Walmart vs. a brain damaged woman

OK Magnolia, I have read your post a few times, and it is difficult to respond to since it did not really apply to my post regarding BENEFITS. Not WAGES. I absolutely agree that Minimum Wage JOBS are a necessity, but to refer to those employees as Minimum Wage PEOPLE? No.

Then you speak of companies attracting and retaining competent employees. Have you ever received Customer Service at Walmart? Do you think if they treated their employees better (ie: valued them & gave them better benefits) the turnover might be lower, the employees happier making the service better and sales higher? Lastly, I want to point out a falsehood here. NOBODY is irreplaceable. There are no jobs or skills that somebody coming behind you will not have or will not be trained to do. Even your position could be posted tomorrow.

Then you go on to state that the working class poor has an obligation to better themselves by education and training. Again, I agree. But how about if those folks are working at Walmart because the hours fit their school and childcare schedule? Folks who ARE working to better themselves? Maybe folks who live in a rural area, like sayyyyy one right around here and Walmart is the only job available? What makes you think it is their “choice” to be a Walmart employee? Maybe it is the only place around for miles. Did they say “When I grow up, I want a dead-end job at Walmart with a side of welfare?” It could merely be a stepping stone to a real career while they go to school or maybe they are in training for management.

And of course it is not only Walmart, however the OP was regarding Walmart, so it was in essence a “Walmart” thread. I only wonder if the head honchos have that same clause in their benefits? What if one of them were hit by a Semi and sued for a million dollars, do you think Walmart would come after their CEO for his million dollars?

That is called a disclaimer, and you fell for it. It might not be their intention, but for some folks it is a reality. Is it really going to break their bank to provide decent benefits to their employees (ALL of them) and get those folks off of social programs? Seems to me it's the least they could do since they are getting corporate welfare.

 

Exactly.

Check your own insurance policy. My policy is the same way and my DH doesn't work for Walmart or a big company either. It's just a way that all insurance companies protect themselves.

I'm not sure of all the facts in this case but the accident she suffered was not her fault. In most cases, when you are in a car accident the person at fault is responsible for your medical bills. In this situation, Walmart's group medical covered her expenses because the other company did not. Since she went to court and won, of course she would have to reimburse her own insurance company.

 

Actually, since they won the law suit, the money was Wal*Mart's.

But, yes, Wal*Mart did decide to drop actions to collect their $400,000.

 

Thanks, I started to look it up after I posted, then I got distracted. :mrgreen:

 

Curiously a Google news search only produced a single article that says Wal*Mart dropped their collection law suit.

 

I saw it the day it happened on some of the major news sites, but it sure did drop off the radar quickly. I guess them dropping it wasn't nearly as big a story. Typical.

 

Cleo...

Someone asked me what I do for a living and I responded:

And you responded:

So I responded:

 

But the two are tied, Cleo. A company that hires mostly folks who provide minimum wage valued work...can't compete in the the market if they provide executive value benefits to those employees. When the value of the benefits provided to the employee outweighs the value of the output of the employees...then the company will lose money.

I think the turnover might be lower and the employees happier...but the service better and sales higher? Nope. Employment is a give-give situation. When the employer is giving more than the employees, due to the nature of the work available, then you get spoiled employees who just keep uping the ante on what they think they should receive. This happens in any situation where people are given more than they have earned.

I agree. If something along those lines came across in my post, it was in error. No one is irreplaceable, however the output of some employees has more value than the output of other employees.

For those folks, the situation must be seen by them as temporary, and they must weigh the cons of the termporary hardship against the pros of the benefits that will come in the future as a result of their sacrifice during that time, and make a decision. Life is full of speed bumps...and we all have to tighten our belts and make do without during those times. During college, just getting out of college, after a divorce...those types of situations are when we must live our smartest and sometimes take the road that is most practical, rather than the road that is most desired.

Again...it comes down to personal choices. I might want to live in a rural area, but I have to determine if I can afford to work in that area. OR, if I want to endure the commute to an area each day that offers better employment opportunities. I wanted to live in Garner, because I liked the small-town feel. But I also knew I needed to earn enough to support my daughter and myself. I chose the commute to RTP. Yeah, it takes me over an hour to get to work each morning, but to me, personally...the sacrifice is worth living where I wanted to live. To someone else, the traffic and commute time might outweigh their desire to live in a small-town, so they would choose to live closer to the jobs they need to work.

Of course the head honchos don't have the same clause. They get the best benefits around. Then again, due to their earnings, they wouldn't find themselves needing the settlement the way you or I would.

But then again, you and I don't have to lay our heads down on the pillow at night knowing that the success of a multi-billion dollar company, the price of it's stock, the contentment of thousands of shareholders, and the jobs of thousands of people...are all based on our day to day decisions. We just have to worry about things like whether or not we remembered to take that Fed-Ex to the drop off...or if we sent that email to the boss before shutting down our computer for the day.

You can't give people what they haven't earned, Cleo. Look what happened with Unions and the auto manufacturing companies. Unions extorted higher salaries and benefits than the work was worth...to the point the that companies could no longer compete because the companies' output no longer had a profit margin after paying those inflated salaries and benefits. And it all started with that first demand for "Better" pay and benefits based not on the worth of the output...but strictly on the desires and the ability of the outputers to bully the company into those inflated salaries and benefits.

Look at it like this. The skills and knowledge you bring to a job are a product. And like all products, some have more value than others.

Say you have a business, and it's growing. You have a car, but you now need a van to accomodate that growing business. The current market value of the car is $6,000. You have $4,000 disposable cash from the business that you can use to put towards that van...so selling the car at $6,000 will give you enough to buy the van.

I come along and tell you that I want to buy your car, but I'm raising a family on my salary alone, and I only have $1,000.00 to give you for the car. Would you agree to accept my payment of $1000.00...and give me the $6,000.00 car in return...just because I needed the money to support my family? Would you be willing to give up the rest of the market value and give me more car than I am paying for...and sacrifice the van - and the growth of your business- so that I am accomodated instead of you?

No. You would wait and sell it to someone who could afford the asking price. So why would you expect any business to essentially make that sacrifice that you wouldn't be willing to make?

 

That's why we need universal health care.

 

You understand, don't you...that with Universal healthcare, those who can afford it will be purchasing Grade A, on-time healthcare from private doctors who expect to be paid reasonable value for the skills that took many years and many dollars for them to earn.

And the non-wealthy will be relegated to waiting 18 months for cancer surgery performed by a Grade D doctor who had the lowest grades in his class, but was found good enough for government work. If, that is...they live long enough to have the surgery.

Is that really what you think we need?

The only way that Universal healthcare will provide equal treatment for all would be if the government created laws stating that doctors are not allowed to be in private practice. And that will never happen.

 

So you haven't looked at the health care plans of either of the Democratic candidates for president.

 

Good PR on Wal-Marts part, they don't want any bad publicity, big corp. don't
want things like this in the news,it's bad for business.
They pay employees what they'll work for, if you work for 6.00 an hr., thats what they pay you, no one's going to pay you anymore than what you'll work for

 

Sure I have.

But both plans involve telling private insurance companies how to run their business...and the rules they plan to set for them will just cause them to go out of the healthcare business altogether because they will lose money consistently. Then we won't have a choice of choosing or keeping our current private plan because either there won't be any companies left offering them...or the premiums will be so high, only the rich will be able to afford them. We'll all be stuck with govt insurance in the end. And the govt has proven itself to be absolutely incompetent to handle such a task.

 

I disagree completely. First, I don't think the private insurance companies would be forced out of business by either of those plans; and second, I don't think it would be a bad thing if they were. I don't think the government has proven itself incompetent to handle health insurance; I'm quite satisfied with my Medicare coverage. I see Grover Norquist et al are getting their money's worth. Selecting a president whose top priority in hiring is loyalty rather than competence or experience is certainly helping to convince people that the government can't do anything right. I do not expect you to change your mind, whatever I say.

 

The healthcare system and insurance system in general stinks. Insurance companies follow what Medicare pays in most situations. Doctors, hospitals, therapists and other healthcare services have to increase their charges just so they make something. Some doctors are now not even excepting insurance and are just going to a fee for service system. Meaning they'll take what you can give them out of pocket.

I'm not up to speed on what's going on politically with regards to healthcare and insurance but I've seen a lot since DH works in healthcare and I just spent some time in the hospital. I've received several EOB's for the different services that I received and it's crazy to see the difference in what was billed, what was allowed by the insurance company, and what was actually paid. One thing I don't like about insurance is that when you have an appeal, you don't necessarily have a doctor or medical professional reviewing your case. For example, DH tore his ACL and meniscus (the thing that holds your patella- knee cap- on your knee). Orthopedic doctor ordered therapy 5 times per week for the first 2 weeks and then dropped it down has he improved. Insurance only allowed $1,000 per year for therapy. He need therapy for over 2 months, the first week alone cost $1,000. Both the doctor and therapist wrote letters to the insurance company. Insurance company still denied additional coverage past the first week, said his condition didn't need any more. How would they know, they never saw him and they weren't even medical professionals??!!

Currently, where DH works, he sees a lot of un-safe discharges, because the patient has to leave because insurance won't cover the stay any longer and they can't afford to pay out of pocket. How the heck is someone who needs to receive 24 hour care supposed to get better then they are forced to leave by the insurance company?

What's the answer, I don't know, but the system needs to be fixed.

 

Right. I posted one sentence and you posted two paragraphs. Still confused.... :lol:

 

I'm going to come back to your other post Mags. I can't decide if a) you think I am stupid, b) you live in an ivory tower, or c) you really are that full of yourself. I dunno, it all just sounded kind of ****ty to me. Eh, maybe I am just in a bad mood.

 

Just a point of clarification - seeing a doctor that demands payment doesn't mean you can't file an insurance claim. It just means that you will have to be reimbursed for the expense by your insurance company. If you find yourself in this situation, make sure the claim does NOT have Accept Assignment checked. If AA is checked, the insurance payment will be sent to the medical office and then you're stuck trying to chase a refund.

----------------------------------------------

But the heart of the post is still true - the healthcare industry in the US is in need of a complete overhaul.
And to the person that said the people with money would get grade A medical care and the people relying on the national insurance would get the grade D medical care and have a significant wait to boot, how do you explain the current state of medical care.

The US ranks 15th, out of 19, in quality of healthcare. This is measured by # of preventable deaths per 100,000 deaths. Preventable medical deaths those due to medical error, prescription error, improper follow up care, etc. The US spends 60% more on healthcare (16% of GDP vs 10% of GDP) and have 53% more preventable deaths (115 per 100000 vs 75 per 100000).

Each year, there are 100000 preventable deaths. If 1 plane crashed every single day, don't you think the airline industry would be overhauled? Well, that's what we're talking about.

Now, how is that Grade A medical care that the people with money will have access to?

There are many issues here and not all are a result of the private insurance system currently in place (lack of electronic charting systems, inability to share medical info, etc). Like Krattie said, something has to be done.


Other impacts of the current healthcare system - GM was quoted as saying that Healthcare coverage makes up a larger portion of the expense of each automobile than the steel in the car does. The employees in their Canadian plants have roughly the same salaries as the workers in their US plants. But they spend 4000 less per worker on healthcare costs. So, in a 10,000 person factory, they save about $40 Million. Why wouldn't they send jobs out of the country.

 

Well...I can rule out #1 and #2, so if #3 is the only option, then...there you have it. I guess I'm full of myself.

It's not ****ty. It may seem unfair, but life isn't fair.

Business can't be in the business of charity, or they wouldn't survive. Business gives charity to charitable organizations, who then determine who gets the money. If business' such as Walmart tried to be "charitable" to individuals, then how would they decide who gets the charity and who doesn't? What would make this employee more worthy of charity than that employee? It's a pandora's box that should not be opened.

Did you know that the Walmart was the largest corporate charitable giving donor here in America for the past 2 years? They gave $272.9 million in 2006. They also gave $20 million dollars to the Hurricane Katrina relief fund. They've given more than $41 million in overseas charity in countries where their stores are located.

So how anyone can sit and call them selfish is beyond me. Calling one company "selfish" for refusing to make minimum wage jobs something they aren't - when no other company is expected to do the same - makes no sense.

Just as we can't "make" more money to take care of our national debt....you don't make jobs into something they are not.