http://walmart.purpleocean.org/home/796396...27755599ce07556
very cool. spread it around!
Full Version: Be A WalMart Fact Checker
QUOTE(itsmeBarbara @ Feb 9 2005, 03:02 PM)
Barbara, I heard on the radio today that a Wal-Mart store in Canada is threatening to close because its employees are on the verge of joining a union. Any comment on the matter?
They're willing to close a profitable store (don't believe their claims of poverty) to keep from paying their workers a living wage. What I want to know is, how serious are we? They're as serious as cancer.
Wal-Mart Critics Launch Ad Campaign
Wed Apr 20, 2005
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=8238766
Wed Apr 20, 2005
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=8238766
QUOTE(itsmeBarbara @ Feb 9 2005, 09:01 PM)
From above link :-
Today Wal-Mart uses over 3,000 Chinese factories to produce its goods—almost as many factories as it has stores in the U.S. (3,600). (Source: L.A. Times)
Bloody hell!
I hung that ad on my union bulletin board last night and folks went crazy. There was a line up to read it.
most big companies are less than brilliant at looking after their staff
you should try reading some of the set texts on HR which most of the big business shools use, these texts are all pretty similar and full of psuedo science and half researched ill concieved ideas
sadly its the nonsense fed into business education at this level that comes out as the policies of large corporations you are complaining about
there is some scope for some decent HR text books written by people who have had a wide and varied career rather than spending their entire life in business school and HR departments
you should try reading some of the set texts on HR which most of the big business shools use, these texts are all pretty similar and full of psuedo science and half researched ill concieved ideas
sadly its the nonsense fed into business education at this level that comes out as the policies of large corporations you are complaining about
there is some scope for some decent HR text books written by people who have had a wide and varied career rather than spending their entire life in business school and HR departments
Wal-Mart Aids Meth Suppliers (Not in reform, but in manufacture)
From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-politics_x.htm
Grassley said the administration's plan shows that White House officials are "listening more to Wal-Mart than to the economic and social problems" caused by meth.
From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-politics_x.htm
Grassley said the administration's plan shows that White House officials are "listening more to Wal-Mart than to the economic and social problems" caused by meth.
My copy of the movie is sitting right in front of me...
i'm going to see it next week ... don't spoil it for me...
It ends with every single WalMart in the world blowing up - money scatters over the world and peace breaks out all over! I cried like a little baby, I swear to god.
LOL i was hoping for explosions...
And on a related note....
Forbes magazine reported there are now 374 U.S. billionaires who have more wealth than the bottom 95% of the U.S. population.
Forbes magazine reported there are now 374 U.S. billionaires who have more wealth than the bottom 95% of the U.S. population.
Isn't it nice when a hugely profitable corporation can get state taxpayers to fund their workers' healthcare?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca..._report24m.html
From the article...
More than 3,100 Wal-Mart employees in Washington were benefiting from state-subsidized health coverage throughout 2004 — nearly double the total for any other company, according to two confidential state reports.
That total is much higher than previously thought. And it indicates that as many as 20 percent of Wal-Mart's employees were getting taxpayer-funded health care for themselves or their dependents.
My comment...
It sure is kind of us!!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca..._report24m.html
From the article...
More than 3,100 Wal-Mart employees in Washington were benefiting from state-subsidized health coverage throughout 2004 — nearly double the total for any other company, according to two confidential state reports.
That total is much higher than previously thought. And it indicates that as many as 20 percent of Wal-Mart's employees were getting taxpayer-funded health care for themselves or their dependents.
My comment...
It sure is kind of us!!
Here's one from the NY Times. You may have to register to read the thing:
On Private Web Site, Wal-Mart Chief Talks Tough
Here are some choice tidbits from the article:
In a confidential, internal Web site for Wal-Mart's managers, the company's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., seemed to have a rare, unscripted moment when one manager asked him why "the largest company on the planet cannot offer some type of medical retirement benefits?
Mr. Scott first argues that the cost of such benefits would leave Wal-Mart at a competitive disadvantage but then, clearly annoyed, he suggests that the store manager is disloyal and should consider quitting.
In his response to the store manager who asked about retiree health benefits, Mr. Scott wrote: "Quite honestly, this environment isn't for everyone. There are people who would say, 'I'm sorry, but you should take the risk and take billions of dollars out of earnings and put this in retiree health benefits and let's see what happens to the company.' If you feel that way, then you as a manager should look for a company where you can do those kinds of things."
At several points, Mr. Scott addressed criticisms that Wal-Mart health plan was too stingy toward its employees. He said that Wal-Mart's health plan "stacks up very, very competitively" with other retailers. In a knock at companies that provide more generous benefits, Mr. Scott wrote: "One of the things said about General Motors now is that General Motors is no longer an automotive company. General Motors is a benefit company that sells cars to fund those benefits."
And...
But his [Scott's] responses often serve to remind managers of the gap between them and their chief executive, who earned more than $17 million last year, including stock options, who hops around the globe on Wal-Mart's fleet of jets and who lives in a gated community called Pinnacle.
Speaking of minding the gap, the Wal-Mart CEO reveals who the big winners have been in the US economy recently and tries to convince his managers that their company should Target (pun intended) the wealthy:
"Wal-Mart's focus has been on lower income and lower-middle income consumers," he wrote. "In the last four years or so, with the price of fuel being what it is, that customer has had the most difficult time. The upper-end customer got a tremendous number of tax breaks about four years ago. They have been doing very well in this economy."
Mr. Scott also quotes MLK on his web site. Yuck!
On Private Web Site, Wal-Mart Chief Talks Tough
Here are some choice tidbits from the article:
In a confidential, internal Web site for Wal-Mart's managers, the company's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., seemed to have a rare, unscripted moment when one manager asked him why "the largest company on the planet cannot offer some type of medical retirement benefits?
Mr. Scott first argues that the cost of such benefits would leave Wal-Mart at a competitive disadvantage but then, clearly annoyed, he suggests that the store manager is disloyal and should consider quitting.
In his response to the store manager who asked about retiree health benefits, Mr. Scott wrote: "Quite honestly, this environment isn't for everyone. There are people who would say, 'I'm sorry, but you should take the risk and take billions of dollars out of earnings and put this in retiree health benefits and let's see what happens to the company.' If you feel that way, then you as a manager should look for a company where you can do those kinds of things."
At several points, Mr. Scott addressed criticisms that Wal-Mart health plan was too stingy toward its employees. He said that Wal-Mart's health plan "stacks up very, very competitively" with other retailers. In a knock at companies that provide more generous benefits, Mr. Scott wrote: "One of the things said about General Motors now is that General Motors is no longer an automotive company. General Motors is a benefit company that sells cars to fund those benefits."
And...
But his [Scott's] responses often serve to remind managers of the gap between them and their chief executive, who earned more than $17 million last year, including stock options, who hops around the globe on Wal-Mart's fleet of jets and who lives in a gated community called Pinnacle.
Speaking of minding the gap, the Wal-Mart CEO reveals who the big winners have been in the US economy recently and tries to convince his managers that their company should Target (pun intended) the wealthy:
"Wal-Mart's focus has been on lower income and lower-middle income consumers," he wrote. "In the last four years or so, with the price of fuel being what it is, that customer has had the most difficult time. The upper-end customer got a tremendous number of tax breaks about four years ago. They have been doing very well in this economy."
Mr. Scott also quotes MLK on his web site. Yuck!
There was some interesting facts about Walmart on 'You and Yours' today, but I feel it didn't go half as far as it should in relation to the ownership of Asda by Walmart.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Democratic Party hack and corporate whore Andrew Young has taken a job defending WalMart. NPR show "News and Notes with Ed Gordon" had Young on today, who gassed at length about the wonderful things WalMart has done for rural America. Guess he didn't see this today:
Many Wal-Mart Workers in Pa. on Medicaid
- - - - - - - - - - - -
March 02,2006 | HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Almost one in six Wal-Mart employees in Pennsylvania was enrolled in the state's health care program for the poor and disabled last year, a newspaper reported Thursday.
Wal-Mart had the highest percentage of employees on Medicaid out of the state's 10 largest private-sector employers, according to data provided to The Philadelphia Inquirer by the state Department of Public Welfare.
The company, which is Pennsylvania's largest private-sector employer, had 7,577 of its 48,000 employees, or nearly 16 percent, on Medicaid, according to the figures. The annual cost to the state was $15 million, the newspaper said.
The data reflect both full- and part-time workers receiving the assistance between July and September of 2005.
Gov. Ed Rendell is looking into ways to require large employers that cannot cover the health-care costs for all their employees to pay an assessment to the state, an adviser said.
"These programs were never intended to cover people who are gainfully employed," Donna Cooper, Rendell's secretary for policy and planning, told the Inquirer.
A Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Kelly Hobbs, questioned the completeness of the data, saying a report on Medicaid recipients should include all employers, public and private.
Officials at Wal-Mart, which reported $11.2 billion in profits last fiscal year, say the company is already offering more affordable insurance plans that shorten the eligibility period for part-timers and add coverage of their children.
Seven percent of new employees nationally are on Medicaid when they join Wal-Mart, a percentage that drops to 3 percent within two years, the company said.
The question of Wal-Mart's health care policies has become a hot topic in many states, as organized labor unions and health care advocates press the world's-largest retailer to improve its benefits.
Proponents say legislation in at least 22 states would stop taxpayer subsidies for profitable companies that skimp on health coverage, leaving workers to sign up with state programs. Maryland passed a law in January that requires Wal-Mart and other large employers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on employee health care, or pay the difference into the state's Medicaid fund.
Behind Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania were supermarket chains Weis Markets Inc. and Giant Food Stores LLC. More than 13 percent of Weis Markets' 14,000 employees received the assistance while almost 12 percent of Giant's 19,000 employees were on Medicaid.
In comparison, UPS, the state's fourth-largest employer, had one in 17.5 workers on Medicaid -- less than 6 percent.
--__
Information from: The Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.philly.com
Many Wal-Mart Workers in Pa. on Medicaid
- - - - - - - - - - - -
March 02,2006 | HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Almost one in six Wal-Mart employees in Pennsylvania was enrolled in the state's health care program for the poor and disabled last year, a newspaper reported Thursday.
Wal-Mart had the highest percentage of employees on Medicaid out of the state's 10 largest private-sector employers, according to data provided to The Philadelphia Inquirer by the state Department of Public Welfare.
The company, which is Pennsylvania's largest private-sector employer, had 7,577 of its 48,000 employees, or nearly 16 percent, on Medicaid, according to the figures. The annual cost to the state was $15 million, the newspaper said.
The data reflect both full- and part-time workers receiving the assistance between July and September of 2005.
Gov. Ed Rendell is looking into ways to require large employers that cannot cover the health-care costs for all their employees to pay an assessment to the state, an adviser said.
"These programs were never intended to cover people who are gainfully employed," Donna Cooper, Rendell's secretary for policy and planning, told the Inquirer.
A Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Kelly Hobbs, questioned the completeness of the data, saying a report on Medicaid recipients should include all employers, public and private.
Officials at Wal-Mart, which reported $11.2 billion in profits last fiscal year, say the company is already offering more affordable insurance plans that shorten the eligibility period for part-timers and add coverage of their children.
Seven percent of new employees nationally are on Medicaid when they join Wal-Mart, a percentage that drops to 3 percent within two years, the company said.
The question of Wal-Mart's health care policies has become a hot topic in many states, as organized labor unions and health care advocates press the world's-largest retailer to improve its benefits.
Proponents say legislation in at least 22 states would stop taxpayer subsidies for profitable companies that skimp on health coverage, leaving workers to sign up with state programs. Maryland passed a law in January that requires Wal-Mart and other large employers to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on employee health care, or pay the difference into the state's Medicaid fund.
Behind Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania were supermarket chains Weis Markets Inc. and Giant Food Stores LLC. More than 13 percent of Weis Markets' 14,000 employees received the assistance while almost 12 percent of Giant's 19,000 employees were on Medicaid.
In comparison, UPS, the state's fourth-largest employer, had one in 17.5 workers on Medicaid -- less than 6 percent.
--__
Information from: The Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.philly.com
How do I join your network Barb, I don't see a link for that, do you need to email me through that site, I have a lot of folks to send that to.
I figured it out Barb, I'm just a little slow sometimes.
I figured it out Barb, I'm just a little slow sometimes.
This article was interesting, I thought. More for the first couple of paragraphs describing Walmarts office layout if nothing else.
Surely this is good news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6072700197.html
From the article:
The City Council brushed aside warnings from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to approve an ordinance that makes Chicago the biggest city in the nation to require big-box retailers to pay a "living wage."
The ordinance, which passed 35-14 Wednesday after three hours of impassioned debate, requires mega-retailers to pay wages of at least $10 an hour plus $3 in fringe benefits by mid-2010. It would only apply to companies with more than $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6072700197.html
From the article:
The City Council brushed aside warnings from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to approve an ordinance that makes Chicago the biggest city in the nation to require big-box retailers to pay a "living wage."
The ordinance, which passed 35-14 Wednesday after three hours of impassioned debate, requires mega-retailers to pay wages of at least $10 an hour plus $3 in fringe benefits by mid-2010. It would only apply to companies with more than $1 billion in annual sales and stores of at least 90,000 square feet.
First the Gap, now Wal-Mart: (from AP)
In April, Business Week had an article about how Wal-Mart was struggling in Germany, in part because it wasn't paying attention to local customers' needs and buying habits. And it wasn't doing well in adjusting to German labor laws, and there was friction with ver.di, which said it had organized all of the Wal-Mart stores in Germany.
But the main reason is that the German market already has several domestic "deep discount" chains.
QUOTE
Metro to buy 85 Wal-Mart stores in Germany
Wal-Mart said Friday it agreed to sell its 85 stores in Germany to the Duesseldorf-based Metro AG, effectively ending the U.S. giant's less than 10 years of trying to crack the market here.
"After we concentrated our activities in areas of our growth strategy that we believed would promise the greatest success, it became increasingly clear that under the current economic situation in Germany it is difficult to achieve the size and results that we are seeking," Michael Duke, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vice chairman, said in a statement.
Metro said in a statement the company would see a positive financial effect from the transaction, but neither company provided any details.
Wal-Mart's German stores had sales near $2.55 billion in 2005, Metro said. They will be incorporated into Metro's Real Hypermarket brand, the company said.
"The sale of this division gives us the chance to concentrate on the markets where we are able to better achieve our goals," Duke said.
According to Metro, the transaction includes the takeover of 19 pieces of Wal-Mart real estate, with the remainder of the locations being leased.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., based in Bentonville, Ark., is the world's largest retailer with more than 5,700 stores across the globe. It employs 11,000 people at its stores in Germany.
The deal remains subject to approval by authorities.
Wal-Mart said Friday it agreed to sell its 85 stores in Germany to the Duesseldorf-based Metro AG, effectively ending the U.S. giant's less than 10 years of trying to crack the market here.
"After we concentrated our activities in areas of our growth strategy that we believed would promise the greatest success, it became increasingly clear that under the current economic situation in Germany it is difficult to achieve the size and results that we are seeking," Michael Duke, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vice chairman, said in a statement.
Metro said in a statement the company would see a positive financial effect from the transaction, but neither company provided any details.
Wal-Mart's German stores had sales near $2.55 billion in 2005, Metro said. They will be incorporated into Metro's Real Hypermarket brand, the company said.
"The sale of this division gives us the chance to concentrate on the markets where we are able to better achieve our goals," Duke said.
According to Metro, the transaction includes the takeover of 19 pieces of Wal-Mart real estate, with the remainder of the locations being leased.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., based in Bentonville, Ark., is the world's largest retailer with more than 5,700 stores across the globe. It employs 11,000 people at its stores in Germany.
The deal remains subject to approval by authorities.
In April, Business Week had an article about how Wal-Mart was struggling in Germany, in part because it wasn't paying attention to local customers' needs and buying habits. And it wasn't doing well in adjusting to German labor laws, and there was friction with ver.di, which said it had organized all of the Wal-Mart stores in Germany.
But the main reason is that the German market already has several domestic "deep discount" chains.
Here's the link to the April Business Week story.
Here's my favorite quote:
Gaaaahhhh! Even after 12 years, and being half-German myself, I still don't understand these people sometimes!
Here's my favorite quote:
QUOTE
Rivals continue to chuckle about the customer reaction when, initially, Wal-Mart offered services such as grocery bagging. It turned out that Germans didn't want strangers handling their groceries. And when clerks followed orders to smile at shoppers, male customers took it as a come-on.
Gaaaahhhh! Even after 12 years, and being half-German myself, I still don't understand these people sometimes!
who knew the germans could be so ODD! thanks for sharing that T.
Keri, you have no idea just how odd the Germans can be! 
Seems to me that the Germans are not that different from the Brits, then.
I too am slightly disconcerted by strangers packing my shopping bag. It's one of the reasons why I loved Self-scan at sainsbury's. And all that smiling as you enter the store. Thanks, for that. I'm just popping in for some paper plates for the wake.
This is code for "We've had it trying to get these fuckers to work for two marks an hour"
I too am slightly disconcerted by strangers packing my shopping bag. It's one of the reasons why I loved Self-scan at sainsbury's. And all that smiling as you enter the store. Thanks, for that. I'm just popping in for some paper plates for the wake.
QUOTE
After we concentrated our activities in areas of our growth strategy that we believed would promise the greatest success, it became increasingly clear that under the current economic situation in Germany it is difficult to achieve the size and results that we are seeking," Michael Duke, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vice chairman, said in a statement.
This is code for "We've had it trying to get these fuckers to work for two marks an hour"
Surely you mean Euros, Martyn? 
when they first started saying 'are you ok with packing' in tescos i thought they were implying i looked too old a decrepit to do it myself 
now i just say 'no, i'm useless but i'll do it myself anyway, thanks'.
i hate having my shopping packed for me!
i like to know what bags i can throw in the corner (probably 'til they are ready to throw in the bin if it was something i thought i might make something with) what i need to bung in the fridge and where the booze is so i can sit down and pour myself a drink
now i just say 'no, i'm useless but i'll do it myself anyway, thanks'.
i hate having my shopping packed for me!
i like to know what bags i can throw in the corner (probably 'til they are ready to throw in the bin if it was something i thought i might make something with) what i need to bung in the fridge and where the booze is so i can sit down and pour myself a drink
QUOTE(Beryl the Peril @ Jul 28 2006, 10:58 PM) 
i hate having my shopping packed for me!
It's not that part I find so odd, but the next line:
QUOTE
And when clerks followed orders to smile at shoppers, male customers took it as a come-on.
That says a lot, I think.
Once a cashier at my local supermarket told me one of her co-workers scolded her for being "too friendly" to the customers. "Is it possible to be too friendly?" I asked. "My point exactly!" she replied.
Many years ago I had a problem in that having given a £5 note at the till I was given change for £10.........having tried to explain to the lady that she had given me the wrong change she got very annoyed and accused me of calling her a thief and then called the manager to 'sort me out'
Once I explained to the manager I was allowed to return then extra £5 that she'd given me. I was worried that if her till was 'down' that it would be stopped from her wages.
After the manager had gone she told me to 'fuck off'
Once I explained to the manager I was allowed to return then extra £5 that she'd given me. I was worried that if her till was 'down' that it would be stopped from her wages.
After the manager had gone she told me to 'fuck off'
QUOTE(Tanya @ Jul 28 2006, 08:20 PM)
Surely you mean Euros, Martyn?
I did. Sorry.
QUOTE
Wal-Mart had accused Coughlin of stealing as much as $500,000, however, he later pleaded guilty to a smaller sum that included $6,500 for his share of a private hunting lease.
From THIS STORY. on the Beeb.
How interesting, I mused. Mr Coughlin is too ill to do jail time but from the looks of things well enough to go lurching through brush, across hillsides and waist deep into lakes and rivers to kill stuff with guns and line.
If not jail he certainly belongs Here!
I'm late to this thread so excuse my ignorance, but you bag your own groceries in the U.K.? and Germany?
We're very wary about where other people have had their hands 
QUOTE(aquaman @ Aug 13 2006, 04:39 PM)
We're very wary about where other people have had their hands
that's mainly because we know where we've had our own hands, and what we've been doing with them...
QUOTE(itsmeBarbara @ Aug 13 2006, 02:43 PM)
I'm late to this thread so excuse my ignorance, but you bag your own groceries in the U.K.? and Germany?
Hell yeah, I'm way too much of a control freak to let someone else put stuff in bags with the wrong things <shudders>
QUOTE(itsmeBarbara @ Aug 13 2006, 09:43 AM)
I'm late to this thread so excuse my ignorance, but you bag your own groceries in the U.K.? and Germany?
Yes, Barb. And in Germany, you have to pay for the bags, which isn't such a bad idea, actually, as it encourages people to reuse bags, or use more durable things like cloth bags or collapsible plastic boxes.
That's a great idea - why don't they do that here?!
They used to Sarah - carriers used to cost 5p but then it went 'out of fashion'
I think someone like Waitrose should reintroduce it then. We took all our bags down to Sainsburys for recycling at the weekend, I made sure I kept back the nice big ones for my shopping though.
When we still had Safeways you could get heavy duty US style paper bags for your shopping but that seems to have gone now aswell!
When we still had Safeways you could get heavy duty US style paper bags for your shopping but that seems to have gone now aswell!
Trader Joe's has excellent cheap canvas bags. I bought five of them and now I always take them shopping with me. The plastic bags threatened to take over my house.
But you can't train a bagger to not put your apples on top of your bread? We do here!
But you can't train a bagger to not put your apples on top of your bread? We do here!
You can't train a bagger because they don't really exist - not as trained baggers anyway (and I so read that as Badger to start with).
They occasionally ask if you want help with your packing and then get some poor bugger to come "help".
I once got asked if I wanted to help when they had the lad already waiting with his supervisor. The lad had Downs and I couldn't really say no as I was buying lots - I then ended up with one item in every bag and loads of bags and I couldn't say anything without looking really rude!
They occasionally ask if you want help with your packing and then get some poor bugger to come "help".
I once got asked if I wanted to help when they had the lad already waiting with his supervisor. The lad had Downs and I couldn't really say no as I was buying lots - I then ended up with one item in every bag and loads of bags and I couldn't say anything without looking really rude!
what they still have baggers in detroit? i remember when i lived in the uk back in 95 and i was charged for my plastic bags i nearly had a stroke. it is a good idea to charge but overall england still has a long way to go with it's recycling program... little black bins that hold all of 2 tin cans and 4 beer bottles does my head in.
I'll send a bunch of TJ's bags home with SarahL in the fall. They are excellent.
My baggers across the street are mostly Down's, but they're great and never crush the tomatoes. Plus I get extra smiles from them so they make my day.
Bag my own groceries? Well, I nevah!
My baggers across the street are mostly Down's, but they're great and never crush the tomatoes. Plus I get extra smiles from them so they make my day.
Bag my own groceries? Well, I nevah!
Here's another way to make the Wal-Mart corporation crazy: Su the pants off of them!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101201608.html
From the article:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. violated Pennsylvania labor laws by forcing hourly employees to work through breaks and beyond their shifts without overtime pay, a jury decided yesterday.
Lawyers for the employees said the decision could result in $62 million or more in damages.
My comment:
$62 million, maybe they should have just let their employs take breaks and paid them for overtime. It seems cheaper in the end.
From the article:
The lawsuit, brought by two employees on behalf of almost 187,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees, claimed that the company made workers in Pennsylvania miss more than 33 million rest breaks from 1998 to 2001. At least 57 other wage-and-hour cases have been filed across the United States against the world's largest retailer, and many of them are awaiting class-action certification, according to company filings.
My comment:
I wonder how many other cases will be successful.
From the article:
"I think this proves that Wal-Mart's sweatshop mind-set persists," said Chris Kofinis, a spokesman with WakeUp Wal-Mart, a United Food and Commercial Workers Union-backed group. "There is some point where Wal-Mart will have to listen and it's got to treat its workers with respect and fairness."
Michael Donovan, a lawyer for the employees, would not comment until damages are awarded. He expects that to happen today. In court, the lawyers argued that the company denied breaks to cut labor costs and increase productivity.
"We take matters very seriously when associates say they have been mistreated in any way. However, because the jury is still in deliberation, it would not be appropriate to comment on the matter until a final decision has been made," said Sarah Clark, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart.
Neal Manne, Wal-Mart's attorney, argued that the company properly paid its employees and that the lead plaintiffs were among a small group of disgruntled workers, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer's coverage of the trial.
Company officials said records appeared to show that workers who did not have breaks did so because they chose not to, or did not sign out, according to news reports.
My comment:
The company can make all the claims it wants, but the court has basically said to them, "you're lying!!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101201608.html
From the article:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. violated Pennsylvania labor laws by forcing hourly employees to work through breaks and beyond their shifts without overtime pay, a jury decided yesterday.
Lawyers for the employees said the decision could result in $62 million or more in damages.
My comment:
$62 million, maybe they should have just let their employs take breaks and paid them for overtime. It seems cheaper in the end.
From the article:
The lawsuit, brought by two employees on behalf of almost 187,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees, claimed that the company made workers in Pennsylvania miss more than 33 million rest breaks from 1998 to 2001. At least 57 other wage-and-hour cases have been filed across the United States against the world's largest retailer, and many of them are awaiting class-action certification, according to company filings.
My comment:
I wonder how many other cases will be successful.
From the article:
"I think this proves that Wal-Mart's sweatshop mind-set persists," said Chris Kofinis, a spokesman with WakeUp Wal-Mart, a United Food and Commercial Workers Union-backed group. "There is some point where Wal-Mart will have to listen and it's got to treat its workers with respect and fairness."
Michael Donovan, a lawyer for the employees, would not comment until damages are awarded. He expects that to happen today. In court, the lawyers argued that the company denied breaks to cut labor costs and increase productivity.
"We take matters very seriously when associates say they have been mistreated in any way. However, because the jury is still in deliberation, it would not be appropriate to comment on the matter until a final decision has been made," said Sarah Clark, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart.
Neal Manne, Wal-Mart's attorney, argued that the company properly paid its employees and that the lead plaintiffs were among a small group of disgruntled workers, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer's coverage of the trial.
Company officials said records appeared to show that workers who did not have breaks did so because they chose not to, or did not sign out, according to news reports.
My comment:
The company can make all the claims it wants, but the court has basically said to them, "you're lying!!"
Wal-Mart back in court...
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/cour...9990009?cid=403
Female employees allegedly discriminated against at Wal-Mart... Does this surprise anyone?
Always high damages. Always.
I like how they are not saying that discrimination did not occur, merely that they shouldn't be responsible as a corporate entity.
Yeah, Wal-Mart is the victim. Poor company.
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/cour...9990009?cid=403
QUOTE
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest private employer, must face a class-action lawsuit alleging female employees were discriminated against in pay and promotions.
Female employees allegedly discriminated against at Wal-Mart... Does this surprise anyone?
QUOTE
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a 2004 federal judge's decision to let the nation's largest class-action employment discrimination lawsuit go to trial. The suit claims that as many as 1.5 million current and former female employees earned less than men and were bypassed for promotions.
The lawsuit exposes the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailing powerhouse to the possibility of billions of dollars in damages.
The lawsuit exposes the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailing powerhouse to the possibility of billions of dollars in damages.
Always high damages. Always.
QUOTE
Wal-Mart claimed that the conventional rules of class actions should not apply in the case because its 3,400 stores, including Sam's Club warehouse outlets, operate like independent businesses, and that the company did not have a policy of discriminating against women.
I like how they are not saying that discrimination did not occur, merely that they shouldn't be responsible as a corporate entity.
QUOTE
But the court, in a 2-1 decision, disagreed.
"Plaintiff's expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support plaintiff's contention that female employees nationwide were subjected to a common pattern and practice of discrimination," the court wrote.
U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins, the San Francisco trial court judge who said the case could proceed, had ruled that lawyers for the women had enough anecdotal evidence to warrant a class-action trial. Wal-Mart took the case to the San Francisco-based appeals court.
Jenkins said if companywide gender discrimination is proven at trial, Wal-Mart could be forced to pay billions of dollars to women who earned less than their male counterparts, with no opportunity to dispute their individual circumstances.
Jenkins said it was "impractical on its face" to have individual hearings for each plaintiff and had planned to use a statistical formula to compensate the women.
Wal-Mart, in seeking dismissal of the case, called that an unprecedented denial of its rights. Wal-Mart said women who allege they were discriminated against can file lawsuits against individual stores. The women's lawyers said the idea was ridiculous, and would clog the federal judiciary.
"Plaintiff's expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support plaintiff's contention that female employees nationwide were subjected to a common pattern and practice of discrimination," the court wrote.
U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins, the San Francisco trial court judge who said the case could proceed, had ruled that lawyers for the women had enough anecdotal evidence to warrant a class-action trial. Wal-Mart took the case to the San Francisco-based appeals court.
Jenkins said if companywide gender discrimination is proven at trial, Wal-Mart could be forced to pay billions of dollars to women who earned less than their male counterparts, with no opportunity to dispute their individual circumstances.
Jenkins said it was "impractical on its face" to have individual hearings for each plaintiff and had planned to use a statistical formula to compensate the women.
Wal-Mart, in seeking dismissal of the case, called that an unprecedented denial of its rights. Wal-Mart said women who allege they were discriminated against can file lawsuits against individual stores. The women's lawyers said the idea was ridiculous, and would clog the federal judiciary.
Yeah, Wal-Mart is the victim. Poor company.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.