LISSA'S: NEW Walmart Age

As most of you know, it is me writing again under protection. Yesterday, I watched something yesterday which once again hit a nerve, and I decided I wanted to comment on it.

Most everyone knows that in 2004, CSNBC released a special called "The Age of Wal-Mart". But recently CSNBC went back and released another special called "The NEW Age of Walmart". This had information in it as recently as September 2009.

Starting at the end of the show, CSNBC dealt with how Walmart was dealing with the "sweat shop" image they got from the 2004 episode. They took the reporter on an "inspection route" with them. But upon further inspection, the reporter uncovered that Walmart was only inspecting one facility, and not others they buy from, including the factory directly across the street. The reporter uncovered documents instructing workers on what to say, and managers on what to hide when an inspector comes around. When confronted with this, the Walmart representative danced around the subject, saying he does not know anything about this and will have to check into it further.

A representative from China Labor Watch was also interviewed. He was shown presenting a report to Walmart officials about problems in the Chinese Labor market, and asked to discuss it further. And finally, after being put off for a long time, CSNBC found out this person was going to have a teleconference with Walmart. But just before the teleconference, Walmart called off the interview, saying "their computers wouldn't work with the teleconferencing equipment." This was hard for me to believe. I mean they sell computers and teleconferencing equipment, why couldn't they get it to work? Does this mean that they sell equipment that doesn't work together? But then, the truth finally came out. The CSNBC reporter found out that the reason why the interview was called off. "Walmart didn't want the interview to be included in the CSNBC report."

This summed up the whole of the report. Walmart seemed to be dancing around subjects, did whatever they could to make them look better, but mostly cover-up everything. They seemed to hide the truth, no matter what. Even when interviewed, Mike Duke, Walmart CEO, seemed to be the master of dancing around the subject, side stepping and misdirection. During the show, he was asked a couple of questions which really mattered to me, and upon listening to his response, I was always left asking "HUH?" To me, Mike Duke did a wonderful impression of Charles Durning in the "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas." Tell me if you can see something similar:






CSNBC did do alot on Walmart and the Unions. For me, I am not a union person. I do not care for them, i do not trust them, but again, that is my own personal feelings, not Walmart brainwashing techniques coming through. But I do believe in fair treatment and fair pay. I was bowled over when I heard the average pay for Walmart associates was $10.86 per hour. I fell out of my seat. I have been working for or with Walmart since 2000. Almost ten years, and to me, $10 per hour is still just a dream to me. I can't even imagine working for Walmart long enough to make $10.86 per hour. I do not know where they got this number, but it seems very exaggerated to me.

The Walmart cheer was shown many times during the show. Which seems funny to me that right before this show came on, Walmart changed the cheer. There is no longer the "Squiggly" in the cheer. To me this has always been a brainwashing technique Walmart has incorporated. I was glad to see it shown for what it is on this show.

Another point which was brought up was health insurance. Walmart is so proud about their health insurance and how many people are covered under their program. Yes, they are above the national average now, and well, I started my health insurance this time around. One thing that came up with me was the insurance doesn't cover much, and still has a $1000 deductible. What's the point in paying if you can only afford to have a $1000 deductible and still not be able to put food on the table. There is no way you can afford the insurance. Yes, I am covered, but it doesn't do me any good. I am sure I am not the only associate who feels this way.

Another interesting point that was made on the subject of health care. In the movie "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices," it was brought up about how Walmart wanted associates to get on government run health care. There were interviews in which associates admitted that their personnel department even gave them the government health care forms to fill out. Since then, what has changed? Walmart insurance is still a high cost to employees, and now in the "The NEW Age of Walmart," it was revealed that Walmart is one of the biggest supporters of Barrack Obama and his plan for "The Exchange". It still doesn't sound like anything has changed, except their hopes for better government run health insurance.

One thing that kept being brought up was how Walmart had over $401 billion in sales last year. Over $13 billion in profit last year. When the reporter asked associates how they feel about their pay, everyone was underpaid and under respected. But when they were asked how much would be "fairly paid" everyone responded between $1-$2 more than what they were making. To me, I agreed. But when Mike Duke was presented with the statement, and the fact that surveys have shown that they could do this without any substaintial loss to the bottom line, Mike Duke responded that they couldn't do it, because it would make prices in the store jump extremely. To me it sounded like it would interfer with his take home pay. But yet, here he was talking about how everyone that worked for him was like his family. Question, does Mike Duke make his family live below the poverty line? I don't think so. And here he was, this year with the annual shareholders' meeting, holding one of the most extravegant to date. Hosted by Ben Stiller. Miley Cyrus and Gene Simmons mixing with the crowds. Jack Black sang a song about Walmart. I know this is not charity for them. Walmart paid for them to be there. And it is very egotistical to have yourself introduced by a celebrity like Ben Stiller, instead of sharing the cost of that introduction with your "family."

As for cost savings, I am not sure if anyone has notice, but Walmart has gotten everyone used to buying Great Value brand stuff by being cheaper, but this year, Great Value has passed this cost of many of the name brand. Great Value pizzas are now over a dollar more than Tombstone, and about the same price as Digornio. Great Value sausage links are now a dollar more than most of the name brand partners. There is a whole new meaning behind Great Value.

Another scary thought was the unmarked gray vans which came in and scoped out the areas which they want to conquest. The numbers of stores they are opening this year alone speak volumes about what the goal is for this giant.

Finally, a comment was made during this show which made me have to rewind and listen to it again. During an interview with the Walmart's Vice President of International Affairs, he initially did not want the job due to time away from home. He tells a story of going into Lee Scott's office and asking him for advice. Lee Scott laughed at him, and told him "The company will guide your career. It's not your decision." That comment alone left me with a major uneasy feeling.

In all, it was obvious, Walmart wanted to keep the old JibJab show truthful..... Click here to watch it yourself.

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

And now, I step off my soap box, and thank you for your time. I hope my personal insight will help others.

LISSA’S: Score one for the good guys!! Wal-Mart Publicly Shamed Into Letting Shank Keep Money

Wal-Mart Drops Claim

Wal-Mart Stores is dropping a controversial effort to collect more than $400,000 in health-care reimbursement from a former employee who has been in a Missouri nursing home since she suffered brain damage in a traffic accident.

The retailer said in a letter to the family of Deborah Shank it will not seek to collect money the Shanks won in a lawsuit against a trucking company for the accident. Wal-Mart has been roundly criticized for its claim.

Pat Curran, executive vice president for human resources at Wal-Mart Stores U.S., wrote that Shank’s extraordinary situation had made the company reexamine its stance.

LISSA’S: Rights, Wrongs and Fairness of Subrogation in Serious Injury Cases

Rights, Wrongs and Fairness ofSubrogation in Serious Injury CasesNovember 29, 2007; Page A17

I read with great sadness your front-page article "Accident Victims Face Grab for Legal Winnings" (Nov. 20) about Wal-Mart's mistreatment of a critically injured employee. Although Deborah Shank paid her premiums when healthy and would not have been individually liable for medical expenses in a general sense, Wal-Mart maintains that it has a right to seek repayment from third parties. While this reasoning makes sense from an accounting and legalistic point of view, in practice it is an incendiary and unjust policy.

Wal-Mart has the legal high ground in this matter as it has successfully pursued its claim to a federal appellate court. In so doing, however, it has also claimed the moral low ground. Wal-Mart argues that it has a fiduciary responsibility to its medical plan and shareholders, but this is mere obfuscation. Companies rarely resort to recovery from such tragedies, precisely because it is unseemly. The fact that Wal-Mart feels unrestrained and unrepentant in its pursuit for company justice is a shocking indictment of our culture and of this company.

Andrew Griffin
Wilmette, Ill.


The rationale for judicial enforcement of subrogation rights is clear. Otherwise, the ultimately responsible person or company evades such responsibility simply because the victim of his or her misconduct had insurance coverage. Pursuit of subrogation claims advances the broadest societal interests by ensuring that all actors within a society -- ranging from the largest corporations to mom-and-pop shops -- behave responsibly and conduct their businesses so as to avoid harming others by exercising "reasonable care." However, most subrogation claims aren't perfected for a variety of reasons, including lack of or inadequate liability insurance coverage or insubstantial assets on the part of the responsible third-party tortfeasor. Under these circumstances, the insureds, of course, retain the insurance proceeds paid to them, and the insurer obtains no reimbursement at all for its payment of policy proceeds to its insureds.

While it is easy to point a finger at the insurer, or a self-insurer like Wal-Mart, for rightfully exercising its subrogation rights under circumstances when there are insufficient assets to compensate both the insurer and its insured for their respective damages, the true responsibility for this extremely unfortunate result rests with the responsible third party that exacerbated its negligence in having caused injuries by also exercising financial irresponsibility by failing to secure ample liability insurance coverage.

Elliott R. Feldman
President
National Association of Subrogation Professionals
Edina, Minn.


Employers have a fiduciary duty to recover these expenses since allowing an employee to recover "twice" for the same injury shortchanges fellow employees in the health plan and ultimately increases the cost of health care for all. As sad as the facts concerning Ms. Shank may sound, there is a winner amid all of this: her personal injury lawyer who promptly received approximately 40% of Ms. Shank's medical settlement.

Randel Johnson
Vice President, Labor, Immigration & Employee Benefits
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Washington


Wal-Mart is within its legal rights and the company has a responsibility to its stakeholders to lower health insurance costs. However, as Wal-Mart donates millions to charity each year I hope that management will consider making a donation to Ms. Shank. As the old saying goes, "charity begins at home."

Klugmann
Brooklyn, N.Y.


The Journal is to be commended for pointing out that when a catastrophically injured woman isn't fully compensated in a settlement for the lifetime cost of her care it's an unimaginable economic hardship. It is made doubly worse when years later the employer's health plan sues her for the full share of medical costs it paid. Under these circumstances, a better way would be to limit the health plan's recovery to no more than a pro rata share of the entire amount recovered from the wrongdoer. Thus, when recovery from the wrongdoer is inadequate to provide restitution to the injured person and to reimburse the employer's health plan, each party would receive a share of the recovery proportional to their loss. This would serve as a standard of fairness to ease the burden of a lifetime of care and ensure that the injured person wouldn't be injured a second time by her insurance company.

Kathleen Flynn Peterson
President
American Association for Justice
Washington