SHANK OR THE INTERVIEW: WHICH WAS FIRST…?
All of us involved feel good right now because we forced Wal-Mart to blink. Not because we convinced it that taking Debbie Shank’s money was bad, but because it understood that keeping her money would have a negative effect on its share holder value.
And that is the only pressure that any corporation will react to.
Which has given me to cause to wonder which came first: Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott’s interview with the Financial Times on health care in the United States; or the unrelenting conversation about Debbie Shank.
The chief executive of Wal-Mart has criticised US business for not taking a lead in the debate on the future of US healthcare ahead of the presidential elections in November.
Lee Scott said in a Financial Times interview that he was “not particularly encouraged” by the public debate on the issues.
“I think business has been absent in this debate on healthcare. I’m not sure why,” he said.
“I think government is going to be engaged after this election regardless of who wins, and I think business should be more involved in the discussion. I think it has long-term ramifications for our global competitiveness.”
Mr Scott said Wal-Mart, which has more than 1.3m US employees, had not taken “a firm stand” on what a national healthcare system might look like.
The retailer has in the past argued that reforms should focus on reducing costs rather than increasing employer funding of the system.
Some US corporate leaders say they have kept a low profile on healthcare for fear of being dragged into a political debate that could end up harming their companies’ image and finances.
I would suggest that the way Debbie Shank was treated has dragged U.S. businesses, represented no matter how reluctantly by Wal-Mart, into the debate. There can be no return to the sidelines.
[...] week I quoted Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott in an interview excerpt from the Financial Times. Yesterday, the paper [...]
[...] SHANK OR THE INTERVIEW: WHICH WAS FIRST…? All of us involved feel good right now because we forced Wal-Mart to blink. Not because we convinced it that taking Debbie Shank’s money was bad, but because it understood that keeping her money would have a negative effect on its share holder value. Keep reading… [...]