Wal-Mart Accused of Denying Lunch Breaks

[Eugene]

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-wal-mart-lunch-breaks,0,6337854.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

Wal-Mart Accused of Denying Lunch Breaks

By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer

September 19, 2005, 6:16 PM EDT

OAKLAND, Calif. -- Lawyers representing about 116,000 former and current
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees in California told a jury Monday that the
world's largest retailer systematically and illegally denied workers
lunch breaks.

The suit in Alameda County Superior Court is among about 40 cases
nationwide alleging workplace violations against Wal-Mart, and the first
to go to trial. Wal-Mart, which earned $10 billion last year, settled a
lawsuit in Colorado for $50 million that contains similar allegations to
California's class action. The company also is accused of paying men
more than women in a federal lawsuit pending in San Francisco federal
court.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

The lawsuit was brought in 2001 by a handful of San Francisco-area
former Wal-Mart employees, and took four years of legal wrangling to
get to trial. During that time, Wal-Mart produced internal audits
that plaintiffs' lawyers maintain showed the company knew it was not
granting meal breaks on thousands of occasions.

<snip>

full article

[gizmo1979]

1. typical

of the evil race to the bottom.

[marbuc]

4. Not exactly typical

Wal Mart is leading the race to the bottom, going where no company previously dared (at least not since labor laws were implemented). The level of institutional depravity is outrageous.

[hogwyld]

21. Oh, come on

Don't you all know that this is "good" for us? I mean were getting rid of those unstable, high wage manufacturing jobs to stable, min. wage service sector jobs. Pretty soon, we'll all be making 6.00/hr. stocking chineses goods that nobody will be able to afford! Ain't progress grand!

[nerddem]

22. the complete opposite of what happens in the walmart around me

when it's slow the cashiers get told to just hang around, they have no problems taking days off, etc.

[HockeyMom]

2. Not just lunch break

If they are hourly, 20+ hour a week employees, they are entitled to a PAID 15 minute break (can be split) during the day. Um, when you gotta go, you gotta go. If you know what I mean.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. Barbara Ehrenreich alleges that many clerks

wear adult diapers because they don't get bathroom breaks.

[Poppyseedman]

3. I used to work at a place where it was a terminable offense

no to take your break or at least a 1/2 hour lunch if you worked at least 5 hours...................

For these exact reason of being afraid of being sued.

[tammywammy]

6. I worked at a place

where you had to take 35 min lunch breaks. Because if you took 29 min, it didn't count as a break, and thus, 1. you were paid for it, and 2. it looked like you never had a break in the first place.

So the manager just said that we needed to take at least 30 min, and he preferred 35, but don't hurry and come back before 30.

[LostinVA]

7. Where I now work, you get written up for NOT taking your

paid break and unpaid lunch. It's in an anti-state, no union.

[pinniped]

5. That Turdinator wants to change rules for this sort of thing.

First Wallyworld breaks child labor laws, discriminates against female workers, and now this. F-them.

[jmowreader]

8. I'd use the federal lunch law, it's probably more severe than the state's

It has the teeth of the Department of Labor behind it, and they're potentially more vicious than California--they can look at lunch violations in all 50 states, and maybe give Wal-Mart the kind of whacking they deserve.

If you work more than six hours in a shift, you are REQUIRED, by federal law, to take at least a 30-minute lunch break, and they really prefer that you be allowed to take a full hour.

[strategery blunder]

12. With the Bu$h* DOJ enforcing it?

:rofl:

[jmowreader]

17. The Department of Labor is REAL vicious

As is OSHA, for now at least.

And in recent years, I think they've gotten worse.

And the reason is simple: the more vicious they are, the more fines they can hand out (which means the more money they bring into the general fund) and the less they have to worry about being eliminated in a Republican "rightsizing government" initiative.

DoL and OSHA fines don't damage large businesses. You are NOT going to tell me Wal-Mart doesn't have a little safe sitting there that's packed with thousand-dollar bills for use in paying down fines. I know it's part of Home Depot's insurance policy, although we have a $10,000 deductible per incident on the policy. (When we have safety classes, they always tell us that we need to follow our safety guidelines for three reasons: to keep the customers safe, to keep the employees safe, and because every incident or OSHA fine costs us $10,000. Naturally, the associates on the salesfloor are much more concerned about keeping customers and associates safe than they are about the $10,000.)

Those fines really ruin small businesses, though; that insurance is extremely expensive (and because it's part of your general liability insurance it's also tax-deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense) so none of them have it, and it comes with a huge deductible so even if they did have it just paying the deductible could kill the average small business. Tell me there's a mom-and-pop that can afford to have ten grand sitting in a bank account just in case OSHA gets a wild hair up its ass and starts looking at their barrel of parts cleaner. And when OSHA comes in and whacks you with a $50,000 fine, they want to leave your premises with a check.

Yeah, you can appeal to the Justice Department, but by the time you're done, unless you got hit with a couple million in fines you'll spend more to appeal than you will to just pay the damn thing. Once again, a large business that has a legal department can afford to appeal; a small business that buys its lawyering by the hour cannot.

I think Bush secretly loves OSHA. He can get up and say "we made strides in worker safety this year by handing down over $450 million in fines for noncompliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act." 'Course, most of it's insurance money, and all it really does is helps Bush pay for his tax cuts. But the sheeple will look and go "oh, Bush is keeping us safe." (The freepers scream, but freepers scream over a nickel tax on an ice cream cone.)

[snippy]

18. LOL. Bush's Labor Department already went after Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart was fined $135,540 for child labor violations and the Department of Labor agreed to notify Wal-Mart 15 days in advance of any new investigations.

U.S. Inspector General to Investigate Labor Department Deal with Wal-Mart

The U.S. Department of Labor’s inspector general announced on Feb. 18 his office would investigate the department’s agreement to give Wal-Mart 15 days advance notice to investigate and fix complaints of all federal wage-and-hour law violations before any department investigation.

. . .

The deal was part of a settlement in which Wal-Mart agreed to pay $135,540 for child labor violations involving young workers’ use of dangerous equipment. Most of the violations involved children younger than 18 operating heavy machinery, including cardboard balers and chain saws. In one case, a minor hurt his thumb while cutting Christmas trees with a chain saw. Wal-Mart just announced that its profits last year were a record-breaking $10 billion.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/ns02182005.cfm

[redqueen]

20. What justifiable reason could there be for given them two weeks' warning?

Damned corporatists... :grr:

[snippy]

23. $$$$$$$$ It's a republican thing. $$$$$$$$

Wal-Mart donated $2.1 million to candidates and campaigns in the 2004 election cycle, with 80 percent going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics website OpenSecrets.org.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/ns02182005.cfm

[barb162]

9. There was a great site called Wal-Mart Sucks.com and

I think Wallies got it "tombstoned"
Some really incredible stories of employees getting screwed. I would like to see that sickass company get nailed bigtime

[TommyO]

10. Not Quite

Try http://www.walmartsucks.org/

[barb162]

11. Oh thanks!!!

[Algorem]

14. U.S. House Committee Hearing To Examine Smaller Stores, Wal-Mart

Hearing To Examine Smaller Stores, Wal-Mart

UPDATED: 11:24 am EDT September 19, 2005

http://www.newsnet5.com/money/4990543/detail.html

CLEVELAND -- A U.S. House committee is holding a hearing in Cleveland Monday on what it means to smaller stores in a community when Wal-Mart opens one of its stores.


Congressman Sherrod Brown is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Democrat from Lorain will host the congressional hearing. He said it was prompted in part by opposition to a Wal-Mart in Cleveland...



http://www.newsnet5.com/money/4990543/detail.html

SURVEY
Do you think a Wal-Mart store should be built at Steelyard Commons(Cleveland)?
Yes
No

Results | Disclaimer
(63%-37% yes now)


http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/09/17/WashingtonDCBureau/328551.html

Congressman to hold Wal-Mart forum
Saturday, Sep 17, 2005

By Alison Vekshin
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- A U.S. House Democrat has scheduled a forum in his home state of Ohio on Monday where he plans to examine Wal-Mart business practices.

Rep. Sherrod Brown said the event in Cleveland will explore the Bentonville-based retailer's business model and its impact on local taxpayers.

While it has been described as a hearing, Brown said the forum is not an official congressional meeting.

"I just want the public to be more aware of Wal-Mart's practices," said Brown, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.


http://www.house.gov/sherrodbrown/walmarthearing.htm

Are Americans Shopping Themselves Out of a Job?
A Closer Look at the Wal-Mart Business Model

Hearing Home
Witnesses
Submit a Question
Share Your Story
Resources
Hearing Home

...But a domestic clothing manufacturer said "Wal-Mart chewed us up and spit us out." And a university researcher said "Wal-Mart is one of the key forces that propelled global outsourcing – off-shoring of U.S. jobs."

And the consequences of Wal-Mart's business model for taxpayers and communities have also proven controversial. As the Capital Times (Madison, Wisconsin) wrote, Wal-Mart "continues to raid the state treasury by steering thousands of its uninsured employees into the state's taxpayer-funded BadgerCare program, which provides access to health care for low-income workers and their families."

Congressman Sherrod Brown is sponsoring a field hearing to examine these issues. National experts and Ohio citizens will join Congressman Brown in exploring the consequences of the Wal-Mart business model American workers, small businesses and communities.

Like traditional congressional hearings, this hearing will offer expert testimony. Unlike traditional hearings, this hearing will offer American workers and small businesses a chance to participate, by using this Website to share their stories and suggest questions for witnesses.

Hearing Time and Place
Monday, September 19, 2005, 10:00AM
Moot Courtroom, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
Cleveland State University
1801 Euclid Avenue (East 18th and Euclid), Cleveland

[Algorem]

15. Critics not sold on Wal-Mart ;U.S. Rep. Brown's forum weighs whether

Critics not sold on Wal-Mart ;U.S. Rep. Brown's forum weighs whether
giant is good, bad for U.S.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business/1127208885165580.xml&coll=2

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Alison Grant
Plain Dealer Reporter

A congressional forum on Wal-Mart's business model examined whether its everyday low prices are costing the country too much.

The nearly two-hour hearing Monday at Cleveland Marshall College of Law, organized by U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Avon, was based on the idea that Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s sheer size and its practice of squeezing suppliers and employees to lower costs makes it a formidable influence on the American economy.

Older corporate kings such as General Motors, Boeing, IBM and General Electric made things, paid well and invested in America, Brown said. Wal-Mart's innovation is mastery of the global supply chain.
It doesn't pay particularly well, and it encourages the decline of U.S. manufacturing and the movement of jobs overseas, he said. Wal-Mart, which was not invited to the hearing, called it a rehash of claims that it has already addressed.

Brown's office said it didn't invite the company so it could keep the focus on small businesses and workers, but it plans to invite Wal-Mart to any future forums...

[gorekerrydreamticket]

16. They need everyone to be out there restocking the Chinese

slave-labor crap that they sell...

[AnneD]

19. I hate to break the news to you guys but....

in many states, esp right to work states...do not have a provision in the state labour laws that entitles workers to lunch break. When the laws were first written (even in the Robber Baron days), it was assummed and common human descency, that worker could eat lunch. I know for a fact that NM doesn't have a meal provision and I think Tx doesn't have it in state law (and State law has prescident over Federal). HOWEVER....California does and has some of the most labour friendly laws-thus the place where the suit is filed.
Sad to say that I learned this the hard way. It is common practice in Hospitals to deny or not provide, or pay for untaken lunch. Nurses (who for the most part work 12 hour shifts) generally have no relief to go to lunch (otherwise you are charged with pt abandonment if pt goes south while you took lunch). Believe me, in a few years that adds up to big money. The only way around this is that is if you are a diabetic (or have a hadicapping condition-which means you are automatically covered under the Americans with Diabilities Act)
The order of priority is negotiated contracts, state law, federal law.