Wal-Mart Changes Its Mind

No Kidding!

Well now the answer is right there, many thanks for the update Liz.

Two excerpts from the Wal-Mart statement...

"Our current plan doesn't give us much flexibility.." [Alrighty then]

"We have decided to modify our plan" [Um, but didn't you just say--no less than two sentences ago--that the plan wasn't flexible?]

Now that's an unapology to end all unapologies.

Disgusting corporate behavior.

Thank Jeebus I live in an area where Wal-Mart has virtually no presence in the local marketplace; it makes a boycott of their goods and services so much simpler.

YoungMC of PA @ Apr 05, 2008 02:56:28 AM

Wal-Mart statement

Here is Wal-Mart's statement on the Shank case:

"Occasionally others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times. We have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation. Our current plan doesn't give us much flexibility, so we began reviewing the guidelines for the trust that pays medical costs for our associates and their family members.

We wanted to understand the ongoing impact of any potential changes to the trust, and ensure that any action we take is in the best interests of our associates and their family members who participate in and contribute to our plan. We have decided to modify our plan to allow us more discretion for individual cases, and are in the final stages of working out the details.

Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with the family to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care.

We are sorry for any additional stress this has put on the Shank family."

Liz Wolgemuth of DC @ Apr 04, 2008 11:42:47 AM

Debbie Shank

Think of it this way. You back into your neighbors auto and do $1,000 damage for which you write a $1,000 check to your neighbor with the understanding that if your neighbor gets paid from any other source he will reimburse you the $1,000. Your neighbor then files a claim for the damage with your insurance company and gets another $1,000. The neighbor keeps both your money and the insurance companie's money. That is what happened in the Shank case. Simple case that happens everyday. Wal-Mart was correct as proved in all the courts up to the Supreme Court, but made a business decision to let the people keep the money. dh

D Hughes of TX @ Apr 03, 2008 13:30:35 PM

Debbie Shank case.

The only situations that make the Wal-Mart = Debbie Shank case unique are that the MSM media got wind of it , a member of the family recently was killed in Iraq, Ms. shank is now brain damaged and it involved the world's largest retailer and one of the richest families, if not dthe richest family in in the Universe. Subrogation is common in most group plans sponsored by employers. Is it right? Legally, yes. Is it morally reprehensible? Depends upon the circumstances.

Consider the economic system of the nation. Corporations are chartered by the States. One of the provisions of such charters is that the Corporation's fiduciary responsibility is to the stockholders, not the state issuing the charter, nor to the non-stockholder citizens of the state, nor to the non stock holder employees of the corporation.

Consider also that Ms. Shank lost her case in a court of law where the Wal-Mart Corporation had "standing" as a "person". That is somthing that is morally reprehensible and has been ever since the phoney "non-decision" decision made by the corporation bought and paid for U.S. Supreme Court in

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Company 118 U.S. 394 (1886)

The Skeptical Cynic of NH @ Apr 03, 2008 12:11:29 PM

Debbie Shank

I was completely outraged by this case. Prior to it coming to light I was not a supporter of Wal-Mart based on what I knew of the healthcare plan implimented for it's employees. I believe that this is simply another sad and disgusting example of a " corporation gone mad". While Wal-Mart has been a major money maker for some time I beleive that every dog has it's day. I being an average american citizen by no means claim to be able to take on the likes of such a company. But I can and will continue to make my stance known by not patronizing their business with one single, hard earned dollar of my money. Further, I share my sentiment with anyone in my hearing who will listen.

Yvette of GA @ Apr 03, 2008 11:09:59 AM

Nice Move

I wrote to Wal-Mart via their website. Those of you that are detractors will never be satisfied. They changed their mind. They looked at an individual situation and did what is right. Why can't that be applauded? What is wrong with letting them know that they made the right call? Because they are big? Because the Walton family is wealthy? If nothing else it shows that they are aware of their responsibility to people.

Sam Walton wrote that the customer is the boss and the boss can fire anybody in the company from the ceo on down by shopping somewhere else. Great customer service advice. I will continue to be a Wal Mart shopper and proudly defend them as a classic example of great American capitalism at work

Pat of WA @ Apr 02, 2008 21:23:29 PM

Compliment? Say Wha?

A corporate monolith yielding to pressure to do the right thing for one of their now-disabled and grief-stricken employees is praiseworthy?

And people wonder why this country is in such a tailspin.

I really don't think that kudos or pats on the back need to be given to individuals or corporations every time they do the right thing, most especially after being coerced into pulling an abrupt about-face when they were clearly about to do the wrong thing.

Say for example you go to a Wal-Mart store and buy a package of undershirts and when you get home you open them and realize they are the wrong size. You go back the next day to Wal-Mart to exchange them for the proper size. After dealing with an employee and a manager you are told that because you opened the package their policy is can't make a return or exchange. You express your frustration and now other customers come to your defense and the next thing you know, the manager balks, taking back the wrong-sized items and giving you the comparable package of correct-fitting shirts that you sought in the first place.

Do you really, honestly, think that the crowd of people should break into applause and give their thanks and praise to the Wal-Mart manager and employee for ultimately doing the right thing?

Give me a break.

If it weren't for the "blogs like this" that "yesterday were excoriating Wal-Mart in this space," then the right thing never would have been done.

Look, this is precisely what the Fourth Estate is for-writers and journalists are by no means required to thank the institutions that they critique when said institutions heed their calls. On the contrary, they would only dilute their future work if they handed out such unworthy praise.

YoungMC of PA @ Apr 02, 2008 16:09:12 PM

Good gravy.....

Let's be really brutally honest about this - the ONLY reason wal-mart backpedaled was because they were getting skewered on EVERY cable network news and Network news reports, in addition to the internet. They would not have done this, otherwise.

Let's also be really honest about another fact - absolutely NO MEMBER of the Walton family (Sam's Kids), stepped up to offer to help this woman and her family. It's really shameful. Collectively they are worth what....over $30 Billion?

Wal Mart, and the Walton family are PATHETIC excuses for corporate citizens, and take no interest in their employee's well being. They can issue are the PR to the contrary, but let's be really honest - their true colors came through in this instance.

Lee Scott, and other senior executives need to have bad things happen in their lives, maybe then they will develop some empathy. Until then, they are pathetic excuses for humans beings.....they are really worthless people

Steve of TX @ Apr 02, 2008 16:07:10 PM