This story has me disgusted...
From MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann (Worst Person):
Nearly eight years ago, a Wal-Mart shelf stocker in Missouri got broad sided by a semi. Debra Shank (ph), now 52, is now brain damaged, in a wheelchair, in a nursing home. She needs 24-hour a day care. She got 700,000 dollars from a settlement from the trucking company. After attorney fees, 417,000 was left for a trust fund to make her shattered life better.
Wal-Mart promptly sued Mrs. Shank for the money, because, says spokesperson Webber, Wal-Mart‘s health plan says, and your company‘s plan may also say this—you better check—if you get really hurt and you receive damages in a settlement, your employer can sue to get back anything it paid you for your treatment.
So they sued this woman who had 417,000 dollars for 470,000 dollars. Contrary to general opinion, Wal-Mart is not owned by the devil. Its stockholders are not uniformly horrible people. The stores often do not destroy and sometimes even improve communities. But you know why people think of Wal-Mart and evil in the same sentence? Because of the crap you guys do like this. Instead of letting this one go and maybe even putting out a press release saying, we take care of our own, maybe you get 470,000 dollars worth of good publicity. No, now you get this.
Wal-Mart‘s profit last year was over 11 billion dollars, including 470,000 dollars it got back from Mrs. Shank, who is, between the truck that hit her and what you amoral Wal-Mart trolls did to her—she is so confused that she doesn‘t really understand that six days after you beat her in court, her 18-year-old son was killed fighting for this country in Iraq.
Wal-Mart, may your stores melt in the hot sun, today‘s Worst Persons in the World.
***
I couldn't agree with Keith more! If this doesn't give you a reason to boycott Wal-mart, nothing will. I will NEVER, EVER, spend another dime at Wal-mart or Sam's Club. They can rot in their karma.
Here's CNN's report on this story: www.CNN.com
1 comment:
Unfortunately the CCN story is incomplete & biased with the intent of stirring controvery. What they left out is a key fact, that being that Wal-Mart had "sent Mr. Shank several notices that he was to inform Wal-Mart's health plan before he settled any suit" (reference Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119551952474798582.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone). The Shanks -- or more specifically their attorney -- should have brought Wal-Mart into the settlement process before settling. It seems the attorney clearly knew Wal-Mart had a stake otherwise why would he have written Wal-Mart a letter afterwards? On the other hand, had the attorney involved Wal-Mart, he wouldn't have received a half million dollars in attorney fees. Want to tell me again who did the Shanks wrong? Why doesn't their attorney offer to give part of his fees to Wal-Mart, or better yet, back to the Shanks who were awarded the money to start with.
Post a Comment