home

Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences

By TChris, Section Social Justice
Posted on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 08:00:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The nation's largest retailer is facing about 40 lawsuits alleging workplace violations. The first of those to go to trial alleges that Wal-Mart systematically denied its California workers the right to take a lunch break.

The case concerns a 2001 state law, which is among the nation's most worker friendly. Employees who work at least six hours must have a 30-minute, unpaid lunch break. If they do not get that, the law requires they are paid for an additional hour of pay.

Wal-Mart settled a similar suit in Colorado for $50 million.

Wal-Mart's lawyers reserved their right to give an opening statement until after the employees rest their case -- a sign, perhaps, that Wal-Mart isn't sure what defense it might have to the allegations. Wal-Mart might be playing for the fumble.

Don't expect litigation to change Wal-Mart's employment practices. Even with 40 lawsuits pending, here's the bottom line:

Shares of Wal-Mart rose 14 cents to close at $44.01 Monday on the New York Stock Exchange.

< False Arrest Settlement in Chicago | The Voter ID Proposal >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences | 12 comments (12 topical)
    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#1)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    I go to Walmart whenever I want some sort of cheap crap from China (which is never).

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#2)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    Being a diabetic my sympathies lie entirely with the workers. Last time I skipped lunch I would up slowly sliding to the ground when all my skeletal muscles decided to go on strike.

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    So who has gone the longest without shopping at sprawlmart? I swore them off 1.5 years ago.

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    I was inside a Walmart once around 5 years ago, I didn't buy anything. Luckily, several workers rights and quality of life groups have managed to keep Walmart out of my immediate area, for the time being. Target is much better. The local one pays their employees $8-10 an hour to start w/ health benefits. I am happy to give Target my super store business. Walmart...never, I equate shopping there with treason.

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#5)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    Hey I must have missed the Wal-Mart thing. How come everybody's mad at Wal-Mart?

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    Last time I spent cash in one of Sprawl-Marts stores was over a decade ago. I'd rather spend a just a little bit more for better quality and help keep a local small business going.

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    I worked for Wal-Mart for a few summers. I hated that job. They were very particular about enforcing labor laws. People got fired for not taking breaks and lunches because the store was afraid they'd get sued. This was in Oklahoma, not exactly a worker's paradise.

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    Roy, perhaps that particular branch was sued before? It has been claimed that the extreme efficiency quotas placed on store managers has led to a lot of the labor violations. Corporate headquarters set quotas that are impossible to meet while staying on budget without bending or breaking the rules. That's why you hear of workers being forced to work unpaid overtime, being denied breaks, etc. The store managers either break the law or lose their job.

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#9)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    I worked in a WM warehouse for about 3 months. Believe it or not the pay was pretty good ($10.50 per hour starting out for those of us in NonConvey Order filling). My experience was that they wouldnt let us have overtime very much and our breaks were EXACTLY 15 minutes twice a day and 30 minutes for lunch. We worked 3 - 12 hour shifts per week and had decent benefits. As for the last time I was in WM, it was last weekend. I've been out of the loop and didnt know we didnt like WM any more (or why we didnt like them for that matter).

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    This kind of thing happens a lot more in other businesses than folks realize. I did a return for a client who had worked for a national chain which wasn't Wal-mart, and she had gotten a settlement because they had work policies that were inconsistant with California labor law. I had boycotted this chain for other reasons, but I hadn't heard about this particular class action lawsuit, and I thought something like that would've gotten more coverage than it did. I work a part-time job for a Wal-Mart vendor, and what strikes me when I'm in the store is the number of folks working with a wrist brace or arm in a sling from what are probably job-related injuries, you don't see that at Target or at other retail establishments except once in a great while.

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Yeah, but unions SUCK!

    Re: Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    The store managers either break the law or lose their job.
    this may be true, to some extent, but i have to question whether or not this makes sense as corporate policy. it doesn't seem economically viable to me. running a store the size of the average wal-mart requires a skill set that takes some time to develop. the learning curve for managers is much steeper than that for stockers. consequently, it's much more difficult, expensive and time consuming to replace a manager than it is a stocker or cashier. you want to do it as infrequently as possible. conceivably, wal-mart doesn't care, and is willing to absorb that cost, as well as the disruption caused in the store and its attendent impact on profits, to mercilessly achieve its target bottom line. conceivably. except, that disruption, and its affect on the bottom line, would more likely than not offset any gains derived by such a policy, not to mention the intangible cost of the bad publicity resulting from lawsuits. quite the delicate balancing act. i suspect that, more likely than not, you are seeing the results of incompetent mgrs, left in place too long, because it is such a pain to replace them. just a theory.

    Trial Against Wal-Mart Commences | 12 comments (12 topical)