So this is why they call Wal-Mart evil . . .

[CantBCoy]

I agree with all of you that this is a sad story. However, I do agree with RP and onelove. We have to be careful who and what we despise. The old saying goes, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

[dawgs10]

we are a capitalist sociaty. but men will be held to a higher standard before God. greed like that is sin. walmart has destroyed towns and other companys and hold there employees hostage with low wages and long hours. i know. i have been a retail manager for 15 years. walmart and others like them will one day stand before God, not alan greenspan. by the way i have never worked for walmart and never will. but there are people that do. and this kind of story opens up to the world the greed and sin that is in retail today.

just who is this walmart person that will be judged? I am sorry, I don't understand. you make it sound like there is a single person behind this. how can a corporation stand before God? only individuals are available for salvation.

again, I repeat that the story in the OP is a sad one, but where is the "fault"? didn't she agree to the walmart policy? There are other choices for insurance. and again, I will say that i personally don't like their stand, based on this heart-ache article. but I don't know that I personally would have done anything different, were I involved in the insurance and HR departments of WM. However, again repeating my paradigm - that does not preclude them from doing something outside of the agreed on contractual arrangement.

the people that have become very rich at the expense of others, while knowing the policy that exists and can change it.

[RamboPreacher]

It doesn't surprise me one bit that Wal-Mart would do something like this to someone. Even if it was in the papers they signed when she hired on, the higher ups at Wal-Mart should have morals. They are not excluded.

morals? how do you know they DON"T have morals? what does this have to do with morals? what moral sin is an individual committing? That we know about based on this article?

...the people that have become very rich at the expense of others, while knowing the policy that exists and can change it.

sorry, I don't know "them" based on this article. The only information that we have here is s tragic story of an unfortunate woman that was involved in an accident and her employer is following policy pertaining to the insurance that she agreed to. or are you extending your accusations based on the "billions" in "profit", which is not even part of the initial post or article. sorry, I can't equate the issues, at least not at this point and only based on the given article about this sad story.

[CantBCoy]

the people that have become very rich at the expense of others, while knowing the policy that exists and can change it.

Everyone wonders why insurance is so expensive, but when a company cuts certain corners and deals with insurers to get lower prices for their employees this is what happens. We can't have everything and expect to pay nothing.

[DaJudge]

WalMart is neither good nor evil. There was and is a market in the United States for goods at low prices. Sam Walton saw that and profited greatly (and so have Wal Mart share holders, of which you probably are one, if you have a 401K)

If you don't like Walmarts benefits and employment practices, don't work there. Don't shop there. What do you folks want to do? Do you think the government should step in and shut Walmart down?

[EagerBeaver]

WalMart is neither good nor evil. There was and is a market in the United States for goods at low prices. Sam Walton saw that and profited greatly (and so have Wal Mart share holders, of which you probably are one, if you have a 401K)

If you don't like Walmarts benefits and employment practices, don't work there. Don't shop there. What do you folks want to do? Do you think the government should step in and shut Walmart down?

I lived in Hillsboro, Oregon for 9 months last year...and when I actually wanted to find a Wal-Mart, I had to drive either 35 miles into St Helens, Oregon or 35 miles the other way into SE Portland to find a dilapidated Wal-Mart (it wasn't even a SuperCenter) on 82nd Ave.

Hillsboro was a wonderful place to live, full of rustic shops and neat places. Places that would have been driven out if Wal-Mart would have been allowed in. Incredibly, outcry from the community and a resounding NO vote by the Beaverton city council prevented Wal-Qaeda from touching within 20 miles of Beaverton-Hillsboro.

Look at this Google Map. Isn't it wonderful? Portland, Oregon, a city of a million people and only FOUR Wal-Qaeda outposts.

Whereas, now, I live in Springfield, Missouri and there are 15 Wal-Qaedas within a 30 mile radius. Population of this 30-mile radius: 195,000. It's ridiculous.

EDIT: Here's a news story about Beaverton driving out Wal-Qaeda.

[DaJudge]

Hillsboro was a wonderful place to live, full of rustic shops and neat places. Places that would have been driven out if Wal-Mart would have been allowed in. Incredibly, outcry from the community and a resounding NO vote by the Beaverton city council prevented Wal-Qaeda from touching within 20 miles of Beaverton-Hillsboro.

.

ALLOWED in? What right does the government have to say which businesses are ALLOWED in? Where do we live, the Soviet Union?

Why not let the free market determine whether WalMart succeeds or fails in that community. If you people like your "rustic shops" so darn much, then people would have forsaken Walmart, and it would fail and close down.

But what would have happened, as your post acknowledges, if Walmart would have been "allowed" in, is that people would have fled from those precious "rustic shops" like rats from a sinking ship. Why? BECAUSE WALMART HAS BETTER VALUES.

Had freedom would have been allowed to reign, people would have at least had a choice. As it is now, they are forced to pay artificially inflated prices because the almighty government is keeping out competition.

That ain't America. That's socialism.

[MrDanger]

I don't get it. why is Wally World the bad guys? why are they evil?

A litany of Wal-Mart's sins and other interesting info can be found at this helpful link:

http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php

This presents the statistics presented in an excellent documentary on Wal-Mart "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices" which exposes their treatment of their workers, the devastation their company does to local economies, and the questionable labor practices of their suppliers. If this is capitalism, what indeed does Jesus think about such things and what indeed would Jesus do?

kewl. where is the other side? the internet is chock full of anti- this and that or pro this and that.

The anti-Wal-Mart crowd has been spitting out a lot of twisted facts for over twenty years. Michael Moore type documentaries have been done before and have been proved wrong over time.

Wal-Mart isn't evil. It is a company. Some of the people that run it may be less than desirable in the moral department. But Wal-Mart isn't evil.

As someone that worked for the company for 14 years (Sam's Club) a lot has changed after Sam passed away. His son Robson took the company in many directions that were against his dad's original vision. To me, that has ruined a big chunk of what was once a great and giving corporation.

[EagerBeaver]

Hillsboro was a wonderful place to live, full of rustic shops and neat places. Places that would have been driven out if Wal-Mart would have been allowed in. Incredibly, outcry from the community and a resounding NO vote by the Beaverton city council prevented Wal-Qaeda from touching within 20 miles of Beaverton-Hillsboro.

.

ALLOWED in? What right does the government have to say which businesses are ALLOWED in? Where do we live, the Soviet Union?

Why not let the free market determine whether WalMart succeeds or fails in that community. If you people like your "rustic shops" so darn much, then people would have forsaken Walmart, and it would fail and close down.

But what would have happened, as your post acknowledges, if Walmart would have been "allowed" in, is that people would have fled from those precious "rustic shops" like rats from a sinking ship. Why? BECAUSE WALMART HAS BETTER VALUES.

Had freedom would have been allowed to reign, people would have at least had a choice. As it is now, they are forced to pay artificially inflated prices because the almighty government is keeping out competition.

That ain't America. That's socialism.

Allowed in, by the city council. The city had to approve the zoning laws, and approve WalQaeda's mere existence in their community. They did not and it was unanimous for a number of reasons as stated in linked article.

Even though I must admit if WQ was allowed in my apartment rate might have decreased from 700/month to 430.

[DaJudge]

Hillsboro was a wonderful place to live, full of rustic shops and neat places. Places that would have been driven out if Wal-Mart would have been allowed in. Incredibly, outcry from the community and a resounding NO vote by the Beaverton city council prevented Wal-Qaeda from touching within 20 miles of Beaverton-Hillsboro.

.

ALLOWED in? What right does the government have to say which businesses are ALLOWED in? Where do we live, the Soviet Union?

Why not let the free market determine whether WalMart succeeds or fails in that community. If you people like your "rustic shops" so darn much, then people would have forsaken Walmart, and it would fail and close down.

But what would have happened, as your post acknowledges, if Walmart would have been "allowed" in, is that people would have fled from those precious "rustic shops" like rats from a sinking ship. Why? BECAUSE WALMART HAS BETTER VALUES.

Had freedom would have been allowed to reign, people would have at least had a choice. As it is now, they are forced to pay artificially inflated prices because the almighty government is keeping out competition.

That ain't America. That's socialism.

Allowed in, by the city council. The city had to approve the zoning laws, and approve WalQaeda's mere existence in their community. They did not and it was unanimous for a number of reasons as stated in linked article.

Even though I must admit if WQ was allowed in my apartment rate might have decreased from 700/month to 430.

I blame attitudes such as yours on years of government brainwashing... I mean schooling

[MrDanger]

Wal-Qaeda.

That is absolutely disgusting. To equate a business you may not care for to terrorists that slaughter innocents is absolutely disgusting. You, of all people, should not take true terrorists and make light of them.

[EagerBeaver]

Wal-Qaeda.

That is absolutely disgusting. To equate a business you may not care for to terrorists that slaughter innocents is absolutely disgusting. You, of all people, should not take true terrorists and make light of them.

I am using that term in reference to this.

[one love]

we may find them gone one day to another country, then we will ask why are jobs going overseas.

Where you been man? This took place at monumental levels with the passing of NAFTA. Ask my dad, he was a casualty.

pa

I am fully aware and that is my point it can happen much more. We need to realize that punishing a company for success is backwards. I know this is off topic. sorry

[one love]

Hillsboro was a wonderful place to live, full of rustic shops and neat places. Places that would have been driven out if Wal-Mart would have been allowed in. Incredibly, outcry from the community and a resounding NO vote by the Beaverton city council prevented Wal-Qaeda from touching within 20 miles of Beaverton-Hillsboro.

.

ALLOWED in? What right does the government have to say which businesses are ALLOWED in? Where do we live, the Soviet Union?

Why not let the free market determine whether WalMart succeeds or fails in that community. If you people like your "rustic shops" so darn much, then people would have forsaken Walmart, and it would fail and close down.

But what would have happened, as your post acknowledges, if Walmart would have been "allowed" in, is that people would have fled from those precious "rustic shops" like rats from a sinking ship. Why? BECAUSE WALMART HAS BETTER VALUES.

Had freedom would have been allowed to reign, people would have at least had a choice. As it is now, they are forced to pay artificially inflated prices because the almighty government is keeping out competition.

That ain't America. That's socialism.

thank you!!! when can one say we will not allow you to open a buisness and furthermore why would anyone think that is a good thing?
Dajudge you are also correct regarding stockholders and 401k plans. How many people that complain about the rich will retire off of there profits. hmmm
I refuse to believe this nation is a nation that can say you are not allowed here your buisness is not welcome. If they feel that way let walmart in and see if they fail, the sad truth is mst likely people will see the convenience and shop there. I am amazed at how socialism is sweeping in our nation that is one of "FREEDOM"

[pastorables]

Why? BECAUSE WALMART HAS BETTER VALUES.

Who said something about brainwashing?

BETTER VALUES is what they want you to believe. On some things, they will roll back prices, but overall they are often higher than other competitors.

The local WM here will actually send associates to my "humble discount store" to check prices, then they will go back and undercut particular items by 1 to 3 cents. It's hilarious to think a huge player like WM would feel threatened by a small local business.

pa