|
New low point even for
this company's inhuman behaviour: Wal-Mart wants to pocket the money that badly disabled mother of three got for medical care after traffic accident Wal-Mart is establishing a new low point for bad corporate behaviour. The world's largest retailer has sued a former woman employee, who was seriously disabled in a traffic accident. The greedy giant from Bentonville, whose main owners - the Waltons - are all at the top of America's richest, wants to lay its hands on the 417,000 USD which is now in a trust fund to ensure her medical treatment. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch told about Wal-Mart's unbelievable behaviour last Saturday. There can hardly be a better illustration of the brutality and greed that Wal-Mart is known for all around the world. Debbie Shank got seriously injured in a car accident, which was not related to her work at Wal-Mart. Together with her family, she was able to get a substantial compensation from the truck company that was involved. After legal costs, 417,000 dollars remained for a trust fund to pay for her medical care, and 119,280 for her husband and three children. This is the money that Wal-Mart now wants to pocket, saying that the original medical costs should be paid from that money, not the health insurance that she had paid through Wal-Mart, where she worked stocking shelves at night. Mr Shank tells the newspaper that his wife cannot always recognise which son is which, and she can only move one arm and two fingers. He also tells about his concerns for the future of his wife, if Wal-Mart succeeds in taking the trust fund away from her. She stands to lose her private room at the nursing home where she lives, she would not have her day-time caretaker anymore, and the wheelchair accessible wan which gives her mobility would have to be given up. So who will benefit if Wal-Mart succeeds. To take just one of the family members, S. Robson Walton, the chairman of the company. Leading US business magazine Forbes lists him among the world's ten richest people, with a personal wealth of 18,3 Billion US Dollars. If he can pocket his share of the disabled former Wal-Mart employee's health care money, as his company is now trying to do, he will obviously be even richer. This, as we know, is Wal-Mart's business idea. Whether he then sleeps his nights well is another issue. But of course, the basic medical care expenses would then be paid by Ms Shank's husbands health insurance, he is lucky enough to work for a socially responsible employer, not for Wal-Mart. And tax payers in Missouri would pitch in, as they do for Wal-Mart workers and their family members across the United States, through medicaid and medicare programmes. How deep this kind of behaviour is embedded into Wal-Mart's corporate principles, if there really are any principles, was shown by their spokeswoman's comments to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Even she apparently had a hard time having to explain their behaviour: - This is a very sad case, and I think many people naturally have an emotional and sympathetic reaction, said Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman. - But the reality is that we are required to protect the assets of our health plan so that it can pay the future claims of other associates and their family members. - Unfortunately, it's just not feasible to start making individual exceptions, Ms Williams said, according to the newspaper. Not everyone will understand this, and I'm sure that we will get a fair amount of criticism, she said, and how right she was. One can ask when a company has gone too far in defying the basic ruled of civilised behaviour, and placed itself outside the global community. In this case, once again, Wal-Mart surely has.
.
|
