Wal-Mart gets spankedFollow

Link



CA for decades has had a requirement that employers provide a 10 minute paid break for every 4 hours worked and a 30 minute meal break for employees working 5 hours or more. The meal break is unpaid unless you have an "on duty" meal break, such as in security work, where you can get called away from your meal to before a job function, in which case the meal period is paid.

In 2001 as a result of a lot of companies not following this law they implemented the requirement that if the meal break was not provided before the employee complete 5 hours of work, the company must pay them an addition 1 hour of pay.


The $57 million dollars is probably the sum of all the added paid hours for not getting the meal break in time. The $115 million in punitive damages seems high, but likely its all the times Wal-mart has stated its cheaper to pay any fines then comply with the law coming back to bite them in the @$$.

They will probably get the punitive damages reduce on appeal.



Wal-mart has a history of employment law violations. In the past few years there was paying female managers less for the same job, and locking workers in the store and forcing them to clean the store off the clock. I’m not surprised to see cases in other states.

Walmart derserved it. Alot of companies flaunt the law regarding paying employees for overtime and breaks. I hope a couple of big companies get hit for the overtime thing soon, it's ridiculous what some firms try to get away with. If someone works they should get paid for it.

At least you dont live in Arizona where about 98 % of the population hates the unions.

Then again 99% of our state has a education that goes up to 6th grade and has never worked a job that paid higher than $14 an hour.

Lets take my company for example: Titan Auto Insurance


Used to be a pretty good job that I worked roughly 5 days a week and the hours were a good balance of 40.

Recently we were bought out by Nationwide and they have pretty much hollowed out the company and brought it into the corporate family.

We now work 6 days a week and get 4 days off a month. They stripped our sick time and vacation away and gave us a straight 2 weeks that we can use for either. But if we call out more than three times were terminated.

Its very much become like a call center where its if you dont like then quit.

Its actually very stupid because were all licensed agents for the state of arizona and can easily leave this company for the same BS somewhere else but making a good deal more money.

They'd rather lose a $2000 TV sale than get sued.

I'm sure you're right, Gbaji. Walmart keeps getting found guilty of various violations because of those greedy, lazy, overpaid employees.

Walmart's not exactly getting spanked. It IS more efficient for them to just pay the fines and keep on trucking. I was checking out some trade papers the other week at work and one set of charts covered the grocery sales in the Southeast states. In every single state listed, Walmart was the leading grocery retailer, usually by a margin greater than any competitor's market share. Not too shabby for a chain that didn't start out in the grocery business and still isn't an exclusive grocery business. Walmart got into the grocery business because they saw huge opportunity there. Offer the same products as the other guy, at better prices while taking home a major profit themselves. All leveraged through lower operating costs achieved in a number of manners from cheap labor to good logistics to getting better prices from vendors.

So, where in the paean of praise for Sam's kids do I stand? I think the problem will solve itself. I think it already is beginning to. The concept of the free market is so well embedded in the minds and souls of those in this country that many of us have recognized Walmart, not as a monopoly, but rather as a danger to the structure of the free market in its business sector. There are an increasing number of people who have no particular objection to Walmart's business practices, profit margins, product lines or politics (I have been told that they regularly remind people in their organization to vote Republican) that do not shop at Walmart simply because we see their competition dwindling and fading away. So we buy our groceries at Publix, Food Lion, BiLo, or wherever we can but Walmart and Target is riding the wave of success due not only to its own busniess plan but to the fact that we WANT alternatives and are conciously choosing those alternatives rather than shopping at Walmart. We're voting with our consumer dollars, telling the market that those who cater to what we want will be rewarded. And we do want more than the lowest price possible.

Wal-mart is trying to comply now, but they could have avoided the legal action in the first place if they paid the 1 hour to each employee, each time they went over 5 hours without getting their lunch break. Its not simply that people didn't get lunch on time, its that Wal-mart didn't comply with the law and pay the hour when people did miss that 5 hour mark.

Every hourly wage job I've worked has been strict about our breaks and lunches with two exceptions. One being when I worked Master Control for a television station and 95% of the job consisted of me shooting rubber bands at the wall and flipping through foreign satellite stations (i.e. the entire job was one long paid break) and the other was a small retail garden center where I probably could have ******* about my breaks but they paid me all sorts of crazy overtime and it was more a family business so I had no issues taking one for the team when it got busy.

I worked one large chain retail operation and it was nearly fanatical about making sure we took breaks and lunches to the point of annoyance. You just wanted to finish getting the damn stock out onto the floor and the manager was hassling you to sit in the breakroom for ten minutes where there wasn't much to do but read the labor law poster. I also worked a variety of other non-salaried jobs that all enforced lunches and breaks.

I won't make random guesses if this store or that chain is complying with the law. But, if they're not, that doesn't exonerate Wal-Mart in any fashion; it's up to the employees or their unions to ***** at Target or Sears or whoever you think isn't doing their part to comply. Likewise, unless you spent your convenience store days actually mentioning that you were supposed to have breaks/lunches (assuming that was the law), you not getting them means nothing more than your willingness to waive your rights and be walked over by the Quik-E-Mart. Not that I think working a convenience store really compares to large-scale department retail, but whatever.
Again, every non-salaried job I've worked had explicit sceduling information in the employee's manual. The exceptions again being the TV job and the small garden center gig where I don't think we had a manual. But the large scale places very much did and if you "refused" to take breaks or lunch, you got reprimanded same as if you refused to wear your uniform or clock out at the end of your shift or whatever other infractions you can think of. Insubordination isn't suddenly okay just because you're refusing to take breaks and I don't see where the poor retailer's hands are tied here. What would they do if I refused to count my cash drawer at night or if I left my department to chat up the cashiers? Well, that's your answer to what to do when the employees refuse to take their required breaks and lunches. Not very difficult at all.

Edited, Tue Jan 3 21:01:13 2006 by Jophiel

Ok. Granted. However, let's say that I'd been working there for the period between 2001 and 2003 (the time period in question) and after 2 years of this, I decided to sue the company for failing to give me lunch breaks. Can I do that after the fact? What if I never once complained about it or requested pay for a missed lunch? Can I sue then? The details on this suit are sketchy on this detail, but at least according to Walmart's statements, that's essentially what happened. A small group of employees brought a suit after the fact, they then estimated how many others had worked through lunches and not been paid, and calculated their class action suit around that figure.


You could probably do that to *any* business that has a large number of hourly workers. I'd be willing to bet that's exactly the ground that Walmart is appealing this case on. If an employee doesn't request the hour of pay after having to work through lunch, he shouldn't be able to sue for that years later. I'd be willing to bet that for that first couple years, Walmart wasn't really even aware of the new law, and certainly didn't feel it had to track this for the employees.


We'll see what happens with the appeal. However, I'll repeat my earlier statement. It's pretty clear that while Walmart may have been in violation of this law, the reason they're the ones being sued and not Target is because of the actions of labor unions and not because Walmart is any more or less in violation.

I wouldn't be surprised if Wal-Mart has a secret basement with people working in sweatshops making their skechers for less than 10 cents and hour.

i just saw a 60 minutes episode about wal-mart.

they have changed the way manufacturers do bussiness with retailers. wal-mart actually tells them what product they want, and how much they will pay for it. there is no selling, no bartering. they pay bottom dollar for it, and they will even help a manufacturer make the product for theri price.

they have helped many bussiness transfer their manufacturing facilities to China, where the average emploee earns 50 cents an hour with no benifits.

Rubbermaid refused to move to China, and they refused to sell to wal-mart at wal-marts price. the result? the CEO of Rubbermaid was fired, and their largest plant was shut down due to a lack of bussiness costing a small town over 1000 jobs.

Rubbermaid sells to wal-mart now at wal-mart prices.

as a result of the way they do bussiness, wal-mart is the largest retailer in the country now. they have the ability to make a company grow from a few thousand sales a year to a few million sales a year over night. currently, the majority of the products they sell come from China, even the "american made" products come from "american" manufacturing plants in China.

the pros:
better prices for consumers

the cons:
outsourcing of american jobs.

they are a lean retail machine. when they buy from a manufacturer, they go into the buying office knowing what it costs to make the product, knowing the profit margin for the manufacturer, knowing how much of a loss they will take on a product to sell bulk, adn willing to help a company move to China to increase their profit margine, so wal-mart can get the product at the best price.

good, bad, reguardless, it is the future of retail in america. our largest retailer is helping move hundreds of thousands of american jobs overseas in order to sell you the best product at the lowest price.

companies following their model are Target.

companies not folloing their model are companies in bankrupcy, like Sears, K-Mart, most department stores including Macys, Bloomingdales, and mom and pop stores all over this country.

these are facts.

weather you personally feel government should intervene with legislation to controll outsourcing, and how bussines to bussiness overseas, or weather you believe companies have a right to do bussiness however they deem fit to, here or abroad, these are the facts. this is happening now.

another little note for you. it was the Clinton addministraition that negotiated free trade with China that is allowing Wal-Mart to expand there. that is not saying they wouldnt have done it in Tiawan, Korea or elsewhere reguardless.

but the Clinton addministraition sold free trade to China to the people as a means to sell American goods overseas. a bill sponsered by Wal-Mart and other big bussiness lobbiests. the reality is, China is buying American raw materials, like wood, concrete, steel, but the only consumer goods being sold are goods manufactured in their country, being sold in this country.

our current trade deficit with China is around 125 billion and growing every year.

should this be regualted? or should we allow big bussiness to transform this country into a user society instead of an industrial society?

should government interfere with bussiness for the benifit of this country? or pander to big bussiness to the detriment of this country? or remain nutral and not interfere either way?

republian or democrat does not matter. they are both selling american jobs to overseas countries.

good? bad? natural evolution of this country?

reguardless of how you feel, this is reality today. we ARE becoming a user society as our industry continues to be sold to third world countries by both the democratic and republican addministraitions.

this is happening.

You are right SR, we need to destroy the Wallmart.
--------------------------------------------

inspite of your sarcasm, i am not suggesting Wal-mart has done anything wrong.

Wal-mart found a niche to retailing and invested heavily in it and have become sucessfull because of it.

nor am i taking sides. the simple truth is, our standard of living is much higher than else where in the world, and as we have fewer and fewer enemys, and travel and communication becaome eaiser and cheaper, the inescapable result will be labor and manufacturing moved to places that cost less.

this may be the evolution of this country. in order for other countries to "catch up", we have to slide backwards a bit. a good bit.

if a toggle can be made for 3 dollars here, or 3 cents there, where would you make it? and even if you stuck to your guns and made the toggle here, who would you sell it to if every one sees the same toggle in a differant wrapper and buys the cheaper one?

it is the natural evolution of bussiness.

my question, should government intervene to maintain our standard of living? or allow bussines to unfold as it will even to our detriment? at best, could they stop the slide or mearly slow it down anyway?

GM cut 30,000 jobs here in the U.S., GM is currently expanding their manufacturing facilties in Mexico, and yes, China now. so is Ford in Canada, Mexico, and else where. cutting jobs here, and moving them abroad to cheaper labor markets.

in a capitalist society, we should let bussiness evolve as it will with free market determining where toggles will be made, and what will be charged for them.

but it is clearly bad for this country if you look at it from the U.S.A., or clearly good for third world countries if you look at it from a global prospective.