Re: Wal-Mart and injured/disabled employee, Mrs.Shank

[Guest guest]

What these kind of contracts mean is that, barring action from

Washington, individuals need to negotiate more favorable terms,

pre-employment. That would mean striking (drawing a line through)

those terms in the contract before signing it.

This might be possible for some people, but for other people, bringing

something like that up would mean that you wouldn't get the job.

[Guest guest]

I think it should be required that anyone who is intending to make a claim

against a litigation settlement, must do so before the agreement amount is

reached. That is just sickening that this Wal-Mart family went thru this

entire lawsuit, with everything else going on, only to have to give it all to

Wal-Mart. They would have been better off not to sue and Wal-Mart would have

had

no one to recoup from. They would have just paid the bills.

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest

products.

(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

[Guest guest]

They should make a law forcing the insurance companies go after each other and

not the victim. That would solve the problem. In the mean time lawyers and

victims need to be made aware that they need to consider repayment before they

settle. This makes me sick.

Sharon Hanson

Re: [] Wal-Mart and injured/disabled employee, Mrs.Shank

What these kind of contracts mean is that, barring action from

Washington, individuals need to negotiate more favorable terms,

pre-employment. That would mean striking (drawing a line through)

those terms in the contract before signing it.

This might be possible for some people, but for other people, bringing

something like that up would mean that you wouldn't get the job.

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Be a better pen pal.

Text or chat with friends inside . See how.

http://overview.mail./

[Guest guest]

I think that businesspeople who enter into businesses with mold risk

exposure should pay a percentage, say 10%, of what they charge (not

easily manipulated 'profits') into a fund that is tapped to pay ALL

victims with issues. There should be inspections for water incursion

issues of all buildings in the class and fines should be imposed for

violations whether anyone is injured or not. This would remove the

various incentives to cheat that are caused by the obviously broken

mechanisms.

Another idea whose time is come is VCS testing of everybody, every few

years, to identify changes and envirnmental toxicants that could be

hurting large numbers of people and going undetected.

The point is getting money to victims and stopping dangerous

situations as early as possible.

people should NOT be forced to go to court and be humilated. They

should not be forced into poverty and away from healthcare (which

happens when they lose their jobs)

There should be huge fines for renting apartments that have serious

mold issues.. huge.. Enough to make up for all the people who never

got a chance to sue.. That is the whole point.. Effective, meaningful

deterrence..

[Guest guest]

The shanks are on TV. Natioanal

snk1955@... wrote: I think it should be required that anyone who is

intending to make a claim

against a litigation settlement, must do so before the agreement amount is

reached. That is just sickening that this Wal-Mart family went thru this

entire lawsuit, with everything else going on, only to have to give it all to

Wal-Mart. They would have been better off not to sue and Wal-Mart would have had

no one to recoup from. They would have just paid the bills.

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest

products.

(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)