Which low prices? The direct and personal ones may sometimes be low; the indirect ones are really rather expensive.

I am inclined to agree. That Walmart haven't done anything yet. Also, the opening post seems to be saying that "one of their employees had severe brain injuries whilst at work", and there's a link to a news article. I've read the news article and I don't see any reference to "brain injuries whilst at work". There's a reference to, "Shank was hit by the tractor-trailer while making a U-turn on Highway 177 near Cape Girardeau"; "Shank suffered injuries to her brain stem and other body parts and was in a coma after the accident, the suit says." No reference to injuries suffered at work.

I honestly don't see Walmart suing the lady with the injuries from an auto accident, more likely they would sue the party with the deep pockets, namely the insurance company associated with the truck driver that negligently caused the injuries and led to payouts by Walmart for Ms. Shank's medical treatment.

What do you mean direct/personal/indirect?

Can't say that i have ever found anything expensive at wally world?

I tend to agree. I'm sure that wally world is guilty of some bad practices and have seen much of the bad press. But this article is on a website dedicated to slagging WM and bringing them down - is this really going to be unbiased coverage? I think there is a lot of jumping to conclusions and venting of WM hatred!!

And yes - I love those prices!!

There's an article in Harper's from a few months back that expresses your sentiment exactly:

How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong

By hyperlinking this article, I am in no way endorsing it. Harpers Magazine, which is the unchallenged voice of the champagne socialists in America, seems to argue that Jesus would prefer high taxes and huge welfare support systems (which is something America does quite poorly), rather than private donations to numerous nonprofits and charities (which is something America does quite well). I'm no Christian, but that sounds a bit fishy to me. And saying that all American Christianity is watered down is a broad and extremely condescending stroke--I find many of these Evangelicals out there completely impossible to relate to, but that doesn't mean that they have tainted their own religion. They're far more likely to help at soup kitchens in my very needy state than the folks who'd rather just make sure the government takes care of it all: and look at what a great job the government (FEMA, etc) did at helping people in New Orleans a few months back?

I guess my final question for all the people who think churches down here are bogus and non-giving would be this: should we all demonstrate Christian virtue by donating that money to the government instead?

We should all be voting and praying for responsible government regardless how much of our money they have to spend, since they govern us.

Putting idiots in charge like Bush, Cheney, and DeLay is anthetical to being Christian.

It's kind of funny that so many who hate Walmart seem to shop at Walmart! I stopped shopping at Walmart about 2 or 3 years ago. There isn't one near me!

In America, and even in the UK is there an option on the ballot paper that allows you to vote for responsible government. If so I have failed to see it so far.

(this is my smart-arsed way of saying that imo most politicians are self-serving scumbags, which is no surprise as a lot of them used to be lawyers as pointed out earlier )

yet again, you are probably correct...

I have been thinking about this some more and I am going to stir this debate up a little more.

It makes me laugh when people say, "the Government should pay for this or that" and forget it's our money that pays for "this or that".

Likewise here, doesn't Walmart have an obligation to follow the rules of the healthcare plan that it's other 100's of thousand of employees are apart of? Mismanagement of healthcare funds/pension plans is hell for millions of people in America (and the UK too).

Now this is an EXTREMELY SAD case and I hope that Walmart can find a way to back down but i don't think American Law allows it too. As I understand it, if you don't follow through on a documented rule like this, then they have to back down for everyone ELSE they too will be sued for disrimination. Isn't that how US law works here? Can a lawyer comment?

This is too sad though. I hope by putting the money in a trust, this family has found a loop-hole.

A bag of widgets costs $10 retail. Walmart sells 'em @ $9. Bargain, eh? Not really. Apart form the buck I've just saved, Wally World couldn't be bothered to provide health insurance for their employee, so guess who's providing it instead? Yep, little old me! And even though the employee works as many hours as her manager allows without giving him a BJ, she still qualifies for food stamps. Wonder who's paying for those? In addition Wally World has chosen to use slave Chinese labour to make the widgets, so guess who's paying for the trade deficit and for the American worker to sit on his behind? Yep, me again! The town centre is non-existent, and the shopping choice consists or a big box, a big box or a big box. This is also a result of me saving a buck.

Don't mind capitalism as it's generally more efficient than other systems. But Wally World is not capitalism; it's fascism.

Ooooo - its all getting a tad complicated now.
I guess that ultimately I have a problem with companies and individuals ruthlessly pursuing $$$$$'s with no regard for humanity. Ok, so I may be over-dramatizing a bit here, but you all know what I mean. Also, just because something is legal doesn't make it right or moral in my opinion. In fact you're always on shakey ground is you justify something by saying "its not illegal so who cares".
On the flipside if walmart were to alter their practices you just know that people would be there to exploit any weakness - just look at the British welfare state to see who easily that can happen.

So there you go - I'm confused - that's pretty much all the above goes to prove, but I still think that walmarts actions or potential actions as detailed by the OP are pretty reprehensible.

Good grief - I actually agree with this 100%.
Very well put.

So what's the solution then ??

Anti-trust laws that the government will actually enforce.

Ah - i see, thanks for clearing that up!

No, seriously - what's the solution ??