If you thought that you knew what kind of company Walmart is

[LePaul]

Sorry, Sled, based on your beleifs, you are Conservative Republican! 

Course that also depends on your view on taxation.

[Sled]

Nope, because I am a strong Union Man.

I would rather be Old school Democrat.

There are also to many other agendas that the republicans have that I can not agree with.


BTW, I was against the Iraq war, I felt we should have stayed focused on Osama in Afghanistan. Unfortunately I feel that history is going to prove me right. However, now that we have started the mess, I do feel we need to finish it.

[FrodeMk3]

Oh boy, someone pulled out the JC card.

A topic discussion is all fun and games til someone claims Jesus is on their side.

No less a wrong than trying to somehow spin this against Unions...which had nothing to do with this poor woman, according to the CNN file.

The 470,000$ spread out over ALL Wal-mart sales' worldwide would amount to what? A half-cent price increase on every product? Would that be too much to pay? Especially since Wally would simply write off the loss on their taxes?

Have we as a community become so base, so shallow of character, that we would not even pay that much to help the family of a fallen Hero, someone who went and gave the ultimate sacrifice, so that we could sit here in front of a keyboard and type all these reasons' why we should kill all the Muslims? Why this is such a great country?

This thread is a great shame.

[lasersailor184]

I agree with some of your stance on unions but the fact is that whether its Walmart or some other meglo conglomerate management does not treat employees fair. Look at most of our major corporations. CEO's making a hundred million dollars flying private jets(at company expense), taking no interest loans, and getting sweetheart deals. And the guy on the bottom is responsible for high prices because he wants a 50 cent raise?

 I have never been part of a union but I have seen how the worker is treated by corporate America. Business is the heart of America but there needs to be a balance.

Listen, I know this is going to be hard to understand with a liberal mindset, but just try.


You yourself would not pay more than something is worth.  So why should a company pay more to an employee than what the employee is worth, at expense to itself.

It feels all good and righteous to demand a raise in the minimum wage, but it does not serve ANYONE, including the EMPLOYEES to demand such.  First and foremost, the costs of the raise are passed on to the customers, namely those making very little to begin with.  Basically, you are making those that earn minimum wage have to spend more to buy things.  So a $1 raise per hour sounds nice, but not if they are spending THOUSANDS more per year to subsist.

Not only that, but the corporations are going to lay off the substandard employees they can't afford.  So not only will the employees not be able to buy as much, but 1/4 of them won't have jobs to begin with.

Congratudiddlyinglations.  Your minimum wage hike has not only made each dollar the minimum wage earner worth less, but 25% of them aren't earning any money at all.

[texasmom]

I decide where to shop/eat/drink/spend money almost entirely based upon how these places support our local soldiers.

Our local Wally World is a tremendous supporter of our troops ~ the school PTA's which the soldiers children attend, the USO, who attends all of the deployment/redeployment manifests, the Army Community Services programs, individual units, the Enlisted Spouses Club and Officers Wives Club, Santa's Workshop, our military family member Scholarship Fund... all of which have a direct impact on our Soldiers.  Their contributions have been exceedingly generous.

Over the years I've been involved in most of the local volunteer organizations here on post. I have YET to see Target or KMart contribute one single thing to our troops.  I'll continue to shop at Wally.

[AWMac]

America needs more women like TxMom.

Behind every American fighting man is a woman fighting harder.

*tips hat*

Thank ya TxMom.

Mac

[FrodeMk3]

I decide where to shop/eat/drink/spend money almost entirely based upon how these places support our local soldiers.

Our local Wally World is a tremendous supporter of our troops ~ the school PTA's which the soldiers children attend, the USO, who attends all of the deployment/redeployment manifests, the Army Community Services programs, individual units, the Enlisted Spouses Club and Officers Wives Club, Santa's Workshop, our military family member Scholarship Fund... all of which have a direct impact on our Soldiers.  Their contributions have been exceedingly generous.

Over the years I've been involved in most of the local volunteer organizations here on post. I have YET to see Target or KMart contribute one single thing to our troops.  I'll continue to shop at Wally.

True, TxMom. But Wal-Mart isn't the only business that has Military support programs. However, When someone really needs' help badly, when all they have to do is relent, they are the ones' actually turning the thumbscrews' tighter. On someone who was a somewhat long-term employee, no less.

Legal or no, their actions' are deplorable.

[Holden McGroin]

I will only purcas eItems from Wal Mart that were made in the USA.  Pretty much curtails my shopping there.  Goes for Target too.

[Masherbrum]

I disagree, of course.  Unons artificially inflate wages and the increased costs are passed on to the consumer.  The union workers are consumers themselves.  Unions are bad... period.  Unions wrecked the US auto industry.

The Commercial Food Workers Union has NO BEARING on salary for an employee.   I know, I was in it.   They are how a "Union" should be.   Don't knock ALL Unions.    Just because the UAW is a POS, doesn't mean they all are.

[BBBB]

The Commercial Food Workers Union has NO BEARING on salary for an employee.   I know, I was in it.   They are how a "Union" should be.   Don't knock ALL Unions.    The because the UAW is a POS, doesn't mean they all are.

 Man, I need to see a shrink..or else something is in the water, because I agree. Not all Unions are bad. When I was in high school, I worked for a grocery store chain that had a Union. They had no bearing in how much money they paid us. They just made sure we were not over worked, treated unfairly and fired for no reason. We had a better "quality of life" (work wise) where we worked under the Union than the employees that worked at another chain that did not have a Union (Publix).

 However, not all Unions are like this. The UAW is a prime example. I have the feeling if Wal-mart were to have a Union it would get out of hand like the UAW is. Mostly because Wal-mart is a cash cow and anything associated with Wal-mart is going to make money. Greed is a powerful thing. I think a Union would kill off Wal-mart in a matter of years. Then again, maybe that is not such a bad thing. At least the mom and pop places will have a fighting chance again.

[lazs2]

some disturbing things in this thread.. not the least of which is macs continued Texas envy.

ltardglock believes that wealth is a sin.  that is fine.  not true but fine.. he can believe what he wants but... I get the hint that when he says that we should help (his particular charity) he means that the money to do it should be forced from us at the point of a gun.. in other words.. socialism.   that offends me.  I give to who I want.  I don't give to who he wants. 

sled votes for a party who is against everything in the world he believes in and who is actively trying to destroy everything he believes in and/or ban it.   But... the protect the unions a little better than the party who is in moral sinc with him so... it works out for him?   No vouchers is the democrats "protecting" the worthless union aholes.   detroit failing is democrats protecting the union.   stupid and broke and everything a gray area.. that is what he votes for.. and if they take his guns and snowmobiles and money... well.. it's still worth it to be able to raise the union fist in solidarity.

lazs

[Tango]

I figure Sam Walton would be cutting a bunch of big wigs loose in his company if he was still alive.

[SteveBailey]

.

The 470,000$ spread out over ALL Wal-mart sales' worldwide would amount to what? A half-cent price increase on every product? Would that be too much to pay? Especially since Wally would simply write off the loss on their taxes?

This would  be fine if it were in a nice isolated bubble. What about the next time someone gets hurt, and the next time, and the next time?  Is Walmart supposed to eat the costs every time?  Where do you  draw the line? Since this incident is not isolated, it does not make good business sense for Walmart to eat, for its own sake and for their employees' sake. Exposure of this case to the unwashed, uninformed masses may cause enough PR pressure to necessitate what you are advocating, but this would only serve to mollify the mob and would open Walmart to repeat examples.... a pandora's box of sorts.

Is Walmart self insured?  If not, failure to recoup thier losses would, and still could regardless, result in the insurance premiums of other employees going up to cover the loss.  It's how insurance works.

[FrodeMk3]

Is Walmart self insured?  If not, failure to recoup thier losses would, and still could regardless, result in the insurance premiums of other employees going up to cover the loss.  It's how insurance works.

Good question, Steve. I don't personally know; I've never worked there. Almost all the jobs' I've worked at before what I'm doing now went through something like Gem care, or Blue cross, and we just payed a premium. However, there are so many things' that drive those premiums' up, such as accidents' or injuries' that happen to someone else that is covered by your provider, who isn't even in your particular companies' plan, that can drive up premiums. This is true of any kind of insurance, but it is the most noticable in the medical field, because of the great number of claims made there. I would think that Maybe Wal-mart would benefit from self-insurance, so that premiums' could stay somewhat stable; However, with as many people as they employ, I don't really think it would make much difference.

I would point out, however, if there had been no litigation on the woman's part, that Wal-mart would have had to eaten it anyway, for with no lawsuit, no recouping clause goes into effect. To me, it's just some beancounter being oppurtunistic.

[MORAY37]

 My past posts have explained how negatively I view Wally Mart.. I haven't been in one of their stores in 7 years, I view their practices of "setting prices" to their suppliers as a gross manifestation of capitalism.  I view a company that is contributing to probably 1/4 of our trade deficit as a negative for the country, if only because we are so easily swayed by a couple of pennies in savings.  The lead toys are always cheaper, right?

In this case, I feel Wally Mart should have backed off, if only to show they have some sort of humanity at the helm.  I agree with the practice of recouping loss in some cases, by companies, as the individual that is involved in the injury should not gain a financial windfall for their issues, at least not at the expense of the company, or the company's healthplan.

 In this case, however, the woman involved has been relegated to a nursing home, and the money Walmart is suing back from her was the only money that she had.  Money that should be used for her to survive in some sort of stability for her natural life. She is now brain damaged and will require care for the rest of her life.  Walmart's actions in this respect are dispicable.  The bottom line should be tempered by morality.  Theirs is not.  This woman is so severely injured that she forgets her son was killed in Iraq the week after her accident.  She has to be continually re-told her son is gone... OVER AND OVER, for the rest of her life, each time she will hear it for the first time.

This action only serves to strengthen my opinion of their company.  I will not shop in any store associated with them, ever.