Walmart Shameful - Boycott Them

[ParanoiA]

Walmart is on sound legal ground here, no doubt, but ethically this is wrong, period. I actually haven't been shopping there for years, with an occassional exception, but they've crossed the line here. It would be great to see them lose the $400,000 they insist on collecting from this devistated family, 10 fold, with a national boycott. I only wish I had the cunning, time and energy.

 

Walmart's spokesman uses the good ole "that's business" excuse to abandon ethical behavior. That phrase is a copout used to cancel your moral compass.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html

[Phi for All]

Walmart doesn't want to set a precedent but they'd better think about what this will do to their health plan as well as how their national image will suffer. They should take the Disney approach and keep this out of the courts, take care of the woman and move on.

 

I would like to see a well-organized national boycott take off in the US, just to prove to ourselves that a) it's effective, b) we have a stern economic message for other corporate giants, and c) we can pull together as a country when it's important. We keep forgetting the power of "We, the people" because it's now a race, us vs them, and not about representative government and aware consumerism.

[PhDP]

In some weird way, I sympathize with both the family AND Walmart.

 

...in the first place, it shouldn't be Walmart's job to pay for health care plans, it should be the job of everyone. It's so much easier with an universal, state-owned system

[CDarwin]

In some weird way, I sympathize with both the family AND Walmart.

 

...in the first place, it shouldn't be Walmart's job to pay for health care plans, it should be the job of everyone. It's so much easier with an universal, state-owned system

 

Well being as Wal-Mart's profits come from just about everyone...

 

Maybe we should team up with all the people boycotting Wal-Mart because they said "Happy Holidays."

[doG]

Walmart is on sound legal ground here, no doubt, but ethically this is wrong, period.

 

Why? Would you feel different if the family had won $5 million or $10 million and honored the contract they signed with Wal-Mart? If they let this family off the hook does it set the stage for future employees to sue for discrimination if they're not treated the same? It's bad news but I don't see an ethical problem here.

[LookUp2]

Is wal-mart self-insured? If so, one would think they should sue the trucking company to recoup losses. Insurance companies sue each other for losses all the time. There are so many other legal options for walmart to handle this rather than take the settlement.

[ParanoiA]

Why? Would you feel different if the family had won $5 million or $10 million and honored the contract they signed with Wal-Mart?

 

Yes I absolutely would. That's the whole point, really. The clause makes sense, in that they have a right to get their money back in the event of a settlement. Why should Walmart do without their money while the insured enjoys a multi-million dollar settlement?

 

However, this is not the case here. Here, yes they got a settlement, and it barely covers what it's going to cost to care for her and that settlement is also responsibly set aside just for that purpose. Clearly this is not an employee enjoying a multi-million dollar settlement at Walmart's expense.

 

Remember, I'm not speaking legally here. I would fight for Walmart's right to do this legally, honoring a contract. But I sure can hate them personally, and organize and lobby to destroy them. I will at least do my part to see that they never get another penny from me again.

 

And I haven't even started on that disgusting clause in that contract to begin with. Lack of choice in our current Healthcare joke of a system can be partly blamed for our relative incapacity to shop and demand better terms through competition.

[gcol]

I would like to see a well-organized national boycott take off in the US, just to prove to ourselves that a) it's effective, b) we have a stern economic message for other corporate giants, and c) we can pull together as a country when it's important. We keep forgetting the power of "We, the people" because it's now a race, us vs them, and not about representative government and aware consumerism.

 

I was tempted to paste this into the Tibet thread as an example of a general argument in favour of an Olympic boycott, substituting repressive regimes for corporate giants. But I won't. Unfair, sneaky, and possibly out of context. But the thought sprang to mind, and as I don't have an amnesia pill.........

[doG]

However, this is not the case here. Here, yes they got a settlement, and it barely covers what it's going to cost to care for her and that settlement is also responsibly set aside just for that purpose. Clearly this is not an employee enjoying a multi-million dollar settlement at Walmart's expense.

 

Yes it is. If the family hadn't sued then Wal-Mart could have sued to recoup its expenses since their insured was not at fault. The health care plan it provided the family could bear the expense of providing care. That's the way a lot of car insurance works, your insurance pays for your care if you're in an accident and it sues the other insurance company if their insured is at fault and most policies state in the fine print that if you litigate yourself then they get to recoup their expenses from your settlement.

 

BTW, you missed the question about setting a precedent for future discrimination claims from other employees. Assume for a minute that they let this family keep the money but they go after the next employee in the same situation except the next incident turns out to be a black employee or a latino or some other minority. Could that employee then make a questionable case because they are black, hispanic, etc.? Would a jury of their peers rule in their favor because of the previous precedent? How do you think Wal-Mart's attorney feels about these questions?

 

It would be nice if Wal-Mart felt some moral need to help this family out but "expecting" them to do so is an unreasonable expectation. Charity isn't charity when someone blackmails you for it!

[ParanoiA]

Well, you bring up some good points for sure. I guess I would like to know why they litigated themselves, rather than let Walmart do it. We don't know that the Walmart health insurance plan covered her conditions, or will cover them long term, or even short term for that matter - since she can't even work there in order to receive benefits due to brain damage. In that case, it would appear they sued to get the money needed to care for her.

 

As far as a precedence, I don't really care if some black guy wants to pull the race card and pretend as if this brain damaged employee scenario was legit or not. I do get your point, though, I just say grow some balls and explain it to people. I don't think it would be difficult for people to see the difference between robbing a brain dead woman's only resource for health care and spoiling the fun of a multi million dollar pay out to an employee trying to screw his employer.

 

That said, your points are still well founded.

[swansont]

I gotta agree with doG here. Besides, Wal-Mart is a publicly traded company, and probably has a legal obligation to recover the money. But ParanoiA is free to protest and boycott them for whatever reason. I'll join you.

 

What bothered me the most was "[they] 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."

 

IOW, the lawyers, et. al, scarfed up about half a million dollars. Jeez Louise, how is that justice?

[john5746]

IOW, the lawyers, et. al, scarfed up about half a million dollars. Jeez Louise, how is that justice?

 

 

I agree, IMO either her lawyers or Wal-Mart is at fault. Unless her family was warned that this would happen, they should not be punished. The lawyers should have to pay.

[Pangloss]

I guess they're called "compensatory" damages for a reason, but what's frustrating here is that the award was apparently not enough to cover both her medical care and her long-term needs, especially after "legal fees" were extracted.

 

I think you're boycotting the wrong set of greedy bastards. Let's find out what happened to the $583,000!

[iNow]

Can I state the obvious?

 

 

Boycotts are ineffective against anything larger than your small town mom & pop shop. You will be nothing but an unrecongizhable part of the noise in the chart unless you get others to participate en masse.

[doG]

IMO either her lawyers.....

 

I think the real question is this, "Did her lawyer really act in the client's best interest?" She should ask another attorney if she has a case for legal malpractice...

[ParanoiA]

IOW, the lawyers, et. al, scarfed up about half a million dollars. Jeez Louise, how is that justice?

 

I'm so ashamed, I can't believe I missed this. They took more money than Walmart did, straight off the top. The only defense anyone could mount for them would be that they didn't take her last dime. Walmart is only worse in that regard.

 

So, how do you shame a lawyer? Boycotting Walmart would be effective if it was organized and collaborated on a national level, but how do you effect a lawyer's bottom line? I'm at a loss on that one.

 

I think you're boycotting the wrong set of greedy bastards. Let's find out what happened to the $583,000!

 

I don't agree it's the wrong set, but it certainly isn't the sole set of greedy bastards.

[Phi for All]

I was tempted to paste this into the Tibet thread as an example of a general argument in favour of an Olympic boycott, substituting repressive regimes for corporate giants. But I won't. Unfair, sneaky, and possibly out of context. But the thought sprang to mind, and as I don't have an amnesia pill.........

But there was ample precedent there to make boycotting the Olympics futile. I still wouldn't mind seeing Americans come together for just about anything they feel passionate about, even if it was a boycott of the Olympics. I wouldn't be all that hopeful of its effect on China, but it would sure show some much needed solidarity over here.

 

Can I state the obvious?

 

 

Boycotts are ineffective against anything larger than your small town mom & pop shop. You will be nothing but an unrecongizhable part of the noise in the chart unless you get others to participate en masse.

I think we're assuming that any boycott would be a national one. I agree its the hardest part but I think a true boycott, well-staged and organized, would scare the living crap out of not just Walmart, but every mega-corp with questionable practices. We might even show our reps that we're getting close to boiling on the healthcare issue as well.

 

 

 

So how would you go about putting together an effective national boycott?

[ParanoiA]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Phi on the long term effects of one successful boycott.

[swansont]

So how would you go about putting together an effective national boycott?

 

In this day and age, leveraging the blogosphere would figure prominently, methinks.

[doG]

I'm so ashamed, I can't believe I missed this. They took more money than Walmart did, straight off the top. The only defense anyone could mount for them would be that they didn't take her last dime. Walmart is only worse in that regard.

 

You're still pointing your finger at the wrong bad guy. Wal-Mart did nothing but sign a contract and attempt to enforce it. Their contract contains a routine clause used in the insurance industry about litigation. Wal-Mart's attorneys did their job when they wrote the contract.

 

OTOH, I do not think the insured's attorney can claim that he acted in his own clients best interest. It looks pretty obvious that his own interest had priority. Attempting to punish Wal-Mart for this will do nothing to effect future similar cases.

[Phi for All]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Phi on the long term effects of one successful boycott.

So how would *you* go about starting a boycott?

 

I'd take a page from Gladwell's The Tipping Point and talk to every Connector, Maven and Salesman I know. If I was using this Walmart example I'd work up a single page treatise on the cause and its goal. Start the rumblings and then turn it over to the bloggers after I've set up a website to link to.

 

I think it would be a good idea to let everyone know that this is an experiment, and that if we're successful we'll use this constituency to affect how our representatives in government view the power of the people. I'd truly love to symbolically urinate on the phrase, "You can't fight City Hall".

[ParanoiA]

I simply disagree doG. I think they're plenty rich enough not to exercise their right to take her last dime. I do not believe that the dangers of setting this precedence are enough to justify this. I don't believe she has to be kicked around by a billion dollar company and a team of greedy lawyers for parity's sake. Anyone who tried to use this precedence, had Walmart and the Lawyers done the noble thing, would be on laughably tenuous ground unless they actually shared her scenario.

 

Is that setting them up for more conflict? Maybe. As a consumer I can demand that of them with my wallet. Would it make you feel better if I didn't say "Boycott Walmart" but rather said, "Start shopping at Target"? I'm taking my business to a place of business that has the moral character I prefer. Why not?

 

What's wrong with shaming folks into nobility? Isn't that what we do with our kids when we point out how they've treated someone wrong? If someone refuses to help the proverbial little ole lady cross the street, is it wrong to sneer or shame them?

 

So how would *you* go about starting a boycott?

 

Not really sure. Blogosphere, as someone mentioned, sounds good. Your idea certainly sounds excellent. I've never actually done it outside of my own personal choices. It's a good question.

[iNow]

One has to recognize that the primary customer at wal-mart is not often tapped into the blogosphere. The groups I've seen at nearly every Walmart go there (quite simply) because it's cheap and it's close, and they need to maximize the return on every dollar.

 

To get them to stop going there would require a) a viable alternative (like a target on the next corner), and b) a financial incentive (I'll give you a hundred bucks if you don't shop at wallyworld for the next month... or Target is cheaper... something like that).

 

 

After that, I truly believe our culture is too disjointed and amotivated to be effective in such an approach, and that the population size needed to be effective in this far exceeds the number of people who would actually take it seriously, but I would welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.

[ParanoiA]

Well I agree with your "profiling" here, but we don't need every possible demographic to participate. The bloggers alone would create enough impact to scare the shit out of them. All of us are trying to maximize their dollar, so that would be the toughest sale, that's for sure.

[Phi for All]

We need a website, WeThePeople.org (may be taken) or WeThePeople.net (not taken), where you can sign up as members and discuss amoral business practices and form a national boycott to test the waters (if not Walmart maybe Chevron for sitting on the large format NiMH battery patent). The site could auto email its members daily or weekly to remind them to keep up the boycott.

 

Bloggers would probably love the chance to be thought of as the Paul Reveres of the US "call to arms". Most bloggers attempt to wake us up to new perspectives so this should be ambrosia to them.

 

I'm sure we could get Target or K-Mart* to pay for the website AND give former Walmart customers a discount for supporting the boycott. Come to think of it, in a way a boycott on Walmart would be like a boycott on China. We could flip two birds with one stoning**.

 

 

 

* If it was found that they hadn't done something similar in the past

** Sorry