FYI - Wal Mart

[Betty]

What is the name of your state? Il.

I read in the paper over the weekend that a state jury in Philadelphia last Thurs. found that Wal Mart broke Pa. labor laws by forcing employees to work through rest breaks & off the clock.

 

[ecmst12]

Good! About time they were held accountable for their exploitative business practices.

 

[cbg]

I detest Wal-Mart, and if they're breaking the law they should be held accountable for it.

But neither Federal nor PA law requires rest breaks.

 

[ecmst12]

But apparantly if they're given, then the employer can't force you to work through them. Especially unpaid breaks.

 

[Gadfly]

Seems like it could be argued that your work hours are 8 -12 and 1-5 and that working 12-1 is not permitted because that would exceed your scheduled work hours.

 

[cbg]

If the break is less than 20 minutes long, then under Federal law it HAS to be paid.

Unless there is a special law for Wal-Mart (and I'm not saying that's impossible) a company's policy of providing rest breaks is not binding and can LEGALLY be ignored.

 

[pattytx]

I agree with cbg regarding the rest breaks; I don't see how the employer could be cited for a violation of a law that does not exist. Not being paid for time worked "off the clock"? Violation. Betty, do you have a link for this ruling?

 

[ecmst12]

But being forced to work for times that one is off the clock is not illegal?

 

[Betty]

I agree with cbg regarding the rest breaks; I don't see how the employer could be cited for a violation of a law that does not exist. Not being paid for time worked "off the clock"? Violation. Betty, do you have a link for this ruling?

pattytx - No, I don't. I read it in the St. Louis Post Dispatch paper over the weekend. (It was a very short article - only said actually what I typed. It was in short article news stories around the U.S.) Betty (edited to say - see next post)

 

[Betty]

I did a "google" search & came up with: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4258646.html ($78,000,000)

 

[pattytx]

But being forced to work for times that one is off the clock is not illegal?

I didn't say it wasn't. As a matter of fact, I said it WAS a violation.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I agree with cbg regarding the rest breaks; I don't see how the employer could be cited for a violation of a law that does not exist. Not being paid for time worked "off the clock"? Violation. Betty, do you have a link for this ruling?

There will not be a link for a published version of the ruling for months since the decision and award determination only just occurred last week.

However, the key issues, as I know them, is not any OVERT actions by wal-mart itself, as many of you are so quick to content, but the fact that wal-mart employees did not correctly monitor employee timecard usage and work habits, which resulted in employees working during their allotted break time.

The after-hours issue is still a bit cloudy, but Wal-Mart also won on the third issue, that being that the company forced workers to miss meal times and forced them to work during these times.

Remember when you start looking for a strong oak tree to throw the rope over, a company is only as good as the employees it trusts to administer the programs it institutes. So, while you blame Wal-Mart, Chevron, IBM or any other giant, also blame the ignorant among them who can't read a policy statement or rules of conduct.

 

[Betty]

BB - you are correct - there is no link yet re recent ruling. I just gave a link re news story if anyone wanted to read it. It looks like they are appealing a $172 million verdict in Ca. & apparently settled a Colorado suit for 50 million. Wow, $11.2 billion in profits last fiscal year.

 

[ecmst12]

From the link, it sounds like the violation was more about "encouraging"/requiring/allowing employees to work while off the clock, outside of their scheduled hours. Like, we're paying you till 7 but you need to stay till 8 to get the job done. And apparantly not just a few hours here and there! It was done to avoid paying overtime and going over the store's budgeted hours. So THAT, BB, is where I disagree that this was about store-level managers not adhering to rules, I think it's about the corporate office setting the budgeted hours for each store as lower then was needed and sanctioning managers who approved overtime.