• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wal-Mart must pay $188 million in workers' class action

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(Reuters) - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered Wal-Mart Stores Inc to pay $188 million to employees who had sued the retailer for failing to compensate them for rest breaks and all hours worked.

Wal-Mart said on Tuesday that it might appeal the decision, which upheld lower court rulings, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I will accept that corporations are people when a corporation has to go to prison for theft.

Article is here.
 
Good. I've been telling people that Walmart really is a terrible company that enslaves people and threatens their civic rights if they decide to stand up. Nobody has listened. The courts have. Good for them. Wal-Mart won't take this as far as SCOTUS, too much unwanted publicity whether they lose or win (there is such a thing), so they're going to accept the ruling.
 
Hatuey said:
Good. I've been telling people that Walmart really is a terrible company that enslaves people and threatens their civic rights if they decide to stand up. Nobody has listened. The courts have. Good for them. Wal-Mart won't take this as far as SCOTUS, too much unwanted publicity whether they lose or win (there is such a thing), so they're going to accept the ruling.
Click to expand...

You and I might have different definitions of slavery.
 
Strange, WalMart has to pay for breaks according to a State Supreme Court, but Apple doesn't have to pay for security screening time according to the US Supreme Court.
 
Deuce said:
You and I might have different definitions of slavery.
Click to expand...

My definition has to do with working conditions. Wal-Mart has a history of entering small towns, destroying jobs and lowering the overall value of labor. Workers who stand up to these conditions are either fired. Other workers who even think about improving their working conditions are threatened. I'm not interested in "real" vs "fake" slavery. I'm interested in how these conditions force a large percentage of workers to keep working for Wal-Mart under less than dignified conditions. Lastly, IMO, Wal-Mart has engaged in indentured slavery. That people sign up for it is irrelevant, they don't sign up for the abuses that Wal-Mart has been found of committing time and time again.
 
So what service is wal-mart getting when their employees are on break? Are they running the cash registers, are they filling the shelves, are they helping consumers? What are they doing for wal-mart when they are on break? Why should wal-mart pay them when they are getting nothing in return?

You want to talk about slavery? How about being forced to pay someone when they are doing nothing for you.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
So what service is wal-mart getting when their employees are on break? Are they running the cash registers, filling the shelf's, are helping consumers? What are they doing for wal-mart when they are on break? Why should wal-mart pay them when they are getting nothing in return?
Click to expand...

A company that forces people to work overtime (under threat of getting fired) really shouldn't be complaining about workers being paid on their breaks.
 
Hatuey said:
A company that forces people to work overtime (under threat of getting fired) really shouldn't be complaining about workers being paid on their breaks.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's pretty ****ty behavior, but I fail to see how that justifies a court forcing wal-mart to pay people when they are on break.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, that's pretty ****ty behavior, but I fail to see how that justifies a court forcing wal-mart to pay people when they are on break.
Click to expand...

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm

Federal law does not require lunch or coffee breaks. However, when employers do offer short breaks (usually lasting about 5 to 20 minutes), federal law considers the breaks as compensable work hours that would be included in the sum of hours worked during the work week and considered in determining if overtime was worked. Unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks need not be counted as hours worked when the employer has expressly and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that any extension of the break is contrary to the employer's rules, and any extension of the break will be punished.
Click to expand...

Let me guess.... tyranny?
 
Hatuey said:
My definition has to do with working conditions. Wal-Mart has a history of entering small towns, destroying jobs and lowering the overall value of labor. Workers who stand up to these conditions are either fired. Other workers who even think about improving their working conditions are threatened. I'm not interested in "real" vs "fake" slavery. I'm interested in how these conditions force a large percentage of workers to keep working for Wal-Mart under less than dignified conditions. Lastly, IMO, Wal-Mart has engaged in indentured slavery. That people sign up for it is irrelevant, they don't sign up for the abuses that Wal-Mart has been found of committing time and time again.
Click to expand...

Listen, when you use a word differently than everybody else, it may lead to communications problems. Stop being such a napkin.
 
Deuce said:
Listen, when you use a word differently than everybody else, it may lead to communications problems. Stop being such a napkin.
Click to expand...

Not really, a condition compared to that of a slave in respect of exhausting labor or restricted freedom is one of the definitions of slavery. That "most people" aren't cultured enough to use it is their problem.
 
Henrin said:
Again, what service is wal-mart being provided when their employees are on break?
Click to expand...

There is an easy solution to this Henrin, Walmart is not legally required to provide breaks. However, once it does, it is legally required to count it in its total work hours. Solution: No more breaks. Problem solved.
 
Hatuey said:
There is an easy solution to this Henrin, Walmart is not legally required to provide breaks. However, once it does, it is legally required to count it in its total work hours. Solution: No more breaks. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Ok, but then people like you would scream even louder that wal-mart is enslaving their employees.

Eitherway, the law is written like it is the brainchild of some uneducated rich kid. How in the hell is a break work? What work? Hey rich kid, doing nothing is not work. I know to you its really hard to do nothing, but no, it's not work.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Ok, but then people like you would scream even louder that wal-mart is enslaving their employees.
Click to expand...

Oh wow! Now I have to fight a hypothetical situation that has yet to happen! Good one, Henrin! Them debating skills sure are coming together nicely!

Eitherway, the law is written like it is the brainchild of some uneducated rich kid. How in the hell is a break work? What work? Hey rich kid, doing nothing is not work. I know to you its really hard to do nothing, but no, it's not work. Stupid lazy rich kid.
Click to expand...

If Wal-Mart wants to give its employees breaks, then it has to abide by federal law and pay them. If it doesn't, it will have to pay them for whatever work they do. The law is designed for workers to be paid for the hours they work. Why aren't you addressing the fact that Wal-Mart also got sanctioned for trying to deny its employees their income? Is that part of the freemarket?
 
Hatuey said:
Oh wow! Now I have to fight a hypothetical situation that has yet to happen! Good one, Henrin! Them debating skills sure are coming together nicely!
Click to expand...

Are you saying liberals wouldn't be raging that wal-mart employees are not given a break? I'm sure you know they would be bitching and moaning about poor wal-mart employees having to work all day long without a break.


If Wal-Mart wants to give its employees breaks, then it has to abide by federal law and pay them. If it doesn't, it will have to pay them for whatever work they do. The law is designed for workers to be paid for the hours they work. Why aren't you addressing the fact that Wal-Mart also got sanctioned for trying to deny its employees their income? Is that part of the freemarket?
Click to expand...

If the law is designed so workers are paid for the hours they work why does it require employers to pay employees when they are not working?
 
Henrin said:
Are you saying liberals wouldn't be raging that wal-mart employees are not given a break?
Click to expand...

Dunno, don't care. What I care about is workers being paid if they're legally entitled to that pay. Keep trying.

If the law is designed so workers are paid for the hours they work why does it require employers to pay employees when they are not working?
Click to expand...

If a company is going to force them to take a break, then the worker has a right to be remunerated for whatever is lost in wages. Specially in a place like Wal-Mart where workers are regularly denied/forced their breaks if there are too many customers/lack of. Being paid for breaks covers both the employee and the employer. You're being extremely silly now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom