Just when you think Wal-Mart can't stoop any lower.....

[Purge]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Unreal.

[ProfessorChaos]

that should be entitled "corporate greed at it's finest".

a lot of people i know are super-opposed to wal-mart and never shop there due to the company's treatment of their workers. i still go there cuz i'm a broke-ass student who likes to save some bread.

pretty crappy way to treat a person, regardless. what i find most sad about this story is the fact that she has to keep being told that her son died in iraq. it really boggles my mind as to why her family just doesn't let her continue to think that he's still serving his tour...at least it'd save her the heartache, and they'd not have to witness it...again....and again....and again.

[bassman]

I feel sorry for the family. I really do. But maybe they should have read the agreement before they signed it?:eek:

[zombiegirl]

It is true that this woman should have read the fine print to the policy that she signed but at the same time how many of us would? It's insurance that is supposed to protect us when we need it. Isn't that why she paid the premiums? Who would ever think A billion dollar company would want monies awarded back since premiums were paid?
More importantly we know that walmart employees make little over minimum wage. It hires people from poor small town communities who live paycheck to paycheck and are not schooled in legal wording or accustomed to looking for insurance clauses such as this. Heck I don't think anything like that would even occur to me when i'm signing insurance papers. Now I want to go reread my policy. (I don't work for wally)
I guess the point I'm trying to make is walmart attornies probably count on this very thing. They expect most won't read that fine print. they collect the premiums, meanwhile knowing that they can recollect on monies it has to pay out. This is a corporation that is known for killing small town business with lower prices until all competition is gone and then raising the prices back up. Why not screw over the employees too. Especially when it's all legal.
Companies now have no moral code. Bottom line is profit, especially walmart. Would it hurt this company to take care of it's employee by doing the right thing? No it could only improve it's image. Should it take care of her? Of coarse. It's the moral and just thing to do in my opinion. Obviously walmart does not care about this though because it knows it has it's consumers and will continue to make it's profit because there is no where else for it's small town consmers to shop since it put all it's competition out of business already.

rant over. :rant:

[Marie]

Companies now have no moral code. Bottom line is profit, especially walmart.

Was it ever any different? Workers, like everything else, are a resorce. SKILLED workers who keep their skills up to date are worth more to a company. Walmart is giving employment to unskilled people, so they pay less for labor. Good or Bad, they sign the paychecks.:stunned:

M_

[bassman]

It is true that this woman should have read the fine print to the policy that she signed but at the same time how many of us would?


*slowly raises hand and nervously looks around the room*

I sign NOTHING without reading it thoroughly. When you just assume it's okay to sign.....that's when they get ya. I won't even sign a two dollar receipt from Taco Bell without reading it over...

[zombiegirl]

Yes they do give jobs to unskilled laborers but that isn't the issue I was drawing point to. It's my opinion that walmart is selling it's own crappy insurance to it's employees while knowing it's crappy and also knowing that most won't know it's crappy until the times comes that they either 1. need it or 2. recieve some type of settlement such as this lady.

My point is that walmart is taking advantage of the socioeconomic disadvantages (which they help along by putting local business out of business) of poor rural employees which in my opinion is completely immoral.

[Marie]

My point is that walmart is taking advantage of the socioeconomic disadvantages (which they help along by putting local business out of business) of poor rural employees which in my opinion is completely immoral.

And MY point is, NO company is bound by morality. Sometimes we wish they were, and that's laudable, but in the end, Walmart is a soul sucking behemoth who got big by selling things at lower prices then the local businesses. People WANT things at lower prices, the number of people who won't buy at Walmart because of this or the other times they've screwed their employees or even the public is insignificant.

This gets the attenion that it does because Walmart is the biggest bad boy on the block FOR NOW. Next week most people won't even remember the story as they buy the cheap Chinese made crapola that Walmart offers.

Remember the "Sucking sound" that was the sound of jobs leaving the country? It's pretty loud at Walmart.

M_

[zombiegirl]

NO company is bound by morality

That is precisely it. The real Question is why don't we have a better checks and balances for these giant corporations? They can pretty well get away with anything short of murder. We the consumers need to demand these giant corporations be held accountable for deplorable actions. What ever happened to boycotts and picket lines. Where did the unions go that fought for employee rights? When has quiet acceptance become the american way of life?

[capncnut]

We don't have Walmart's here in the UK, and from what I hear about them that's a good thing. I've been told they stink of B.O. and chewy tobacco. :D


I feel sorry for the family. I really do. But maybe they should have read the agreement before they signed it?:eek:
Precisely what I was going to say, Bass.