Walmart

[wmtc43]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MT

How can Walmart legally force (or coerce) its associates to "kill" overtime hours by taking a longer lunch on the last day of the pay period? It would seem that there would be state/federal laws prohibiting employers to do such. Since it is illegal to "work off the clock", we are told to fill out electronic time adjustment forms to compensate any time worked while off the clock, but what difference does it make if you have to "kill" that time by taking extended lunch periods? This does not make sense to me. You should not be forced to get rid of previous "worked" hours to avoid being compensated overtime.

[pattytx]

Because there is no law preventing them from extending an unpaid meal period so that employees don't exceed 40 hours in the workweek.

There are, however, laws requiring pay for all hours worked. Working "off the clock", if that means no pay, is not legal for nonexempt employees. And this has been litigated numerous time with this employer.

[wmtc43]

Kind of hard to believe that in the "land of laws", we don't have a law protecting employees from this type of work abuse. This is another clear indication of why there needs to be more in place of protecting the daily hours an employee works. It's amazing to see how large corporations find every loophole in the laws to abuse the hard work of the very people that make them successful.

[pattytx]

Whatever, there are currently no laws entitling an employee to work overtime.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by wmtc43

Kind of hard to believe that in the "land of laws", we don't have a law protecting employees from this type of work abuse. This is another clear indication of why there needs to be more in place of protecting the daily hours an employee works. It's amazing to see how large corporations find every loophole in the laws to abuse the hard work of the very people that make them successful.

What work abuse?

If the employee doesn't work over 40 hours in a week, they aren't entitled to the OT.

Perhaps you'd like to come to California, where anything over 8 hours worked per day is OT, as well as the 40 hour per week requirement.

[wmtc43]

Originally Posted by Zigner

What work abuse?

If the employee doesn't work over 40 hours in a week, they aren't entitled to the OT.

Perhaps you'd like to come to California, where anything over 8 hours worked per day is OT, as well as the 40 hour per week requirement.

...

The abuse is that employees ARE working over 40 hours, but whatever hours are over 40, they must get rid of in an "extended lunch" period on Friday. In other words, let 'em work as much as we can during the week, but kill the time before payroll is finalized. The standard routine consists of working what is necessary during the week and on Friday, review your hours, calculate the time that you will be over 40, and get rid of it. It is common that in retail, you will also probably perform work off the clock (i.e. being stopped by customers during lunch or break periods). To avoid further lawsuits, you fill out time adjustment sheets to get paid for that time, but if you are forced to kill that time at the end of the week, what's the purpose? It's just paperwork to justify the time and avoid further litigation.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by wmtc43

The abuse is that employees ARE working over 40 hours, but whatever hours are over 40, they must get rid of in an "extended lunch" period on Friday. In other words, let 'em work as much as we can during the week, but kill the time before payroll is finalized. The standard routine consists of working what is necessary during the week and on Friday, review your hours, calculate the time that you will be over 40, and get rid of it. It is common that in retail, you will also probably perform work off the clock (i.e. being stopped by customers during lunch or break periods). To avoid further lawsuits, you fill out time adjustment sheets to get paid for that time, but if you are forced to kill that time at the end of the week, what's the purpose? It's just paperwork to justify the time and avoid further litigation.

..

No, they AREN'T working over 40 hours. Let's say the employee has worked 35 hours by the time friday comes along. Then, they work 3 hours in the morning and take a 3 hour lunch, then work 2 more hours. That is 40 hours.

[eerelations]

I agree with Zigner - 40 worked hours are 40 worked hours, and lunchbreaks aren't worked hours.

[wmtc43]

Originally Posted by Zigner

No, they AREN'T working over 40 hours. Let's say the employee has worked 35 hours by the time friday comes along. Then, they work 3 hours in the morning and take a 3 hour lunch, then work 2 more hours. That is 40 hours.

Technically speaking, you are correct. But, in addition to posted schedules, Walmart also uses what is called a TMAT schedule. This time management schedule goes further than the posted schedule by telling you when you are to take your breaks and when you are to take your lunch, as well as what area you are to work during specific hours. You may be subject to disciplinary action by not following your schedule (until Friday that is, when by working your assigned schedule, you may exceed 40 hours).

As previously stated, Walmart has faced many class-action lawsuits for associates working off the clock. In order to protect themselves from further lawsuits, it's mandatory for associates to fill out time adjustments for that time, but if you are going to be forced to kill that time at the end of the week, why bother? It's another senseless piece of paper that is serving no purpose other than protecting the company. In the paper world, you are being paid for the time you work, but in the real world..no you are not. That extra time you took to help the customer must be used as a lunch break to ensure that overtime is not acquired.

I understand the responses I have received on this thread and agree with the legal premise that is being projected. My contention lies within the business ethics and the way an employee can be manipulated. After many lawsuits, Walmart has become a master in paperwork solutions to avoid further litigation.

As a business major, I appreciate the success that companies, such as Walmart, have attained. This is a great example of how free trade is successful.

As a Walmart associate, I appreciate the job, although I am concerned about the lack of security, low wages, high-cost of benefits, and the laws that allow corporations of this size to manipulate government, employees, vendors, suppliers, and in general, show a complacent attitude of business ethics.

I appreciate the feedback you are giving and, as always, look forward to your posts.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by wmtc43

Technically speaking, you are correct. But, in addition to posted schedules, Walmart also uses what is called a TMAT schedule. This time management schedule goes further than the posted schedule by telling you when you are to take your breaks and when you are to take your lunch, as well as what area you are to work during specific hours. You may be subject to disciplinary action by not following your schedule (until Friday that is, when by working your assigned schedule, you may exceed 40 hours).

As previously stated, Walmart has faced many class-action lawsuits for associates working off the clock. In order to protect themselves from further lawsuits, it's mandatory for associates to fill out time adjustments for that time, but if you are going to be forced to kill that time at the end of the week, why bother? It's another senseless piece of paper that is serving no purpose other than protecting the company. In the paper world, you are being paid for the time you work, but in the real world..no you are not. That extra time you took to help the customer must be used as a lunch break to ensure that overtime is not acquired.

I understand the responses I have received on this thread and agree with the legal premise that is being projected. My contention lies within the business ethics and the way an employee can be manipulated. After many lawsuits, Walmart has become a master in paperwork solutions to avoid further litigation.

As a business major, I appreciate the success that companies, such as Walmart, have attained. This is a great example of how free trade is successful.

As a Walmart associate, I appreciate the job, although I am concerned about the lack of security, low wages, high-cost of benefits, and the laws that allow corporations of this size to manipulate government, employees, vendors, suppliers, and in general, show a complacent attitude of business ethics.

I appreciate the feedback you are giving and, as always, look forward to your posts.

So, you acknowledge that Walmart is NOT doing anything illegal (based on your OP). What you have now is NOT a legal issue and is not appropriate to this forum.

[eerelations]

Agree with Zigner again, this is a legal forum, not an ethics forum.

I also think that your repeated use of the word "kill" to describe your extended Friday lunchbreaks is immature and misleading. The extended Friday lunchbreaks aren't "killing" anything, they are simply ensuring that you don't work more than 40 hours in any week. Many employees would be perfectly happy with employers that restrict their working hours like this.

[wmtc43]

Originally Posted by Zigner

So, you acknowledge that Walmart is NOT doing anything illegal (based on your OP). What you have now is NOT a legal issue and is not appropriate to this forum.

Nice try, but no! I understand your premise that the associate is not working over 40 hours, thus OT is not required. The point of the question is that, had the associates worked their scheduled shifts, plus time adjustments, or other required work times, they would exceed 40 hours at the end of their Friday (or end of week) schedule.

You don't determine an employees last day of the week schedule based on the hours worked on the previous days of the same schedule. From what I am hearing, this is not violating law, although I still do not understand why. A scheduled is designed to let an employee know what their required work times are. If this can be changed at anytime to avoid paying overtime, then why should an employee be disciplined for not following the schedule when it is to THEIR advantage?

My point was that if this is not violating state/federal labor laws, then it is a horrible display of business ethics. I'm looking for laws that address this issue. Is a work schedule just a mere suggestion of work times? If so, why post it? Just let the employee know what hours might be beneficial to the company for them to work the following day.

[AnotherMoron]

Originally Posted by wmtc43

Nice try, but no! I understand your premise that the associate is not working over 40 hours, thus OT is not required. The point of the question is that, had the associates worked their scheduled shifts, plus time adjustments, or other required work times, they would exceed 40 hours at the end of their Friday (or end of week) schedule.

You don't determine an employees last day of the week schedule based on the hours worked on the previous days of the same schedule. From what I am hearing, this is not violating law, although I still do not understand why. A scheduled is designed to let an employee know what their required work times are. If this can be changed at anytime to avoid paying overtime, then why should an employee be disciplined for not following the schedule when it is to THEIR advantage?

My point was that if this is not violating state/federal labor laws, then it is a horrible display of business ethics. I'm looking for laws that address this issue. Is a work schedule just a mere suggestion of work times? If so, why post it? Just let the employee know what hours might be beneficial to the company for them to work the following day.

Because there is no law to violate. My husband works four 10 hour days every week, that's 40 hours. He doesn't work on the fifth day because that would mean he's working more than 40 hours per week. How is this any different from your situation? Do you think my husband should be paid overtime for those two hours per day even though he's not working any overtime? Of course not. That's ludicrous.

[wmtc43]

Originally Posted by eerelations

Agree with Zigner again, this is a legal forum, not an ethics forum.

I also think that your repeated use of the word "kill" to describe your extended Friday lunchbreaks is immature and misleading. The extended Friday lunchbreaks aren't "killing" anything, they are simply ensuring that you don't work more than 40 hours in any week. Many employees would be perfectly happy with employers that restrict their working hours like this.

Thank you for calling me immature & misleading. I use "kill" only because that is the term used by the associates for this situation.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by wmtc43

Nice try, but no! I understand your premise that the associate is not working over 40 hours, thus OT is not required. The point of the question is that, had the associates worked their scheduled shifts, plus time adjustments, or other required work times, they would exceed 40 hours at the end of their Friday (or end of week) schedule.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree 100%. IF the employee worked the full scheduled time, it would be over 40 hours.

Now, with that out of the way. The employees in question DID NOT WORK over 40 hours. It's really not too difficult of a concept to understand.

Beyond that, a LEGAL forum is not where you need to be...
Try to find the forum at www.complainaboutmyboss.com - it might help you more.

(disclaimer: In the event there actually IS a site called "complainaboutmyboss.com", or any similar/related forum, this was not an endorsement)