LISSA’S: A Company In Need Of Change

Wal-Mart's dirty laundry is getting more global exposure today just a week after the Debbie Shank story. It has not been a good month for Wal-Mart public relations. To use a sports term, these are turnovers, and they expose the weaknesses of Wal-Mart's high priced image.

Undeniably, over the past three years Wal-Mart has gotten better at hiding the truth from us and from the media usually by obfuscating rather than clarifying the real issues. Their so-called health care reform is just one example. And thanks to the millions they are spending on Edelman Public Relations, they have received some good coverage in the media.

Occasionally though, they fumble the ball and we get to see clearly what is behind the façade. The video of Wal-Mart managers dressed in drag aired on NBC Nightly News last night (April 9, 2008) is a great example.

From Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the largest class-action employment discrimination case in American history, we know that at Wal-Mart, women make up only 37% of Assistant Managers, 21% of Co-Managers, and 15% of Store Managers. In 2001, those women who did become salaried Wal-Mart managers earned about $14,500 less than men per year. So it is no surprise that a gathering of Wal-Mart managers would be rife with sexist undertones.

Wal-Mart might suggest that the performances featured in the footage from this 1995 meeting intended to be funny, but either they value women or they do not and discriminating against women is no joking matter.

http://action.walmartwatch.com/DoAsWeSay

Debbie Shank is another good example of why public relations is not enough to fix Wal-Mart's fundamental problems. Every day Wal-Mart refuses to put enough money forward to adequately fund their employees health care, and associates pay the price. Obviously Debbie Shank is a particularly tragic story but if you talk to Wal-Mart employees, as we do every day, you realize that there are many sad stories of people who have not received the medical care they need because the plan that they can afford from Wal-Mart provides minimalist coverage and the better plans are just too expensive.

Wal-Mart change to its business practices is in the best interest of its employees, its customers, its bottom line and our country. Wal-Mart has pushed back suggesting that our critiques are at best unnecessary and at worst unfair. The videos and the Debbie Shank story have exposed that the leadership of Wal-Mart allows and even encourages a corporate culture of negligence and discrimination. It is not in anyone's best interests for such a culture to continue. Wal-Mart needs to change.

source: The Huffington Post

LISSA’S: Humanity vs. Corporation ~ The high cost of low prices

Every time Debbie Shank, a woman living in Jackson, Mo., asks about her son Jeremy, she has to be retold that he was killed in Iraq.

She starts to cry uncontrollably because each time is like hearing it for the first, again and again.

Shank was in a horrific car accident in 2000 that stripped her away completely of her short-term memory. She did not even remember the interview she had with CNN that allowed her and her husband Jim to tell their story.

They are one of the many victims of humanity vs. corporation. Eight years after her accident, she lives in a nursing home. Her husband Jim has prostate cancer.

In 2000, she started working for Wal-Mart as a shelver and got on its health care and benefits plan. All was well because the Shank’s settled the accident in court for $ 470,000. This money went into a trust fund to help care for Debbie, cover living expenses and eventually would be used to help send their youngest son to college.

Their lawyer made Wal-Mart aware of the damages the Shanks’ received. Within the fine print of its health care policy, it states "Wal-Mart has the right to recoup medical expenses."

In laymen’s terms, since Wal-Mart covered the majority of her medical bills, supposedly Wal- Mart was entitled to the equivalent of the money its insurance company paid out in damages.

Wal-Mart is currently suing the Shanks’, ironically for $470,000. They only have $277,000 left of their trust fund. According to its policy, Wal-Mart is right, but morally, severely wrong.

The corporate typhoon Wal-Mart’s net profit for the third quarter in 2007 was $90 billion. You have to keep in mind that it was its net profit; the money Wal-Mart received after all the bills were paid, from light bill to employee salary.

The $470,000 only makes up .0005 percent of its profits. Because of this, Jim had to divorce Debbie to receive Medicaid. They were forced to give up their rights of matrimony, the ultimate expression of unconditional love one could display for another.

But it is still not enough.

If Wal-Mart wins, they lose everything. They will not be able to afford to send their youngest son to college and afford housing.

Jim will lose his car and the remainder of their medical bills will be theirs to be reckoned with. Collecting bills is the a hobby that keeps on taking.

The Shanks have gone to court twice already. Both times the judge ruled in Wal- Mart’s favor. Next: The Shanks are taking their case to capital hill, the U.S. Supreme Court. Hopefully, third time will not be a charm for Wal-Mart.

As a result, I’ve included my own recommendation for what Wal-Mart’s new tagline should be:

Always low prices. But it will cost you.

source: The Shield - USI