WalMart settling worker compensation suits just in time for the regime change.  I feel the tide turning   :)


DECEMBER 24, 2008

Wal-Mart to Settle 63 Suits Over Wages

By MIGUEL BUSTILLO

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. agreed Tuesday to pay up to $640 million to settle 63 suits alleging it routinely underpaid employees around the country, ending years of embarrassing legal battles over its treatment of workers.

As a result of the agreements, each of which must be approved by a trial judge, the world's largest retailer said it would take a $250 million after-tax charge during its fiscal fourth quarter ending Jan. 31.

If approved, the settlements would close the majority of the long-running cases Wal-Mart faces on allegations that it did not provide its workers with proper rest and meal breaks, violating state laws. The company disclosed in a regulatory filing earlier this year that it had 76 such cases; resolving 63 in one fell swoop would leave just 12 remaining cases. Wal-Mart settled a case in Minnesota earlier this month.

The total amount Wal-Mart will pay to settle the 63 cases will depend on how many current and former employees submit claims under the individual cases, but Wal-Mart has agreed to pay at least $352 million, and as much as $640 million. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company also agreed to continue using electronic systems to document its compliance with state and federal labor laws. The company would not discuss whether it would formally admit wrongdoing in any of the settlements.

"Resolving this litigation is in the best interest of our company, our shareholders and our associates," Wal-Mart general counsel Tom Mars said in a statement. "Many of these lawsuits were filed years ago and are not representative of the company we are today."

Yeah, well I notice they didn't try to resolve the lawsuits until now

online.wsj.com/article/SB123007820184231721.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

It is amazing how Wal Mart miraculously has become the world's largest retailer, since it is clear that every last person in the United States sees them as immoral robber barons.

It ain't all Republicans shopping at Wal Mart folks.  If people wanted to really "get back" at Wal Mart they would not shop there.

But since its inception is would appear that Wal Mart has offered value to its customers else they would not keep coming back.

My husband hates Wal Mart and says that they have single handily destroyed small business and Mom & Pop stores.My daughter on the other hand loves it,so there is lots of arguing and headaches when she wants to go there,because he will only alow us a half an hour to do any shopping. I only grocery shop there once a month when I get my disability check. The rest of the times we go to Wegmans.

It is amazing how Wal Mart miraculously has become the world's largest retailer, since it is clear that every last person in the United States sees them as immoral robber barons.

It ain't all Republicans shopping at Wal Mart folks.  If people wanted to really "get back" at Wal Mart they would not shop there.

But since its inception is would appear that Wal Mart has offered value to its customers else they would not keep coming back.


Of course it isn't just Repubs that shop there, no one has ever suggested that.  There is a difference between inexpensive and cheap, what you get from Wal-Mart is cheap, but in a throw away society cheap trumps. 


My husband hates Wal Mart and says that they have single handily destroyed small business and Mom & Pop stores.My daughter on the other hand loves it,so there is lots of arguing and headaches when she wants to go there,because he will only alow us a half an hour to do any shopping. I only grocery shop there once a month when I get my disability check. The rest of the times we go to Wegmans.


Good on your husband, tell him he is not alone.  ;)

A book I read once said that Walmart makes more money than the whole country of Poland.  Pretty powerful business.

My husband hates Wal Mart and says that they have single handily destroyed small business and Mom & Pop stores.My daughter on the other hand loves it,so there is lots of arguing and headaches when she wants to go there,because he will only alow us a half an hour to do any shopping. I only grocery shop there once a month when I get my disability check. The rest of the times we go to Wegmans.


It is a story as old as history.

You hear the local supermarkets complaining that the WalMart superstore drove them out of business.

But that is exactly what the supermarkets did 40-50 years ago, when they put the neighborhood grocers out of business.  People went to the supermarkets to get more selection and (I am guessing on this count) better price.

In the case of Wal-Fart it seems to me that it is simply a function of price, because the selection at a Wal Fart is not very good in my opinion.

Bottom line is that business will always be competitive and lower prices, as long as the service and quality are not offensively bad, will always win out.

I do believe that we eventually will see "The Fall of Wal Fart", because it eventually happens to all retailers.  After all, in the end Wal Fart is a store.  Somebody (or some method or trend) will come along and render the Wal Fart business model obsolete.  Just like happened to Sears and Monkey Wards.

Considering how the Clintons have a lot of stock in Walmart, Hillary will be the Secretary of State, and much of Obama's Cabinet is made up of ex-Clinton staffers...   I'm not sure how much of a regime change this is with regard to Walmart.

It's also worth noting that Walmart made most of its gains when Clinton was in office.  Granted, this was also with a heavily Republican Congress.

It is a story as old as history.

You hear the local supermarkets complaining that the WalMart superstore drove them out of business.

But that is exactly what the supermarkets did 40-50 years ago, when they put the neighborhood grocers out of business.  People went to the supermarkets to get more selection and (I am guessing on this count) better price.

In the case of Wal-Fart it seems to me that it is simply a function of price, because the selection at a Wal Fart is not very good in my opinion.

Bottom line is that business will always be competitive and lower prices, as long as the service and quality are not offensively bad, will always win out.

I do believe that we eventually will see "The Fall of Wal Fart", because it eventually happens to all retailers.  After all, in the end Wal Fart is a store.  Somebody (or some method or trend) will come along and render the Wal Fart business model obsolete.  Just like happened to Sears and Monkey Wards.


Don't forget: THE SUBURBS

I believe the key to the distructionof mom & pop neighborhood stores, such as the butcher, the baker, the greengrocer, the confectioner, the candlestick maker, and so forth, has more to do with the advent of the automobile and the residential expansion starting in the 1930s, which was prejudiced in favor of the automobile. 

If you are living on a cul de sac four miles out of town with eight houses on it, there's not much of a sustainable market.  Fortunately, you can get into your car and drive six miles to the shopping center and get your weekly marketing done in one swell foop. 

It is true that Safeway could buy rump roasts in larger quantity and sell them for lower price than Bill the Butcher, which aggravated the trend against mom & pops. 

Wal-Mart simply took advantage of the automobile-dominated infrastructure to crush regional department retailers at their own game. 

When the private passenger car is no longer viable in the resource-depleted future, Wal-Mart will simply buy out the downtown blocks in the new walking cities!

I wish I could share the enthusiasm about WM paying off some of the suits, but the probably figure it's cheaper for them to settle up than to fight.  Thus, when a complainant files a suit for $10b., I don't want to hear any bellyaching from the Right about the greedy trial lawyers.  Corporations care about one thing: Money.  That means the only way to get them to change their ways is to take their money away from them.
::)

I'm a little confused about why Walmart is being singled out?  Have things changed, or do most retail employers pay minimum wage with no benefits?


When I was in high school I worked at Century Theaters (syufy) and The Gap and both started at minimum wage and neither had benefits.

I know there are a few that do pay better and offer benefits (Starbucks, Macys, to name a couple) but is Walmart doing something worse than other similar companies?

I'm a little confused about why Walmart is being singled out?  Have things changed, or do most retail employers pay minimum wage with no benefits?


When I was in high school I worked at Century Theaters (syufy) and The Gap and both started at minimum wage and neither had benefits.

I know there are a few that do pay better and offer benefits (Starbucks, Macys, to name a couple) but is Walmart doing something worse than other similar companies?


Well, there was the "dead peasants policy"  where they put life insurance on their workers, without telling them, and naming themselves beneficiaries, so that when an employee died they, walmart, collected a cool 50,000, all without the knowledge of the employee or his/her family.  I have worked in retail and all offered, at least, health insurance.  Walmart got flack because their version of employee benefits was a flyer with the phone numbers of local "government assistance offices"(welfare) where, because of their wage, they would be eligible for health insurance benefits and food stamps.

In this case employees were working even though they were off the clock(not getting paid).  If they put in for the time they were fired.  That is not only against the law, but ethically and morally wrong.

Well, there was the "dead peasants policy"  where they put life insurance on their workers, without telling them, and naming themselves beneficiaries, so that when an employee died they, walmart, collected a cool 50,000, all without the knowledge of the employee or his/her family.  I have worked in retail and all offered, at least, health insurance.  Walmart got flack because their version of employee benefits was a flyer with the phone numbers of local "government assistance offices"(welfare) where, because of their wage, they would be eligible for health insurance benefits and food stamps.

In this case employees were working even though they were off the clock(not getting paid).  If they put in for the time they were fired.  That is not only against the law, but ethically and morally wrong.


Well the insurance policy thing sure is odd.  And to tell you the truth it was a poor economic decision by Wal-Mart because over the long haul, the premiums that Wal-Mart woulda paid out on those policies woulda been HIGHER than the payouts.

As to working off the clock... this is not a Wal Mart invention.  My bro worked for a department store and then a drugstore chain.  In both cases this was going on, was reported to the authorities, and a lawsuit was filed by the state Attorney General.  And a payout was obtained for the workers.

Well the insurance policy thing sure is odd.  And to tell you the truth it was a poor economic decision by Wal-Mart because over the long haul, the premiums that Wal-Mart woulda paid out on those policies woulda been HIGHER than the payouts.



They actually had a deal on a blanket policy that covered all workers, so if at anytime any worker died while in their employ they collected.  No one really knows how much they collected on the policy.  The only reason they got popped is because a guy died and the insurance company sent information on the payout to the widow who wondered what the story was about a $50,000 insurance policy on her husband that was paid out to someone other than herself.  I believe, inn the end, the mart was made to give her the money.  It is a rule here in Massachusetts that an insurance policy cannot be taken out in your name without your knowledge and consent(makes sense), but I am not sure if that is federal.

Well, there was the "dead peasants policy"  where they put life insurance on their workers, without telling them, and naming themselves beneficiaries, so that when an employee died they, walmart, collected a cool 50,000, all without the knowledge of the employee or his/her family.  I have worked in retail and all offered, at least, health insurance.  Walmart got flack because their version of employee benefits was a flyer with the phone numbers of local "government assistance offices"(welfare) where, because of their wage, they would be eligible for health insurance benefits and food stamps.

In this case employees were working even though they were off the clock(not getting paid).  If they put in for the time they were fired.  That is not only against the law, but ethically and morally wrong.


Oh, ok.. got it... I agree those things are very wrong...

It's good to hear that more retail businesses are offering health insurance... it wasn't that way when I worked there, we didn't even get sick days or time & a half for holidays...

Wal Mart sucks, I refuse to shop there, even though it's the closest supermarket to my house

But do you know what's funny? I was looking for a Family Guy DVD to give to my cousins, and on WalMart.com it was priced $31.89. I went to Best Buy and bought the same DVD for $29.99. Lowest prices? MY ASS

Well, there was the "dead peasants policy"  where they put life insurance on their workers, without telling them, and naming themselves beneficiaries, so that when an employee died they, walmart, collected a cool 50,000, all without the knowledge of the employee or his/her family.  I have worked in retail and all offered, at least, health insurance.  Walmart got flack because their version of employee benefits was a flyer with the phone numbers of local "government assistance offices"(welfare) where, because of their wage, they would be eligible for health insurance benefits and food stamps.

In this case employees were working even though they were off the clock(not getting paid).  If they put in for the time they were fired.  That is not only against the law, but ethically and morally wrong.


OMG!  How could I forget about the insurance scam?  That's South Park level depravity!  Why is that 72-year-old woman sent up to change the defective bulbs while standing in the puddle of lavoratory effluviant? 

If an employer asked me to work off the clock, I would have gotten so outraged, I would have refused.  I'd have gotten canned for sure, but I would have refused.  Maybe I've been poisoned by a left-wing upbringing, but one of my basic rules is you don't work for no pay when they're supposed to pay you for work!  Don't they teach kids nothin' in school now-days?
::)

OMG!  How could I forget about the insurance scam?  That's South Park level depravity!  Why is that 72-year-old woman sent up to change the defective bulbs while standing in the puddle of lavoratory effluviant? 

If an employer asked me to work off the clock, I would have gotten so outraged, I would have refused.  I'd have gotten canned for sure, but I would have refused.  Maybe I've been poisoned by a left-wing upbringing, but one of my basic rules is you don't work for no pay when they're supposed to pay you for work!  Don't they teach kids nothin' in school now-days?
::)


If you work in the poorer neighborhoods you will find they teach the kids that you do whatever is asked.  That way you can go from being an "associate" to a "co-manager"  of course a "co-manager" may not be a raise in pay, but you are able to "supervise" two or three people.  You can put "c0-manager" on your application for credit, much better than "associate".  Do what ever it takes, whatever they ask you to do, and you to can climb the corporate ladder just like on "The Apprentice"

As you travel up the economic scale you don't worry so much about these things.  You mother calls to make sure you are getting everything she believes you are entitiled to.

I'm told by people who worked for some up scale firms, like Pitney Bows, that they also insure some of their employees, although with their knowledge.  It was the secrecy of the WalMart thing that was so slimy.

As my dad said to me about the counter help at BK when I was 12:  "You can't get up there from back there."  In other words, in corporate retail you cannot rise to senior management directly from the cash register.  You don't get an MBA if you flip burgers long enough.


If you work in the poorer neighborhoods you will find they teach the kids that you do whatever is asked.  That way you can go from being an "associate" to a "co-manager"  of course a "co-manager" may not be a raise in pay, but you are able to "supervise" two or three people.  You can put "c0-manager" on your application for credit, much better than "associate".  Do what ever it takes, whatever they ask you to do, and you to can climb the corporate ladder just like on "The Apprentice"

As you travel up the economic scale you don't worry so much about these things.  You mother calls to make sure you are getting everything she believes you are entitiled to.



A lot of people hold these principles as part of their work ethic.  The ruling class has made the very idea of worker empowerment contemptable.  The propaganda campaign the Reaganistas started in the early '80s has been a smash success.  Now if you don't think you should have to work off the clock, you're not a "team player."  Wal-Mart is a "family" you see, so quit being selfish and pitch in and help out!

Conditions at Wal-Mart are now so deplorable that management is sincerely afraid of unions, not just unions themselves, but the idea of unions. 

When I worked at the grocery store when I was a kid, I might have had to stay until 10:00 if my work wasn't finished when my shift was over at 9:00, but they never told me to punch out and work for free for an hour.  25 years ago there was a common understanding that certain practices were fundamentally wrong.  Mind you, management at Market Basket was frikkin' tyrannical, but they still didn't tell me to work for no pay!  They understood that too much worker grievances could spell trouble for them.  Wal-Mart, however, operates as if no rules apply to them, like the sweatshops they run in China!

The big lie about unions is they want something for nothing.  That's what happens when you let the bosses control 100% of the message.  Unions want an honest day's work for an honest day's dollar.  It's the bosses who want something for nothing.  The bosses are afraid union interests will tell workers why working off-the-clock might seem like a good work ethic and demonstrate to the workers why it is not--ditto issues of healthcare, vacation time, and working conditions.
::)

The big lie about unions is they want something for nothing.  That's what happens when you let the bosses control 100% of the message.  Unions want an honest day's work for an honest day's dollar.  It's the bosses who want something for nothing.  The bosses are afraid union interests will tell workers why working off-the-clock might seem like a good work ethic and demonstrate to the workers why it is not--ditto issues of healthcare, vacation time, and working conditions.
::)




It is not that simple Max.  I have had expoerience on both sides of the union fence.  And I can tell you that indeed, it is not uncommon for a union negotiator to want something for nothing.  Just like it is not unheard of for a manager to want to get away with free labor.

There are plenty of unions that want, and fight for, vastly more than an honest day's pay.  Once the original union voters (who usually just want, in fact, a square deal) are swept aside, the union management gets drunk with their newfound power... Just like company managers get drunk with power.

It is not that simple Max.  I have had expoerience on both sides of the union fence.  And I can tell you that indeed, it is not uncommon for a union negotiator to want something for nothing.  Just like it is not unheard of for a manager to want to get away with free labor.

There are plenty of unions that want, and fight for, vastly more than an honest day's pay.  Once the original union voters (who usually just want, in fact, a square deal) are swept aside, the union management gets drunk with their newfound power... Just like company managers get drunk with power.


But union management can be controlled by its members.  Being a responsible union member means getting to vote on its managers, going to the meeting, and following the work conditions that are negotiated. There are some wiseguys in unions, but 99% of union isn't On The Waterfront.

I know, but when I qualify everything that is "not that simple" I end up with long-ass posts nobody wants to read.  So, I didn't discuss union corruption.  It's a trade off.  I have more of an IWW point of view on labor.  We have to organize labor where ever the jobs are.  We gave corporate royalty free hand to destroy our industrial sector over the past three decades, now people are working at starvation wages in the so-called service sector.  Is this what we want for our country?

It is not that simple Max.  I have had expoerience on both sides of the union fence.  And I can tell you that indeed, it is not uncommon for a union negotiator to want something for nothing.  Just like it is not unheard of for a manager to want to get away with free labor.

There are plenty of unions that want, and fight for, vastly more than an honest day's pay.  Once the original union voters (who usually just want, in fact, a square deal) are swept aside, the union management gets drunk with their newfound power... Just like company managers get drunk with power.


The question, of course revolves around how you define a "fair day's pay".  If fairness is an exchange of equal values than a worker should receive in his/her pay the value he/she contributed to the enterprise.  In such an exchange there could be no profit, since profit is the difference between the value added by the worker and the wage the worker receives.  So all talk of fairness in the capitalist worker/boss relationship is meaningless and the struggle is for the worker to get as much of the value as possible without sending his/her job to China.

The question, of course revolves around how you define a "fair day's pay".  If fairness is an exchange of equal values than a worker should receive in his/her pay the value he/she contributed to the enterprise.  In such an exchange there could be no profit, since profit is the difference between the value added by the worker and the wage the worker receives.  So all talk of fairness in the capitalist worker/boss relationship is meaningless and the struggle is for the worker to get as much of the value as possible without sending his/her job to China.


Terrific lot the Romans...they taught me to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay and....

GUARDS!!!

The question, of course revolves around how you define a "fair day's pay".  If fairness is an exchange of equal values than a worker should receive in his/her pay the value he/she contributed to the enterprise.  In such an exchange there could be no profit, since profit is the difference between the value added by the worker and the wage the worker receives.  So all talk of fairness in the capitalist worker/boss relationship is meaningless and the struggle is for the worker to get as much of the value as possible without sending his/her job to China.


Your definition, of course, places zero value on the contribution of the store/company owner, who put up capital (which has a real cost and part of that cost is the "risk premium") and intellectual property (capability to form the company, get it marketed, etc...).

"Fair" is indeed a relative term that escapes an exact definition.

"Fair" is indeed a relative term that escapes an exact definition.




On the other hand, there is an old saying "you know when you are being an a$$h*le".  Going further, I would say in most cases, "you know when you are being fair" .

On the other hand, there is an old saying "you know when you are being an a$$h*le".  Going further, I would say in most cases, "you know when you are being fair" .


Yep, agreed...

Your definition, of course, places zero value on the contribution of the store/company owner, who put up capital (which has a real cost and part of that cost is the "risk premium") and intellectual property (capability to form the company, get it marketed, etc...).

"Fair" is indeed a relative term that escapes an exact definition.


This is true, but that person should be paid a wage based on the value of their contribution.  There is a growing trend, at least in Vermont, to set up worker owned firms.  Carris Reels is one such firm.  Bill Carris, the founder, has been transferring ownership to his employees for some time now, and distributes the "profits" to them.  He draws a salary, but the profits are distributed to his workers.  So he is compensated for his labor and the cooperative shares the risk premium.

Fair may seem relative, but I think most would agree with my definition.

On the other hand, there is an old saying "you know when you are being an a$$h*le". 

I don't.  That's why everybody has to tell me so often!
:P

This is true, but that person should be paid a wage based on the value of their contribution.  There is a growing trend, at least in Vermont, to set up worker owned firms.  Carris Reels is one such firm.  Bill Carris, the founder, has been transferring ownership to his employees for some time now, and distributes the "profits" to them.  He draws a salary, but the profits are distributed to his workers.  So he is compensated for his labor and the cooperative shares the risk premium.

Fair may seem relative, but I think most would agree with my definition.


The rub, of course, is how one evaluates "the value of their contribution".

For example, let's say that I am a musician and I record my own music.  I set up a website where thousands of people place their orders.  To run this operation I have a decent computerized system, but I have to hire a person to basically stuff the recordings (which I mass produce on my home CD duplicator) into envelopes and shag 'em down to the post office.

My little two-person venture is bringing in $50k a month of profit (before I pay either myself or my envelope stuffer).

How much shall I pay the envelope stuffer?

The rub, of course, is how one evaluates "the value of their contribution".

For example, let's say that I am a musician and I record my own music.  I set up a website where thousands of people place their orders.  To run this operation I have a decent computerized system, but I have to hire a person to basically stuff the recordings (which I mass produce on my home CD duplicator) into envelopes and shag 'em down to the post office.

My little two-person venture is bringing in $50k a month of profit (before I pay either myself or my envelope stuffer).

How much shall I pay the envelope stuffer?


It isn't that easy, but I think the rule of thumb should be the highest paid should not make more than 5 times the wage of the lowest.  There should be a maximum wage tied into the minimum, and benefits should follow a similar model.  You hire and retain reliable employees, then treat them as well as you treat yourself and everyone, and the company, will do well.

It isn't that easy, but I think the rule of thumb should be the highest paid should not make more than 5 times the wage of the lowest.  There should be a maximum wage tied into the minimum, and benefits should follow a similar model.  You hire and retain reliable employees, then treat them as well as you treat yourself and everyone, and the company, will do well.


Well I certainly agree with this sort of approach for "executives" who are really hired help.

However, when it comes to the owner of a company itself, I would not agree with this.

Hired executives in the USA clearly are grossly overpaid and that is an understatement.

But in my example, the musician is the OWNER of the company and the true value of the company comes from his talent and business savvy.  The envelope stuffer should of course be paid a fair wage, and in the example I have cited, there is certainly room for it to be a very generous wage.  But by no means would I pay him "half the profit" for stuffing envelopes.

Well I certainly agree with this sort of approach for "executives" who are really hired help.

However, when it comes to the owner of a company itself, I would not agree with this.

Hired executives in the USA clearly are grossly overpaid and that is an understatement.

But in my example, the musician is the OWNER of the company and the true value of the company comes from his talent and business savvy.  The envelope stuffer should of course be paid a fair wage, and in the example I have cited, there is certainly room for it to be a very generous wage.  But by no means would I pay him "half the profit" for stuffing envelopes.


I didn't say half the profit.  I said that the top should be paid on a scale with the bottom.  All profits do not go into salaries.  Any good company plan would have a share of the profits go towards developing the company product, and company savings for hard times.  If you are using your profits as a wage base, without long range planning to stabilize the company finances you are in for problems.

The rub, of course, is how one evaluates "the value of their contribution".

For example, let's say that I am a musician and I record my own music.  I set up a website where thousands of people place their orders.  To run this operation I have a decent computerized system, but I have to hire a person to basically stuff the recordings (which I mass produce on my home CD duplicator) into envelopes and shag 'em down to the post office.

My little two-person venture is bringing in $50k a month of profit (before I pay either myself or my envelope stuffer).

How much shall I pay the envelope stuffer?


If you're a musician making $50k a month selling CDs from a website, you best be worrying about how much to pay the lawyers, the accountants, and the mafia goons; never mind no envelope stuffer!
:o

I can't stand Wal-Mart. If I want to get foreign materials, I'll get it at Target, K-Mart, or any other store. But not Wal-Mart!