Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dc_dux · 10-20-2006, 02:37 PM

I agree there is shared responsiblity. Workers should do whatever is within their means to provide for their families...if that requires moving, advancing their skills or education, etc. And, in the meantime, taking whatever job is available, even if the working conditions are not the best.

BUT, companies have a responsiblity to abide by labor laws.

From Walmar's SEC filing last year:

Quote:

The Company is a defendant in numerous cases containing class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs have brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), corresponding state statutes, or other laws. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former hourly Associates who allege, among other things, that the Company forced them to work “off the clock,” or failed to provide work breaks, or otherwise claim they were not paid for work performed. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. Class certification has yet to be addressed in a majority of the cases. Class certification has been denied or overturned in cases pending in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Some or all of the requested classes have been certified in cases pending in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. Conditional certifications for notice purposes under the FLSA have been allowed in cases in Georgia, Michigan, and Texas. The Company cannot estimate the possible loss or range of loss which may arise from these lawsuits.

Wage and Hour “Off the Clock” Class Actions: Adcox v. WM, US Dist. Ct. (“USDC”), Southern Dist. of TX, 11/9/04; Armijo v. WM, 1st Judicial Dist. Ct., Rio Arriba County, NM, 9/18/00; Bailey v. WM, Marion County Superior Ct. IN, 8/17/00; Barnett v. WM, Superior Ct. of WA, King County, 9/10/01; Basco v. WM, USDC, Eastern Dist. of LA, 9/5/00; Braun v. WM, 1st Judicial Dist. Ct. Dakota County MN, 9/12/01; Braun v. WM, Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, PA, 3/20/02; Brogan v. WM, Superior Ct. of NH, Strafford County, 2/17/05; Brown v. WM, 14th Judicial Circuit Ct., Rock Island, IL, 6/20/01; Curless v. WM, USDC, Dist. of WY, 10/26/05; Culver v. WM, USDC, Dist. of CO, 12/10/96; Carter v. WM, Ct. of Common Pleas, Colleton County, SC, 7/31/02; Gamble v. WM, Supreme Ct. of the State of NY, County of Albany, 12/7/01; Gross v. WM, Circuit Ct., Laurel County, KY, 9/29/04; Hale v. WM, Circuit Ct., Jackson County, MO, 8/15/01; Hall v. WM, 8th Judicial Dist. Ct., Clark County, NV, 9/9/99; Hall v. WM, 8th Judicial Dist. Ct., Clark County, NV, 8/12/05; Harrison v. WM, Superior Ct. of Forsyth County, NC, 11/29/00; Holcomb v. WM, State Ct. of Chatham County, GA, 3/28/00; Hummel v. WM, Common Pleas Ct. of Philadelphia County, PA, 8/30/04; Iliadis v. WM, Superior Ct. of NJ, Middlesex County, 5/30/02; Jackson v. WM, Superior Ct. of DE, New Castle County, 4/4/05; Kuhlmann (In Re: Wal-Mart Employee Litigation) v. WM, Circuit Ct., Milwaukee County, WI, 8/30/01; Lerma v. WM, Dist. Ct., Cleveland County, OK, 8/31/01; Lopez v. WM, 23rd Judicial Dist. Ct. of Brazoria County, TX, 6/23/00; Luce v. WM, Circuit Ct., Brown County, SD, 5/11/05; McFarlin v. WM, Superior Ct. of AK at Anchorage, 4/7/05; Mendoza v. WM, Superior Ct. of CA, Ventura County, 3/2/04; Michell v. WM, USDC, Eastern Dist. of TX, Marshall Div., 9/13/02; Montgomery v. WM, USDC, Southern Dist. of MS, 12/30/02; Mussman v. WM, IA Dist. Ct., Clinton County, 6/5/01; Nagy v. WM, Circuit Ct. of Boyd County, KY, 8/29/01; Newland v. WM, Superior Ct. of CA, Alameda County, CA, 01/14/05; Osuna v. WM, Superior Ct. of AZ, Pima County, 11/30/01; Parrish v. WM, Superior Ct., Chatham County, GA, 2/17/05; Pickett v. WM, Circuit Court, Shelby County, TN, 10/22/03; Pittman v. WM, Circuit Ct. for Prince George's County, MD, 7/31/02; Poha v. WM, USDC, Dist. of HI, 11/1/05; Pritchett v. WM, Circuit Ct. of Jefferson County, AL, 2/17/05; Robinson v. WM, Circuit Ct., Holmes County, MS, 12/30/02; Sago v. WM, Circuit Ct., Holmes County, MS, 12/31/02; Romero v. WM, Superior Ct. of CA, Monterey County, 03/25/04; Salvas v. WM, Superior Ct., Middlesex County, MA, 8/21/01; Sarda v. WM, Circuit Ct., Washington County, FL, 9/21/01; Savaglio v. WM, Superior Ct. of CA, Alameda County, 2/6/01; Scott v. WM, Circuit Ct. of Saginaw County, MI, 9/26/01; Smith v. WM, Circuit Ct., Holmes County, MS, 12/31/02; Thiebes v. WM, USDC, Dist. of OR, 6/30/98; Willey v. WM, Dist. Ct. of Wyandotte County, KS, 9/21/01; Williams v. WM, Superior Ct. of CA, Alameda County, 3/23/04; Wilson v. WM, Common Pleas Ct. of Butler County, OH, 10/27/03; Winters v. WM, Circuit Ct., Holmes County, MS, 5/28/02; Works v. WM, Circuit Ct., Miller County, AR, 5/18/05.

Ace...you continue to suggest again and again that "most major employers have or have had these kinds of violations, even your employer" (as I said before, that is wrong). Yet you never identify any company that continues to violate state and federal labor laws with anywhere near the frequency that approaches Walmart's offenses. Your rationalization of Walmart's labor practices just doesnt pass the facts test.

And the notion that employees are filing these law suits to get rich? Divide $78 milllion by 180,000 workers in the class action suit in PA.