Wal Mart must pay $172 million for denying employees meal breaks

Telly Savalas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-23-05 11:48 PM
Original message

Wal Mart must pay $172 million for denying employees meal breaks

BERKELEY, Calif., Dec. 22 - A California jury on Thursday ordered Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, to pay $172 million in damages for failing to provide meal breaks to nearly 116,000 hourly workers as required under state law.

....

The suit, filed on behalf of employees of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in California, argued that the chain violated state law more than eight million times from Jan. 1, 2001, to May 6, 2005, said the plaintiffs' lawyer, Jessica Grant of the Furth Firm of San Francisco.

California law requires that employers provide a meal break of 30 minutes for every five hours on the clock, Ms. Grant said. If the break is shorter than that, provided late or not at all, the employer must pay an hour's pay, she said.

"What happened here is that Wal-Mart didn't make a single payment for 2001 and 2002 and only started paying in 2003 after we asked for permission to go forward as a class action," Ms. Grant said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/23/business/23nwalmart.html?pagewanted=all

The results of the suit are a nice gesture but:

(a)Wal Mart said they'd appeal, so it might get overturned.
(b)Wal Mart's 2005 3rd quarter net revenues were in excess of $75 billion. $172 million is pocket change for them.

Labor laws need some teeth so that if a business entity chooses to flagrantly ignore the laws like this, they are denied the privilege of doing business. If a bar can get it's doors shut for a couple of days for serving a minor, then why can't Wal Mart be shut down for ignoring a simple labor law over 8 million times?

If you can't follow the rules, you don't deserve to play the game.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Deja Q

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-23-05 11:58 PM
Response to Original message

1. By, of, and for the corporation.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

handsignals4theblind

(90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:11 AM
Response to Original message

2. -WALMART and Labour- Hubris and the need for Reform!!!!!!!!!!

Once again-the courts have been used to tame the beast---lol---after 150 years the corporation has become the dominant institusion!-
If such flagrant abuses continue- We the People will still use what is left of the legal apparatus and tame them more----------remeber it's only on paper that the exist as a legal entity--revoke a few charters- set guidelines-----------even children need rules to follow!

AS for personal absovement-- relax

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nuff

(43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:17 AM
Response to Original message

3. Wally world...

How dumb do you have to be to ignore basic rights of your workers so they don't even get a chance to sit down for a few minutes, or get something to eat? Heck, it's not like they were even getting PAID for it!

Walmart deserves it's proper punishment--and the workers better get paid for all the 'overtime' they were forced to put in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

newyawker99

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #3

10. Hi Nuff!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Occulus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:28 AM
Response to Original message

4. We need to judge based on percentages, not dollar amounts.

Percentages of NET income, per quarter. No exceptions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Seabiscuit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #4

8. That's how it works for punitive damages, but not for labor violations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OPERATIONMINDCRIME

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:31 AM
Response to Original message

5. I would think they'd have no shot in the appeal

Fuck them. I don't know how on earth they could've gotten away with it for that long. The laws are very clear on breaks and to circumvent them like that is pathetic. I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Seabiscuit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #5

9. You're right. They have no leg to stand on. They're just delaying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Name removed

(0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:32 AM
Response to Original message

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Seabiscuit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 12:33 AM
Response to Original message

7. According to this article Walmart now has an $8 BILLION exposure!

Edited on Sat Dec-24-05 12:35 AM by Seabiscuit

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article334859.ece

It mentions this judgment in the Oakland court is for $200m. And that there are 40 other like cases pending around the country against WalMart. If each case had the same result, WalMart could end up with 40 judgments to pay at $200M/judgment, or $8 billion!

This is HUGH!!111 IT'S SERIES111!!1

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

B Calm

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Dec-24-05 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #7

11. It's about time! Auto Zone distribution centers are just as bad!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 05th 2024, 02:26 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.