for treatment.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

What again is the problem. The chick should be lucky that Walmart paid for the medical expenses to begin with. Its not WalMart's fault she didnt sue for more or have legal expenses paid on top of settlement.

Actually, she had medical insurance coverage through Walmart, and that company was the one who paid her medical bills. It was not luck, but a requirement of the health insurance company who had her enrolled as a member that got her the money.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Actually, she had medical insurance coverage through Walmart, and that company was the one who paid her medical bills. It was not luck, but a requirement of the health insurance company who had her enrolled as a member that got her the money.

and she's lucky she had that.

the settlement she made through the courts was to cover the medical bills so the insurance company is no longer on the hook and want their cash back. it's even in the deal - no real surprise on this one...
her lawyer shoulda sued for more if she was looking for more than her basic medical expenses.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Actually, she had medical insurance coverage through Walmart, and that company was the one who paid her medical bills. It was not luck, but a requirement of the health insurance company who had her enrolled as a member that got her the money.

It's lucky because most companies don't do this. Judging by the massive payout, I would think Wal-Mart's benefits policy is actually better than some of the other giant retailers.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

What again is the problem. The chick should be lucky that Walmart paid for the medical expenses to begin with. Its not WalMart's fault she didnt sue for more or have legal expenses paid on top of settlement.

If Wal Mart wanted their money so bad why didn't they sue on behalf of the family to get it's money back?

They've got the money to get good lawyers and could have got their money and some extra to help pay for the families on going medical expenses.

Instead they wait until the family sued so they could then sue the family?

Makes no sense to me.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Dion

If Wal Mart wanted their money so bad why didn't they sue on behalf of the family to get it's money back?

They've got the money to get good lawyers and could have got their money and some extra to help pay for the families on going medical expenses.

Instead they wait until the family sued so they could then sue the family?

Makes no sense to me.

OR since she had a pretty good case, don't hire a lawyer that charges $25/hr. Why should Wal-Mart waste their lawyers and money fighting for her?

The lawyer is the biggest problem in this, he should have checked into this clause so he could have gotten more money. I am sure the judge would have understood the circumstances.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by JayP

He's referring to the fact that the woman in the article won a $700 000 settlement to pay for her medical expenses, but still wanted Wal-Mart to pay $470 000 for the medical expenses.

It's not too ethical to want to pocket a couple hundred thousand dollars when it's supposed to go for treatment.

Gotcha. I had tunnel vision on the dead peasants insurance and didn't connect the dots.

And I agree ... I wasn't trying to defend that lady at all. Although it would be interesting to know whether the woman's $700,000 settlement was for medical expenses or compensation for her disability. If it was was medical expenses then Wal-Mart had every right to recoup it. But if it was compensation for her disability then I think Wal-Mart is being a sleaze bag about it.

I just don't care for Wal-Mart's corporate culture and was attacking that by bringing up the dead peasants insurance thing.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HOOT

OR since she had a pretty good case, don't hire a lawyer that charges $25/hr. Why should Wal-Mart waste their lawyers and money fighting for her?

She shouldn't have sued at all. It was never her money to begin with.

Wal Mart could have stepped up and sued the trucking company themselves, and recouped their costs. They didn't, and she did. So they sue her. You don't see anything wrong with that?

In the meantime, left out of all this, what about her future medical costs? No one - not the trucking company, not Wal-Mart - will cover those. She has medical problems facing her the rest of her life. And Wal Mart will make the $470,000 look like pennies.

The lawyer is the biggest problem in this, he should have checked into this clause so he could have gotten more money. I am sure the judge would have understood the circumstances.

From what I read the lawyer knew of this clause.

The judges wasn't very understanding at all. Wal Mart ended up getting more than the money they were owed. The family had to pay all of Wal Marts legal costs.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

And I agree ... I wasn't trying to defend that lady at all. Although it would be interesting to know whether the woman's $700,000 settlement was for medical expenses or compensation for her disability. If it was was medical expenses then Wal-Mart had every right to recoup it. But if it was compensation for her disability then I think Wal-Mart is being a sleaze bag about it.

The money was put in a trust fund to help pay her future medical bills. She's permanently disabled with a brain injury.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Dion

If Wal Mart wanted their money so bad why didn't they sue on behalf of the family to get it's money back?

They've got the money to get good lawyers and could have got their money and some extra to help pay for the families on going medical expenses.

Instead they wait until the family sued so they could then sue the family?

Makes no sense to me.

Why would they. Its a clause in the contract. The chick sued for pain and suffering and likely medical expenses (I cant believe she only got 750k, she should have got that for p&s alone) which she didnt have to pay. Walmart paid that so their health company goes to recoup monies owed. They did that so they can offer other easily replaceable company positions health insurance for injuries sustained where they dont have financial gain and where Walmart cannot recoup their costs.

Again, she should be extremely lucky that someone in her position (a stock boy basically) gets health insurance. Walmart should be praised for offering that to easily replaceable shift workers. Private buisness owners in the US dont get free health insurance, and from what I can tell working with a US based company, most full time staff dont get full coverage, they get something similar to auto insurance up here where there is a deductible which is why some people opt to go to state hospitals for minor injuries which charge under the average deductable amount.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Why would they. Its a clause in the contract. The chick sued for pain and suffering and likely medical expenses (I cant believe she only got 750k, she should have got that for p&s alone) which she didnt have to pay. Walmart paid that so their health company goes to recoup monies owed. They did that so they can offer other easily replaceable company positions health insurance for injuries sustained where they dont have financial gain and where Walmart cannot recoup their costs.

I know it's a clause in the contract.

Why didn't Wal Marts health company sue the trucking company on her behalf to get their money and maybe a little extra to cover this mothers future heath care costs associated with her permanent disability? They probably have the best lawyers available as compared to what the family could get.

Again, she should be extremely lucky that someone in her position (a stock boy basically) gets health insurance. Walmart should be praised for offering that to easily replaceable shift workers. Private buisness owners in the US dont get free health insurance, and from what I can tell working with a US based company, most full time staff dont get full coverage, they get something similar to auto insurance up here where there is a deductible which is why some people opt to go to state hospitals for minor injuries which charge under the average deductable amount.

That health insurance she got isn't doing her a load of good now - she has none now. She has to rely on Medicad, her social security, and a single womans benefit she gets as her husband was told to divorce her so she could get it. Too bad Wal Mart didn't offer a long term disability plan.

[urban1]

I hate shopping at Walmart and consequently try to shop there as little as possible. Maybe 2 or 3 times a year. The place is a zoo and dont even try to go to any of the ones in the east side of Calgary - it feels like your in a different city - like it could be a show on Showcase.