Wal-Mart: How Low Can They Go?

Say that you're in charge of a multi-billion-with-a-b-dollar corporation. You've got stores around the world, with new ones opening almost daily. Your company's name is a household word. Sure, there's some criticism of your practices. You're getting a bad reputation in some circles. Critics harp on you over the way you treat your staff, where you get most of your merchandise from, things like that. But even so, you've got customers beating a path to the door. They can't get enough. Cash is coming out the proverbial wazoo. By corporation standards, life is good.

Now, suppose that you've got a former employee who was hit by a truck. This person is now permanently disabled. She's going to need round-the-clock care for the rest of her life.

Your health insurance plan has paid thousands of dollars for her hospitalization. Meanwhile, her family sued the company that owned the truck that hit her. Out of that settlement, the courts created a trust fund for the express purpose of paying for her care.

As it happens, your health care plan has a little-known clause that allows you to be reimbursed for the money you've spent on an employee's health care. True, you don't need the money. Remember the use above of phrases like "multi-billion-with-a-b-dollar corporation" and "rolling in cash."

But it's your money. You have a right to it. And after all, corporations exist primarily to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. So you feel entitled to go after it.

Simple, right? The corporation gets its money, the shareholders are happy, and all is well with the world.

Now let me turn that scenario around.

Say that you're the former employee of a multi-billion-with-a-b-dollar corporation. Your life changed forever on the day that you were hit by a truck. You can never work again. You will now require round-the-clock medical care for the rest of your life.

Your former employer's health care paid for your hospitalization. Meanwhile, your family sued the company that owned the truck that hit you. Out of that settlement, the courts created a trust fund for the express purpose of paying for your care.

Now suppose that your former employer comes back and says, "hold on -- that's OUR money!" Despite the outcry of public opinion, they drag your family into court to claim the money that is paying for your care, and more. You appeal and lose, appeal again and lose again.

Did I mention that without that money, it's anyone's guess as to how your family is going to keep paying for your care? You don't know it due to your brain damage, but your spouse has had to get a divorce so that you can get extra help from Medicaid. (This is apparently what corporations mean when they talk about "family values.")

Now put yourself in the shoes of the spouse. You were close to retirement. Now you've got to hold down two jobs in a desperate attempt to make ends meet. Your younger son can't afford college. Even after the help you've received from the settlement, you still owe great gobs of money to pay for medical bills. Creditors are circling. There's a good chance you're going to have to sell your house to try to pay off everything you owe.

No matter which way I look at this, I see a big, powerful corporation screwing a poor family. Is that America, now? Is that the freedom our founding fathers (not to mention the troops we've got stationed overseas right now) fought so hard for? The right of corporations to screw people over seven ways from Sunday?

Yes, I'm steamed about this. You should be, too.

A corporation is a person in the eyes of the law. If a rich man were to drag a poor family into court to sue them for every penny they had, I think we would regard that person as a callous, heartless monster, wouldn't we? So why are we letting a corporate "person" do exactly the same thing? Is that what we've come down to?

I'll close by saying this to Wal-Mart's various mouthpieces, apologists, and all-around talking heads: Wal-Mart may claim that what it's doing is "legal." It may have a "legal" right to screw the Shank family over. "Legal" does not mean "right."

Mr. Scott, I don't care what the "legal" thing is. Do the right thing. Get your hands out of the Shanks' pockets.

{Disclaimer: I have refrained from mentioned the fact that the Shank family recently lost a son in Iraq. That is by no means out of disrespect for his memory. The way I see it, that horrible loss is nevertheless not related to what Wal-Mart is doing to the Shank family. If Wal-Mart were not grabbing the money that the Shank family so desperately needs, Pfc. Shank would still be dead.}