Hillary Clinton and Wal-Mart: What About Debbie Shank?

There is no story in recent memory that better illustrates the tattered social contract between workers and corporations in this country than the story of Debbie Shank and Wal-Mart. Ms. Shank recently became a "Gold Star" mother when her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

Years ago while she was working for miserable wages as a shelf stocker at Wal-Mart, Ms. Shank was the innocent victim of a terrible automobile accident when a big rig slammed into her on a Missouri freeway. She suffered severe neurological damage that has permanently impaired her memory and motor skills and has made it impossible for her to function outside of the constant care of a nursing home.

Shank and her husband, Jim (who is recovering from prostate cancer and works two jobs), were awarded about $750,000 in a lawsuit against the trucking company. After the Shanks paid their legal fees, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie's long-term care. Wal-Mart sued the Shanks for $470,000 in medical expenses.

The behemoth corporation that made $11 billion in profits last year claimed the Shanks owed it the money because of a fine-print clause in her employee health benefits package that stipulates that Wal-Mart would recoup all medical costs if any court settlement had been reached. A Republican judge ruled in favor of Wal-Mart and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The ruling will completely clean out (and then some) the trust that was set aside for Debbie Shank's long-term care. Wal-Mart issued a terse statement worthy of an Adolf Eichmann defending their actions saying the corporation was only following "very specific rules." In other words, the Shanks could fuck themselves.

Hillary Clinton was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart for 6 years. Wal-Mart paid her $18,000 each year she was on the board and $1,500 for every meeting she attended. She accumulated at least $100,000 in Wal-Mart stock. This might be the reason she refuses to release her tax records even though Barack Obama has done so. Maybe it's time we demand that she give back this blood money? Moreover, when Hillary Clinton was with the Rose Law firm in Little Rock she defended Wal-Mart against workers who tried to organize unions making the firm, in the words of labor leader Jonathan Tasini, "one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country."

Clinton's shameless posturing about the Michigan and Florida Democratic delegations is just more of the same from this Wal-Mart-loving corporate shill. She pretends to be standing for "democratic" principles while she attempts a legal trick to strip the nomination from Obama. I saw Hillary Clinton tonight on Fox News talking up her Michigan-Florida demands with Greta Van Susteran. Howard Dean and the DNC Rules Committee should simply divide the delegates proportionately between the candidates based on the over-all delegate count nationally each candidate has won after all of the primaries are over. Michigan and Florida will have a seat at the table in Denver and Hillary Clinton will not be allowed to screw the base of the Democratic Party, which seems to be her specialty nowadays. Maybe she can talk to her lawyer friends over at Wal-Mart for help in this dispute.

Maybe Hillary Clinton should visit Debbie and Jim Shank in Missouri and tell them how sorry she is for what her lovely Arkansas corporate campaign donor has done to them. Maybe she can bring along a Fox News camera crew.

Comments

[Elen]

This rant ing against unions shown in this video by WalMart lawyer Tate was done in public, I can imagine what was said in private to the Board of Directors of which Hillary was a member....watch Mr. Tate rant against unions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sigkAd3SxxI

[GLSP]

Clause or not, the insurance money came from her paycheck and there are others in the White House that might help out .

[LaurenBloom]

Hi folks,
We seem to be losing track of Wal-Mart here, which is probably exactly what Wal-Mart would most like. I'm going onto the Web, e-mailing friends, and otherwise trying to encourage the nationwide boycott of Wal-Mart until it drops its claim against Debbie Shanks. Everybody knows somebody - care to join me?
Lauren Bloom
www.businessethicsspeaker.com

[dhfsfc]

I hope someone asks Hillary about this case at EVERY SINGLE CAMPAIGN STOP, especially in Pennsylvania. Let's get more and more attention for this case, and help Debbie Shank!

[Bobzmcishl]

Wal Mart was within the letter of the law apparently but they are morally reprehensible. Obviously the intent of this settlement was to provide for her long term care and not for the health care coverage she had already received. Wal Mart made 11 billion dollars last year and they should have closed this case out as a goodwill gesture. Now you know why Wal Mart has such a bad reputation. I have never shopped there and will never shop there.

[bmsrosmuc]

This story was so sad, and even if it was 'legal' it was morally reprehensible. I have sent emails to everyone trying to get the word out. I haven't shopped @Walmart in years because of the terrible way it has treated it's employees, but wanted to get the message out to my friends and family members that still do support Walmart. This story was covered on all msm, except FOX news, why is that , not so 'fair and balanced' reporting?

[EnuffsEnuffAlready]

I've begun my own lifetime boycott. Learning to appreciate other stores I hadn't been patronizing much, like Target, Costco, Big Lots....even the dollar stores: http://kennmakk.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/wal-mart-always-low-morals%e2%80%94always.

[outnow]

This makes a good story about Hillary's connection to Wal-Mart but people should learn about the anti-consumer legislation entitled ERISA. Employer-provided health care plans come under this law. You cannot sue for punitive damages based on "bad-faith denial" of your benefits under your long-term disability or if your health care insurance doesn't pay, only the benefit and a reasonable attorneys fee - set by a conservative Federal judge.

ERISA also limits your remedies for retirement benefits under 401(k) and defined benefit and defined contribution plans. Passed in 1974, it has been called the "Capitalist Manifesto," so anti-consumer is this law. John Edwards tried to tell us that your child could be denied a bone marrow transplant for cancer and die and there's no punitive damages. It went right over your heads. You folks wanted a woman or a black and Mr. Edwards got a $400 haircut.

I try in my own way to help educate people but they are really slow when it comes to legal rights as victims and consumers. They don't seem to value the constitution, either. Every day, I explain to several clients that they have been screwed by legislation restricting their consumer remedies passed by their representatives - even Democrats. The bankruptcy bill, for example, right before the subprime meltdown that they knew was coming. Biden and Clinton could have stopped that.

[outnow]

The attorney for the plaintiff, the injured party, should have known that the health care plan for Wal-Mart, like all the rest of such plans, has a "reimbursement clause." This means that the plan is entitled to reimbursement out of the proceeds of the settlement. From what I know of representing plaintiffs as an attorney, with only thirty years experience, it is a factor which should have been considered before setting up a "special needs trust."

The plaintiff should have had a guardian ad litem appointed by the court to control the litigation. This person may have been the spouse. Was there a claim for loss of consortium in which the spouse received money from the settlement free from the lien of the medical plan?

I sympathize with the plaintiffs but far from being fine print, it is incumbent upon every plaintiffs attorney to make sure that these liens or reimbursement clauses are honored or the State Bar can take your license away in California. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld these clause, per Justice Robert's opinion. The ERISA liens are a red flag. I will sue her attorney for legal malpractice because there are many cases making it clear that failure to honor thew lien or reimbursement clause is not accomplished by use of a special needs trust. Why didn't the attorney obtain a larger settlement. Why didn't he know the law?

[Titonwan]

Why do we need frickin' lawyers? Doing the right thing sometimes is free. Sometimes it costs. What about your soul. Oh sorry, I wasn't thinking...

[sww]

I'm no legal professional but from what i recall, the trucking company whose truck injured Mrs. Shank had only 1 million in liability coverage. The plaintiff's husband was awarded $200,000. He spent most of this on a new one-story house w/ wheelchair accesss. (I don't know what he did w/ his former, three-story house.) Plaintiff was awarded $700,000. After legal fees and other expenses her amount was around $410,000 if memory serves me correctly. I think her attorney wasn't expecting Wal-Mart to recoup the entire amount, only a partial sum. This may have been common practice in the past but the times have changed. Perhaps he was hoping the resulting negative PR stink would cause Wal-Mart to drop the suit.
I don't think Wal-Mart is too concerned about more bad PR - business is great!!!
And people need lawyers to deal with crap like this. Good ones, anyway. She wouldn't have gotten a dime otherwise.

[sww]

Rechecked the facts - although the husband's award was $200,000 after legal fees it amounted to $119,000. And this was indeed a claim for loss of consortium. I'm not sure what effect this had on the settlement, maybe someone could enlighten me?

Why did their attorney was thinking when he settled for $900k =, but maybe the amount of liability coverage limited this sum? $400,000 is a rather paltry sum when compared to the costs of long-term medical care.

This country is screwed up in so many ways.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

The unions that have endorsed Hillary Clinton should hold ad hoc local elections to reflect the views of not only the leadership but the rank and file members. Arkansas is where Sam Walton came from -- Bill was governor and golfing partner, so trying to distance the Clintons from Wal-Mart is just no going to fly -- Reuters reports that Hillary has missed the news that she is finished in 2008 -- it's over and it has been over - just because the GOP and Fox news want to run against Clinton, and CNN and Wall Street and AIPAC love her so much, she has been given a free ride by the media -- if Obama was behind in the delegate count right now the media would have dashed his hopes long ago -- why does Hillary get a free ride? She is just another Lieberman-Feinstein Democrat -- her husband and her only care about themselves, not the party -- he did nothing to strengthen the party when he was president, in fact, he was impeached and left the party weaker than ever - I don't believe he should have been impeached, but he was a corporate Democrat in any case -- she is alienating millions of people right now -- I never disliked HRC until now.

[SteveClements]

I am a PhD student at University of Missouri. I have been doing critical research on Wal_mart and am so glad to hear someone finally exposing the Clinton- Wal-mart connection. If the main stream media would report it I don't see anyway Hillary could win PENN.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

man this is really sad. it's criminal, really. maybe not according any specific laws, but morally it's simply criminal.

[lovethesinner]

Great point, Joseph.

This story would have the same effect on progressive Democrats forced to vote for Hillary in the general election that the Rev. Haggard story had on evangelical conservatives in 2006. It would depress Democratic voter turnout, massively.

Even if Hillary was on the bottom of the ticket, some Obama voters would be repulsed enough to refuse to hold their nose. (personally, if she's on the ticket I'm moving to Finland, but others might not be as convinced of what a Hillary co-presidency means to America: "you thought Cheney was coercive?")

I hope super-delegates who are supporting her are prepared to loose a lot of congressional seats down-ticket.

Obama-Webb (Gore, Richardson, McKaskill, Nepolitano) '08

[mikey683]

What Walmart did was awful. Having said that how has this anything to do with Hillary Clinton? She was on the board 2more than 20 years ago. She left over disputes with Walmart over how it treats it's employees. Michelle Obama made over $50,000 from a Walmart supplier, is she to blame too?

[SteveClements]

Hillary did not leave over any disputes, if she had she wouldn't have taken 6 years to do so. She left because Bill was running for President. It is not a matter of 20 years ago. She and Bill are still profiting off their Wal-Mart ties. Comparing Michelle's $50,000 to the continuing largesse from Wal-Mart is like comparing McCain to George Washington, there is no comparison.

[SteveClements]

As a PhD student who has been doing critical research on Wal-Mart I've been making the point of Bill and Hillary's long and continuing ties to Wal-Mart. She served on their board for 6 years WHILE her husband was governor of the state where they are based. Is that not an extremely unethical conflict of interest. She sat in on board meetings where union busting tactics were discussed. (She's calling for the release of all records of Obama's service in Illinois legislature, what sbout the release of all records of board meetings she sat in on?) She left Wal-Mart with $100,000 of stock ( who knows their worth now, maybe why she is slow releasing tax returns). She profited handsomely for selling out the workers, mostly women, she now claims to speak for. Just this year Wal-Mart donated half a million to Bill's foundation. We need a President who is not indebted to special interests and who can be trusted to side with labor and not union busters. (By the way, Mark Penn, her strategist, represents Countrywide in addition to his union busting work). Could she be trusted to fight for workers? Could she be counted on to name pro-labor people to Department of Labor and to NLRB? Or can we expect her to repay the loyalty of her benefactors?

[Moose49]

You talk about the Wal-Mart and Countrywide connections. There may also be connections to corrupt Kazakhs and others, though we won't know that for sure until records are released.

But you don't even have to look there to find evidence that the Clintons can hardly be trusted to fight for working families. Just consider that the two most far-reaching policy achievements of Bill Clinton's presidency -- NAFTA and welfare reform -- wouldn't look out of place if they were claimed as the crowning achievements of any Republican president. The third major achievement -- balancing the budget and creating a surplus -- while not harmful to middle- and lower-income Americans in the way that NAFTA and welfare reform were, was primarily the fulfillment of the agenda of Wall Street bond traders and Alan Greenspan.

There is no sound reason to believe Hillary would govern differently were she to somehow get elected.

[SteveClements]

I agree. But i do honestly think along with NAFTA, her union busting connections and her sell out of working class women, if honestly reported to voters of Pennsylvania would finish her slim chances and would let the county finally unite behind the only candidate who instead of being indebted to special interests would be representing real Americans. After all, it is claimed that she should win PENN because of her support by women and blue collar workers who think we will magically return to Clinton years but forget it was Clinton who gave us NAFTa and most favored nation status to Wal-Mart, OOPS I mean China. By the way, how many people know that workers cannot get a representative in the door of Wal-Mart but in China the Communist Party has an office in Wal-Mart's China headquarters?

[Researchguy66]

A huge swath of America owns WalMart stock. I'm not a fan of retail stocks personally, so I don't own any, but know plenty of people who do. I know plenty of people who shop there as well. I don't get the point. You can try to paint everyone who owns a company's stock as complicit in their misbehaviors, but I doubt that will resonant real well with Middle Class America.

[SteveClements]

Yes, I read their shareholder reprts every year. Fact is large groups of shareholders have tried to make changes at share holders meetings. But most shareholders own miniscule amounts, and like most voters, most don't read the proposals. There is no evidence of either Clinton involving themselves. To the contrary, all evidence shows the continuing approval of bill and Hillary by the highest levels of company management.

[SteveClements]

As a PhD student doing critical research on Wal-Mart I've been pointing to the long and continuing ties Hillary and Bill have to Wal-Mart. Just recently Wal-Mart donated half a million to Bill's foundation. She was on their board of directors WHILE her husband was governor of the state where they are based. Huge conflict of interest. She sat in on board meetings wher union busting tactics were discussed. And remember, Wal-Mart is facing the largest sex discrimination suit ever. With all her connections to special interests how can she be trusted to fight for real average American workers, especially lower income workers, women. We need a President who is not indebted to the special interests and can be trusted to name pro-labor appointees to Department of Labor and the NLRB.

[eringob]

From what I've read, the fine print in the Wal-Mart health insurance says that the company has the right to try to recoup the funds. It does NOT say that they MUST. So, technically, under the law they're doing nothing wrong - which is why they (Wal-Mart) won the legal case. But fact is, Wal-Mart is choosing to go after their money - they don't have to do it. It's just a blatant example of how slimey and heartless that corporation is. They're making billions of dollars, but they'll go after some poor soul's last dime just because they can. I'd love to hear what Hillary "Wal-Mart" Clinton would say about this.