corporations

When i picked up my friend's copy of Fast Food Nation last year, while cat-sitting, i had no idea that i would be as affected by it as i was. It shocked me! We all are familiar with the nutrition side of the "anti-fast food" argument. Yes, fatty food is bad for me. I get it. That is why i do my best to eat everything in moderation. So when i started reading this book, i was relieved to read (in the intro, i believe) that this would not be the author's focus. He would be tackling topics that effect everyone, not just those who eat fatty foods. I hope to re-read this book and blog on some of Eric Scholler's points from time to time but that will be saved for other days. The primary eye-opener for me, though, was to learn about the way these major corporations have set themselves up to essentially control the world. Frightening!

Last week, I received an email from my cousin (which was forwarded to many of you) about the horrible treatment of a walmart employee. The shortened version of the story is that this woman, who's son recently died in Iraq, was in a car accident eight years ago which left her with severe brain damage. She was awarded $417,000 (after legal fees) to pay for her longterm care. In the fine print of walmart's insurance policy, there is a clause which gives walmart the right to recoup from employees the money they paid towards their employees' medical care. So walmart sued this woman for the $470,000 - and won. This woman is now forced to give basically all that she has to a multi-billion dollar company. The family's attorney appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but they unfortunately refused to hear the case.

I was horrified to hear this. Yes, walmart has the legal right to collect this money. It was in the insurance policy. But was it ethically right to take this woman's money? No. Absolutely not.

This is walmart's response from the cnn.com article (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html?iref=newssearch):
"Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan.""

This quote exemplifies an aspect of the corporate setup that i find to be very unsettling. Men and women allow themselves, on behalf of their company, to act in extremely unethical ways - but since it's "on behalf of their company," they are able to wash their hands of the situation and take no responsibility for it. These ceo's need to come out from behind the curtain and own the way their "company" is unethically treating others. To hide behind walmart's "plan," like this spokesman did, instead of showing human compassion for a family who has suffered enough, is outrageous. What's even more outrageous, though, is that, in the end, walmart wins.

After hearing about this, I felt compelled to forward my cousin's email, which asked people to reconsider shopping at walmart. That's how i will leave this post as well.