Walmart Shameful - Boycott Them

[ParanoiA]

Damn Phi, you're a freakin' natural at this.

[doG]

What's wrong with shaming folks into nobility?

 

It's blackmail and blackmail is wrong even if its done for the right reason. Blackmail does not make the victim noble either. Wal-Mart is not at fault, her attorney is. Wal-Mart has done nothing to be ashamed of, her attorney has.

[Phi for All]

It's blackmail and blackmail is wrong even if its done for the right reason. Blackmail does not make the victim noble either. Wal-Mart is not at fault, her attorney is. Wal-Mart has done nothing to be ashamed of, her attorney has.

I can see where you're coming from on the Walmart deal. Boycotting may not be the best solution in this instance but I certainly don't see boycotting as blackmail. Does that mean I'm blackmailing the barber shop that made me wait for 40 minutes when they said it would be only 10 when I decide not to give them my business until they fix their policy?

 

Blackmail would be taking something that belonged to them by threatening. No corporation has a right to my patronage, my thrift-store dollars don't belong to Walmart. They earn that right and they get good word-of-mouth when they do. And when they earn my displeasure through shoddy practices they earn bad word-of-mouth. If I can organize how that bad press is spread it still doesn't make it blackmail.

[doG]

Blackmail would be taking something that belonged to them by threatening.

 

Using a boycott to tarnish their public image and to cause them to lose business is not taking something from them? Threatening to do so if they won't give up what is rightfully theirs is not blackmail?

[ParanoiA]

It's blackmail and blackmail is wrong even if its done for the right reason. Blackmail does not make the victim noble either. Wal-Mart is not at fault, her attorney is. Wal-Mart has done nothing to be ashamed of, her attorney has.

 

Why is the attorney to blame then? Their rates were fully understood before litigation began. How much work did they put into getting that settlement for them? Rates for lawyers have long been understood to be extremely high, and it's become a given - hell, that's why I missed it. What expenses does the attorney have? Is this his only case that he worked on exclusively, for years and years? How do you know he didn't earn every dime?

 

We can do this all day. The point is, as a consumer I don't have to be rational or fair in what I ask for. Why should the bus staff clean up after you at the restaraunt? YOU made the mess. YOUR kids threw food on the floor. But you can bet your bottom dollar that I will not go to a restaraunt that makes me clean the table first, or sits me at a dirty one.

 

They knew they were taking her last dollar. I don't care how you label it to make it easier to sleep at night, but they devastated her account and they know it.

[doG]

Why is the attorney to blame then?

 

It's the attorney's job to protect the interests of the client. The attorney should have been aware of the routine clause in the policy from Wal-Mart and should have covered that in the settlement so that his/her client would not be open to further litigation against the very settlement they negotiated. This attorney did not cover the clients vulnerability to further liability and the victim here should really see another attorney about it. She might find herself entitled to a good piece of what that attorney took for himself. Perhaps someone over at the FindLaw Boards could provide more detail.

[Phi for All]

Using a boycott to tarnish their public image and to cause them to lose business is not taking something from them? Threatening to do so if they won't give up what is rightfully theirs is not blackmail?

If enough of us think their public image is ill-gotten, don't we have a duty as citizens of a free-market society, and as citizens of a country that holds free speech as an inalienable right, to speak out en masse about it? We're fractured on some things but on many issues we all want more accountability and representation. We don't band together enough as a country so minor and not-so-minor atrocities happen too often.

[ParanoiA]

It's the attorney's job to protect the interests of the client. The attorney should have been aware of the routine clause in the policy from Wal-Mart and should have covered that in the settlement so that his/her client would not be open to further litigation against the very settlement they negotiated. This attorney did not cover the clients vulnerability to further liability and the victim here should really see another attorney about it. She might find herself entitled to a good piece of what that attorney took for himself. Perhaps someone over at the FindLaw Boards could provide more detail.

 

Good point. Your posts have certainly changed the direction of blame, but I still don't let Walmart off the hook here. I think the attorney's are certainly more to blame at this point. But I'm not excusing a billion dollar company from wiping their fund, no matter the consequences.

[doG]

If enough of us think their public image is ill-gotten, don't we have a duty as citizens of a free-market society, and as citizens of a country that holds free speech as an inalienable right, to speak out en masse about it? We're fractured on some things but on many issues we all want more accountability and representation. We don't band together enough as a country so minor and not-so-minor atrocities happen too often.

 

None of that has anything to do with the case we've been discussing. They not acquired and good or bad image because of this case and threatening them with boycotts for not surrendering their own rights is wrong. You want more accountability? Get it from the ambulance chasing personal injury attorney that should have known what he was doing when he negotiated the settlement, not the big bad evil rich guy that wants nothing more than to enjoy his rights the same as you.

 

Good point. Your posts have certainly changed the direction of blame, but I still don't let Walmart off the hook here.

 

What exactly are they on the hook for in the first place? Standing up for their rights? Is that somehow unAmerican? Wal-Mart didn't do anything wrong so why should they be accountable?

[abateNth]

The surname being odd, I searched. Now, if true, I'm pretty sure it was a computer generated glitch. And, will most likely be circumvented.

 

After a little extra prompting, USSearch yielded no Shanks in Missouri.

Not to say she/they aren't there, but it just seems odd. It's not really company policy to do the practice what some call 'retro-'. Where they go back and hold you responsible for claims.

 

Sad, in form it is. But, the name: Shank. And, the fact it's ill-reported.

I won't feel bad if I'm wrong. And would stand for it to be corrected. I'd support that their complaint box be filled until it overflows. And, demands be made locally to use sympathy in this case. It's just so, I don't know, odd...

[CDarwin]

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.[/Quote]

 

He had a point when he talked about Wal-Mart being a publicly traded company, though. There are some things the company has to do by law to maximize the return to its shareholders. I'm not sure if this is one of them or not. You'd have to ask a corporate attorney, I suppose.

 

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.

 

I refer back to my earlier remark. If the religious conservatives, perhaps the best organized block of people in the American political sphere, couldn't mount an effective boycott of Wal-Mart, could bloggers really do it?

[Dak]

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the contract with wallmart look like it essentially guarantees a certain amount of money? i.e., if you get injured and can't sue for damages, wallmart will provide $x; if you can sue for < $x, wallmart will top it up to $x; if you get $x, wallmart will give you nothing; thus guaranteeing you $x.

 

wallmart gave her the money, she sued for a similar amount, now wallmart take their money back. their guarantee that she'll recieve $x has been fulfilled, as she has recieved $x (not only that, but she didn't have to wait for it, as wallmart provided it to her before the case had been completed).

 

I'm with doG here: i really don't see what wallmart are supposed to have done wrong.

[ParanoiA]

wallmart gave her the money, she sued for a similar amount, now wallmart take their money back. their guarantee that she'll recieve $x has been fulfilled, as she has recieved $x (not only that, but she didn't have to wait for it, as wallmart provided it to her before the case had been completed).

 

You're correct. Except the money she received was earmarked and restricted for her long term care. It's not like Walmart paid out X dollars, then she litigates for X dollars and keeps it while Walmart continues to pay her medical expense. As far as we know anyway, she has no medical coverage now that she can't work for the company and so that money was set aside to cover that. Is it Walmart's money? Absolutely. I'm simply choosing to see the difference between "party money" that one hasn't earned and doesn't deserve, and "survival money" that one hasn't earned, but deserves.

 

Remember we're not talking legally (not saying you are, just being clear). The contract seals the deal and there are good reasons for the clause, and I'm not proposing that clause be removed either. Nothing about this situation should change except that lawyers should actually look out for their client, and billion dollar companies shouldn't rationalize wiping someone's long term care fund, leaving them broke.

 

What did Walmart do wrong? Nothing, if they weren't a billion dollar company. The fact they are is what makes this sick. I want to shame corporate america into being better citizens and quit using "that's business" to excuse the obvious - rich entity uses its legal rights to squash the helpless. I'm not talking about putting someone out of business in the exercise of entrepreneurial discourse, I'm talking about taking someone's last dime being used for their healthcare for their ruined life.

 

Consumers are the only possible conscience for capitalism. And like I said, perhaps a boycott isn't the right response, but rather a persuasive effort to do business with a more noble class of corporate business. Although, it's going to look pretty much the same.

 

He had a point when he talked about Wal-Mart being a publicly traded company, though. There are some things the company has to do by law to maximize the return to its shareholders. I'm not sure if this is one of them or not. You'd have to ask a corporate attorney, I suppose.

 

That may well be the case. Although it changes little since I doubt Walmart CAN'T step in and offer her medical coverage. That would be a noble move that maintains legal parity and still doesn't result in the taxpayers covering her healthcare now that she's broke and Walmart has their money. Hell, for all I know, they've done that. CNN isn't going to paint the best picture on this.

[Phi for All]

None of that has anything to do with the case we've been discussing. They not acquired and good or bad image because of this case and threatening them with boycotts for not surrendering their own rights is wrong. You want more accountability? Get it from the ambulance chasing personal injury attorney that should have known what he was doing when he negotiated the settlement, not the big bad evil rich guy that wants nothing more than to enjoy his rights the same as you.

You've done a great job arguing your stance, doG. You deserve a reputation bone. As you can see, you've argued me off the Walmart boycott stance. I can see where ParanoiA's coming from but Walmart, in this instance, isn't really eligible for the kind of boycott I'd like to see. The horrors of the US healthcare system aren't all Walmart's fault. I truly hope Walmart and the lawyers recognize what an exception in this case would mean to Debbie Shanks and her family.

 

And truth to tell, I'm really not looking for a boycott so much as a coming together of the American people to correct injustices in our daily lives by recognizing the power of our collective voice. We've been fragmented too long and I think there has been active efforts to keep us that way. We're a big country for a democracy and our numbers should be scarier than they are.

[Dak]

You're correct. Except the money she received was earmarked and restricted for her long term care. It's not like Walmart paid out X dollars, then she litigates for X dollars and keeps it while Walmart continues to pay her medical expense. As far as we know anyway, she has no medical coverage now that she can't work for the company and so that money was set aside to cover that. Is it Walmart's money? Absolutely. I'm simply choosing to see the difference between "party money" that one hasn't earned and doesn't deserve, and "survival money" that one hasn't earned, but deserves.

 

otoh, (rounding off alot for convienience):

 

wallmart had given her $500,000 medical fees

the judge decided that she deserved $1,000,000

the truck company gave her $1,000,000

wallmart want to reclaim the $500,000 medical fees they have payed.

 

she should be left with $500,000+$1,000,000-$500,000 == enough to cover her medical fees (according to the judge).

 

however, once you factor in the $600,000 legal fees she's left short; so, she needs to keep the wallmart money to counter her legal fees. should wallmart effectively pay her (extortionate) legal fees? should the truck company pay her (extortionate) legal fees? or should she, the one who chose to use an extortionate legal representative?

 

basically, the way i see it either she/wallmart should sue the truck company for legal fees, or she/wallmart should sue the lawyer for charging too much/giving poor advice. either way, i don't see how wallmart should foot the bill when she obviously payed far more than is neccesary for legal advice (which, i assume, is why the trucking company weren't forced to pay the bill).

 

btw, wallmart doing either of the above would sort the problem out without wallmart having to pay out money they don't owe and thus setting precedent -- wallmart would reclaim their $500,000, she'd still have the full $1,000,000 medical fees she needs (after a $600,000 refund from the lawyer/truck company), and the lawyer or truck company would have less money (serves him/them right).

 

 

Remember we're not talking legally (not saying you are, just being clear).

 

meh. some of the worst things companies do are 100% legal.

[LookUp2]

I think it would be different if this woman was able to work again. The injuries she suffered place her beyond this and into permanently disabled.

 

" 2) They didn't get what they asked for because the company's liability insurance only went up to $1 million. The award was based on percentages...i.e. a percentage of her past medical care was reimbursed. The rest of the money was designated as a percentage of her future care.

 

The lawyer's argument is that Walmart should be fair by taking the percentage that was designated as covering her past medical care rather than taking everything including her future care."

 

More info here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/29/114727/472/212/485916

 

So now shes in a nursing home, on medicade and chances are pretty good her ex-husband will lose the home to pay future nursing care. Then it will be the taxpayers who fund her care. The amount of money Walmart recouped is less than 3 weeks worth of CEO pay and options (2006).

 

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/12/lead_07ceos_H-Lee-Scott-Jr_TWC3.html

 

The other part of this is this particular family may have been better off being uninsured. Does anyone really think that is good for America as a whole?

[LookUp2]

"The world's largest retailer said Tuesday in a letter to the family of Deborah Shank it will not seek to collect money the Shanks won in an injury lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident.

 

Wal-Mart has been roundly criticized in newspaper editorials, on cable news shows and by its union foes for its claim to the funds, which it made in a lawsuit upheld by a federal appeals court."

 

Story here:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-24188519.htm

[ParanoiA]

Hey, that's cool. Now I'll reward Walmart with my business.

[CDarwin]

Does this mean I get to count the last month or so that I haven't happened to go to Wal-Mart as a boycott?

[Phi for All]

You forgot this part of the story:

"Alarmed by talks of boycotting from blue-ribbon internet forums like SFN, Wal-Mart executives recognized the need for subjective screening of their more stringent policies. They responded with pleased grins when told that ParanoiA had subsided."