65 comments

---

There are two important economic discussions going on right now in America, and too rarely are they tied together as they should be.

Not a day goes by without talk in the media of the ‘Wal-Mart Economy’ and Wal-Mart’s role in a recession. Similarly, with the proposed auto bailout being debated on Capitol Hill, we’ve heard endlessly about the supposed failures of GM, Ford and Chrysler to adjust and adapt.

Everyone tends to agree that more Americans are now forced to shop at Wal-Mart - whether they love or whether they hate it. Likewise, the talking heads know that the Big Three are suffering - whether or not they need to be bailed out, or are getting what they deserve.

But the two aren’t separate stories.

A couple of columns by the Washington Post Writers Group over the past two days have done a great job of laying out the differences between Bentonville and Detroit – and what that has meant for the American economy.

Warren A. Brown writes mostly about cars. A lot of his column defends Detroit’s efforts to make greener cars, but more importantly (for this blog post at least) - he draws a more realistic picture of what’s been happening in America:

“Here is where newspaper columnists—Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times comes to mind—routinely dismiss the idea of federal aid to an ailing Detroit, suggesting that the city and its automobile industry be consigned to the scrap heap of history, having failed dismally in their core mission to design and develop the kinds of cars and trucks Americans really want.

It is sophist nonsense, of course, the kind of tale spun by people who haven’t bothered to check the numbers, and who have paid even less regard to the history of their supposed knowledge.

The truth, all things considered, is that Detroit has done reasonably well. The American Three—General Motors, Ford and Chrysler—still hold an estimated 47 percent of a home market that is wide open to competition from car companies all over the world. Until July of 2007, domestic automobile manufacturers historically held more than a 50-percent U.S.-market share. But in a country where consumers have made Wal-Mart the retail king—that’s Wal-Mart, one of America’s biggest importers of foreign goods—that was bound to change.

Read the rest of this story ...

24 comments

---

Hey, Wal-Mart?  Do you feel the winds blowing today?  Ah, yes, the winds of change. Indeed, that key demographic of Wal-Mart women across the country surely voted their pocketbooks and their consciences - and helped the electorate hand a decisive victory to Senator Barack Obama.

You can bet the Walton family and CEO Lee Scott weren’t doing a victory dance last night when the election was called for Obama.  Oh, sure the company’s pr and gov relations guy, Leslie Dach has tried really, really, really, really hard recently (especially as things were looking really promising for Obama) to convince everyone that Wal-Mart was “non-partisan” – even going so far as to air infomercials for both candidates in the company’s stores.  But, those “non-partisan” activities, like so many things Wal-Mart does are mere distractions from what the company was really up to.

In August, the Wall Street Journal exposed Wal-Mart’s mandatory meetings to attempt to instruct its employees to vote against Democrats and Senator Obama – oh, sure they nuanced the message in some settings, but the point was clear.  And, the company implemented a plan at the beginning of 2008 to train all of its managers how to fight the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) should Obama be elected.  During the presidential campaign, we saw anti-EFCA ads (and anti-Obama – walking the legal line in various forms) from several different organizations - including (but, not limited to): the Workforce Fairness Institute; Center for Union Facts; The Center for Consumer Freedom and of course, the Employment Policies Institute.  Since these groups don’t disclose all of their contributors, it’s hard to prove that Wal-Mart gave them money, but we have a pretty good idea that Wal-Mart invested a nice chunk of change in their efforts. Maybe someone should ask Wal-Mart.

For the past eight years, Wal-Mart has had a free pass to trample workers’ rights - in part due to the ineffectiveness of the NLRB – and in part due to a system that has favored employers.  The company’s business model of paying appallingly low wages, offering catastrophic, unaffordable health care plans, forcing employees to forgo overtime pay, manipulating employees’ schedules as punishment for standing up to the company, discriminating against employees and a host of other issues – evident from a multitude of lawsuits - and from the mouths of employees themselves - is finally in jeopardy. 

Yep, change is coming.  With an Obama presidency and the Democratic gains in Congress, average Americans – including Wal-Mart workers - will once more have a say and stand a chance of getting a fair shake.  Wal-Mart knows it – and fears it.

Expect to see the company increase its lobbying expenditures in the next few months and ramp up its efforts to mislead its employees about EFCA – which by the way, could finally give its employees the ability to stand up to the company.  And, expect to see even worse treatment of employees to send a clear message to them about who is still in charge (and Wal-Mart just doesn’t ever seem to learn on this front). 

6 comments

---

Wal-Mart Watch’s new video, “Wal-Mart saves money, the Walton family lives better,” shows the real life implications of Wal-Mart’s low-wage business model. While the average full-time hourly Wal-Mart worker makes $19,200 a year, the Walton family’s net worth rose to over $100 billion during the past year.

As average American families have conversations around their kitchen tables just like the Wal-Mart employee and his family in this video, the Walton family doesn’t have a care in the world.  Because the Walton family and Wal-Mart choose to pay low wages to the company’s workers, families across the country - just like this one - are struggling to stay in their homes, pay their bills, pay their medical expenses and take care of their families. 

So, while Wal-Mart saves money on the backs of its employees, the Walton family lives better – much better.  It’s no wonder that Wal-Mart is so opposed to any tool such as the Employee Free Choice Act, which could actually make it easier for employees to stand up to Wal-Mart and demand better wages and benefits. No, Wal-Mart executives and the Walton family want to keep on living better themselves - and it’s just too bad for the 1.4 million U.S. employees.

Check out the new video, and let us know what you think. 

49 comments

---

Since the issue of Wal-Mart has been surprisingly muted this campaign season (Wal-Mart Moms?), the retailer has decided to inject itself into the campaign ad fray. Both Obama and McCain have videos running on Wal-Mart’s corporate website. You can find them both here.

Here’s a little summary of the main points of each of the campaign messages you can find on walmartstores.com:

Obama:

Our economy is in crisis, we have two wars, and the American dream is slipping away (starting out on a positive note...nice)
We’re going to fix it by giving a $1,000 tax break to the middle class (YAY!!!! More money to spend at Wal-Mart!!!)
We’re going to allow workers to organize, for better wages, health care, benefits (Organize, YAY...wait, what?!)

Read the rest of this story ...

8 comments

---

Today marks the debut of a new project from Wal-Mart Watch: Wal-Mart Employees Speak-Out. The new website is a chance for Wal-Mart’s employees and former employees to talk about how the retailer’s low wage, poor benefits business model impacts their lives. The site features user-submitted material in the form of comments, stories, and video testimonies. Check it out at: http://walmartspeakout.com.

Wal-Mart workers often face retaliation for speaking out about the many problems at the company. This website is a chance for them to speak out – anonymously, in many cases – without fear of being fired or demoted. The project comes at a time when working Americans are suffering more than ever, but while Wal-Mart reaps record profits as the largest corporation in the world.

Are you a former or current employee of Wal-Mart that has a story to share?  Click here to SPEAK OUT! All entries will be kept anonymous unless authorized. Speaking out helps others fight the unfair treatment Wal-Mart is infamous for. Help transform Wal-Mart into the kind of workplace it claims to be, and speak out against unfair policies at the company.

3 comments

---

Wal-Mart earned $31 billion in profit last year, but repeatedly refuses to raise wages for its lowest-paid employees. When workers at a Tire and Lube Express in Canada voted to unionize in hopes of raising their wages and securing better benefits, Wal-Mart responded in the same way it has before: it shut the shop down. Such actions have been challenged before; hopefully these workers will be able to find justice.

Wal-Mart Closes Quebec Tire Center After Labor Accord (Update1) [Bloomberg News]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s biggest retailer, said it closed a unionized Quebec tire and lubrication shop because of costs tied to the first labor agreement imposed at any of its North American locations.

The closing is effective immediately because it would have raised operating costs by at least 30 percent and triggered “dramatic’’ price increases on products, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer said today in a statement. The Quebec Labour Relations Board imposed the three-year labor contract in August after the union and company failed to reach an agreement.

“The union contract that was imposed is simply unworkable,’’ Wal-Mart Canada spokesman Andrew Pelletier said in a telephone interview.

Wal-Mart rose $1.89, or 3.8 percent, to $51.94 at 1:05 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

Under the contract, wages would have increased by a third, or more than 10 times the average hourly rate of Quebec companies this year, the company said in the statement. Wal-Mart Tire and Lube Express’s six employees in Gatineau won’t be fired and will be offered jobs at other regional shops.

Read the rest of this story ...

6 comments

---

Alice and Christy Walton top Forbes’ list of the richest women in America this week. Alice is Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton’s only daughter; Christy married Alice’s brother John and inherited his share of the Walton family fortune upon his death in 2005.

The Walton family takes up nearly half of Forbes’ list of the top ten wealthiest Americans. Alice and Christy are on that list, as well as their brothers Rob and Jim. As we mentioned in our earlier posts on this issue, each of the Walton siblings are worth more than an hourly Wal-Mart employee could earn in several lifetimes. $23.2 billion (what Alice and Christy are each worth) is more than enough for anyone, but the family has refused to share its earnings with the employees who create their fortune. What would Sam say?

America’s Richest Women [Forbes]

Alice Walton is the daughter of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton. Christy Walton is Sam’s daughter-in-law. Each has a net worth of $23.2 billion, thanks to the ubiquitous discounter, America’s largest employer.

Alice has a taste for objects you can’t find in any Wal-Mart: fine art. She’s led her family in hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Crystal Bridges Museum. The new art museum will open in 2010 in Bentonville, Ark., the location of Wal-Mart’s headquarters.

Christy is the widow of Wal-Mart heir John Walton, who died in a 2005 plane crash. She also is using some of her considerable fortune for art. She recently donated an award-winning yurt--a domed tent used by Asian nomads--to a San Diego museum.

13 comments

---

We’ll take this news from the Financial Times as proof that Wal-Mart Moms agree with our post last week: they’re worried about the kinds of economic problems caused by Wal-Mart.

The FT article makes it seem a bit like working class white women have been responsible for the outcome of every election in the last ten years. We might not go that far, but it’s certainly true that millions of people shop at Wal-Mart’s stores each week, and they all have a vote come November. So what are Wal-Mart Moms thinking now?

Ms Palin’s fading star is only part of the reason why Democrats see a fresh opportunity to go after working class, white women. At least as important is the return of “kitchen table” economic issues to the heart of the campaign, eclipsing the debate over values and culture that Ms Palin helped ignite.

Wal-Mart moms have been hit harder than most by America’s economic storm as their household budgets come under pressure from the rising cost of food, energy and healthcare, while wages stagnate.

A big part of this is Wal-Mart’s role in our economy. Though the retailer claims its low prices help working class families, Wal-Mart reps are less eager to discuss the company’s depressing effect on wages, its tendency to ship well-paying jobs overseas and putting its private health care needs on the public tab. Wal-Mart moms are concerned with the forces that drove them to shop at Wal-Mart in the first place, and the forces which keep them there, too.

Wal-Mart moms beginning to buy Democrat’s message [Financial Times]

19 comments

---

Wal-Mart’s senior counsel, Tom Mars, gave a speech this week on diversity in the company’s legal department. Because Wal-Mart has never had any diversity-related legal issues.

Mars used a “luncheon honoring the winners of the second annual survey of best law firms for women” as a time to showcase Wal-Mart’s gender diversity and commitment to flexible schedules. (The survey also examined the best companies for working mothers, and Wal-Mart didn’t make the list.) The fact that Mars was invited at all seems like an unintentional joke: not only is Wal-Mart currently involved in the largest class action gender discrimination lawsuit in history, but the company’s scheduling policies have also been condemned as bad for working mothers and hard on families.

Mars’ speech reveals a dichotomy within Wal-Mart: store employees and corporate employees are separated by a wide gulf, and different rules, benefits and salaries are applied to each. Women may very well make up a significant part of Wal-Mart’s corporate legal department, as Mars insists, but women working in Wal-Mart’s stores still face discriminatory promotion practices and lower wages than their male counterparts. That’s not something ANY working mother should support.

Law Firms Get Rated on Female Friendliness [New York Times Shifting Careers Blog]

Two weeks ago, on the same day that Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection more than 300 corporate lawyers showed up at the Mandarin Hotel in New York City for a luncheon honoring the winners of the second annual survey of best law firms for women sponsored by Working Mother Magazine and Flex-Time Lawyers. The high attendance in the face of such economic turmoil suggested that work/life issues and the promotion of female lawyers has genuinely become a pressing business issue for the legal industry.

Read the rest of this story ...

111 comments

---

An article in today’s Wall Street Journal reports Wal-Mart recently conducted a survey to “test the voting preferences of men and women who are shopping at its stores.” Wal-Mart asked shoppers which candidate they’ll most likely vote for in November, and which issues facing the U.S. today are most important. The move not only gives politicians a look at a sought-after demographic - “Wal-Mart Moms” - it also places Wal-Mart at the heart of American politics.

Not surprisingly, the economy takes center stage for many of Wal-Mart’s shoppers. Like so many people living in the U.S. right now, Wal-Mart’s customers are trying harder than ever to make ends meet. And as the economy gets worse, many people are “trading down” to shop at Wal-Mart, even if they disagree with the retailer’s business practices.

Low wages, poor health care, and job losses are a major part of this picture. Despite Wal-Mart’s recurring suggestions that its low prices are a solution to our economic crisis, the retailer is actually a big part of the problem. By paying its workers so little and failing to provide health coverage for many of its workers, Wal-Mart is making it even harder for many families to stay afloat.

Congress is searching for answers to the economic problems we now face - whether they be emergency bailout measures or more long-term solutions like passing the Employee Free Choice Act. In the mean time, if Wal-Mart really wanted to help its shoppers with the issue they care about most, the company would start improving conditions for the lowest-earning members of its work force. That’s something Wal-Mart Moms on both sides of the political spectrum could support.

‘Wal-Mart Women’ Vote Remains in Play [Wall Street Journal]

2 comments

---

Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.

This week’s issue begins with reports of price gouging on the part of Wal-Mart. What’s truly abhorrent about these reports, however, is that they are being made by the very people affected most by the recent cavalcade of hurricanes to batter the Gulf coast. The Arkansas News Bureau and The Consumerist have more on these stories.

You’ll also find major news on the legal front. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed its second lawsuit against Wal-Mart in less than three weeks. The first involves the Americans with Disabilities Act in Illinois; the second involves age discrimination against a 67-year-old optician in Missouri. In addition to the EEOC lawsuits, Wal-Mart will now have to face another class action wage/hour lawsuit. Salvas v. Wal-Mart was originally certified as a class action back in 2004. Since then the case has gone back and forth through the Massachusetts court system, eventually being decertified and winding up in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on appeal. Well, the SJC released its opinion this week, ruling that the decertification was improper and that the lawsuit should be reinstated as a class action. A trial is possible, which could cost Wal-Mart hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid wages and damages. The Boston Globe and Boston Herald have the story.

Also check out the Product and Food Safety Report, where you’ll find stories on BPA (and a class action lawsuit regarding the chemical that includes Wal-Mart), dangerous soccer goals and baby cribs sold at Wal-Mart, and a pet food recall involving Purina products sold at the retailer.

And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe.

Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [September 24, 2008]

57 comments

---

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - the state’s highest court - has reinstated a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts employees claiming the Wal-Mart pressured them to work off the clock and denied them rest and meal breaks.

These wage cases are probably becoming a familiar thing for those that follow Wal-Mart in the news. In fact, at this point its becoming surprising when Wal-Mart doesn’t do something illegal...even the company’s “save money, live better” tagline probably breaks some sort of law (truth-in-advertising comes to mind?). This particular Massachusetts wage case is impressive though, if only because of the long and winding road it has taken just in order to get back essentially to where it started.

To summarize as briefly as possible: Salvas v. Wal-Mart was initially filed in 2001 in Middlesex (MA) Superior Court, alleging Wal-Mart of illegally altering timecards in order to decrease payroll expenses, including clocking employees out just one minute after they had clocked in. The suit also alleged that employees were deprived of their meal and rest breaks. The case was certified as a class action in January of 2004, and then again on December 30, 2004 (Wal-Mart successfully appealed in between), on behalf of 65,000 or so present and former Wal-Mart employees. After Wal-Mart appealed (again), the case ended up back in Superior Court, where a third judge decided that the plainffs’ expert testimony should be excluded and decertified the class on the basis that each associate’s situation was unique, and therefore class action certification was improper.

The case was appealed again (this time by the plaintiffs) and it made it all the way to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard oral arguments in May of this year. Today, the SJC finally released its opinion, which included the following:

In essence we are asked to determine (1) whether the judge abused his discretion by (a) allowing Wal-Mart’s motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ principal expert, Dr. Martin Shapiro, as unreliable, and (b) allowing Wal-Mart’s motion to decertify the class of approximately 67,500 current and former hourly workers employed by Wal-Mart in Massachusetts for more than a ten-year period; and (2) whether the judge erred in granting summary judgment to Wal-Mart on all of the plaintiffs’ claims concerning meal breaks, as well as certain of the plaintiffs’ claims under the payment of wages law, G.L. c. 149, § 148, for failure to compensate the plaintiffs for the time they worked.

For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the judge’s orders. We conclude, inter alia, that the judge abused his discretion in allowing Wal-Mart’s motions to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert and to decertify the class. We further conclude that the judge erred in granting partial summary judgment to Wal-Mart. We remand the case for the entry of an order certifying the class and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So, there you go. The class has been certifed again. Good deal. The case now goes back to the trial court for certification, after which a jury trial may not be too far off. You can read more about Wal-Mart’s wage cases here. The SJC opinion is here, and it is not exactly complimentary of the superior court judge that decertified the case.

Mass. court reinstates lawsuit against Wal-Mart [Associated Press via Boston Herald]

12 comments

---

Ah, to be a Walton. While most of America struggles to keep their houses, afford basic food items and preserve their dwindling retirement funds, the Waltons have made a big leap up on Forbes’ list of the top 400 richest Americans and now comfortably reside in slots four through seven on the list of top ten wealthiest people in the country. That’s up from their rank last year - when Jim, Rob, and Christy were tied for 12th place, with their sister Alice coming in right after them at 15th.

Sam Walton’s four children aren’t the only Walton family members on the list: E Stanley Kroenke and his wife Ann Walton Kroenke also make an appearance, as does Sam’s niece, Nancy Walton Laurie. Taken together, the family is worth over $100 billion.

That’s more than an average Wal-Mart worker could earn in ten thousand lifetimes. Many of Wal-Mart’s hourly employees live in near-poverty, often earning so little that they qualify for government assistance. Basic life needs - housing, food, health care - are often out of reach, even for employees working full time. The Walton family’s wealth is obscene in comparison.

Wal-Mart executives have refused to raise wages for the company’s lowest earning employees, stating that such increases would cut in to company profits. Obviously, profitability is not a problem. As Wal-Mart sees record sales and the Walton family climbs to the top of America’s economic ladder, the company should be ashamed for not sharing its wealth with its lowest-earning workers.

The 400 Richest Americans [Forbes]

2 comments

---

Andy Stern, head of the SEIU, speaking about the Employee Free Choice Act on Meet the Bloggers. On what the EFCA is, and why it would benefit workers:

If we understand what’s happening in America today, the gap between the rich and everyone else is growing pretty wide and pretty fast, which leads to all those foreclosures and other debt problems you talked about. One of the ways American workers used to get a raise was they had a union. And they way they got a union was they could make their own choice about whether they wanted to have an organization to talk to their employer about their wages and their heath care. And over the last 50 years what we’ve seen, is the courts and the corporations begin to eat away at those rights. So the Employee Free Choice Act just modernizes the national labor relations laws of our country, that again allow workers to make their own choice about whether they have a union, and tell the employer “We’ll see you after we have a majority of people who want to talk with you at the collective bargaining table, and until then this is our decision not your decision.

6 comments

---

Wal-Mart’s customer service is notoriously bad: chronic understaffing, low wages, high turnover and ever-shifting work schedules mean employees are unhappy and unlikely to perform well. So it’s no surprise that Wal-Mart winds up “among the worst” on AOL’s list of favorite grocery stores.

30 Most and Least Favorite Grocery Stores [Wallet Pop]

The absolute worst place hands down is Wal-mart! Now, normally, we don’t shop there—however, my husband needed something that he couldn’t find anywhere else, so ... in we went ... and out we walked! We had about 3 items that we were carrying and they had 3 registers open with about 20 customers in each line. They were not even bothering to try to open up any other lanes. We gave the merchandise to one of the employees and told her we will NOT wait in these lines.

UPDATE: Almost as interesting, if not more so, are the comments. Wallet Pop readers weigh in on Wal-Mart, after the jump.

Read the rest of this story ...

2 comments

---

For those of you who’ve seen Wal-Mart’s training videos, this new short from American Rights at Work will ring particularly true.

I don’t know about you, but that bottle of soda does look pretty enticing.

34 comments

---

Last month, the Wall Street Journal exposed the fact that Wal-Mart was telling its employees to vote against the Democrats in November - fearful that a Democrat in the White House would pass legislation making it easier for workers to unionize. Today, an op-ed by Congressman Rahm Emanuel in the Wall Street Journal suggests that Wal-Mart’s potentially illegal activities may even be misguided. Emanuel suggests that Wal-Mart is ignoring the economic facts in advocating for Republicans, and has actually fared better under a Democratic administration. 

The piece explains that the American middle class - Wal-Mart’s core demographic - has always done better under Democrat administrations. Supporting measures that bolster the working class - such as the Employee Free Choice Act, which the company warned against - would mean better living for Wal-Mart’s employees AND its shareholders. Such support might mean thinking outside the box for this notoriously Republican company, but Wal-Mart stands only to gain from such innovations.

Opinion: Wal-Mart Thrives When Democrats Are in Charge [Wall Street Journal]

Last month, reports surfaced indicating that Wal-Mart managers and department heads were holding meetings with associates and warning of dire consequences if Barack Obama is elected president.

Wal-Mart may have its political reasons to vote Republican, but if economics are the criteria, Wal-Mart should be rooting for a Democratic administration. Instead, the company whose television ads encourage you to save money and live better is ignoring the economic facts and backing Republican economic policies that have resulted in families losing money and living worse.

Read the rest of this story ...

24 comments

---

In the past, we’ve compared Wal-Mart to the Harry Potter villain Voldemort, as a way to highlight the retailer’s harsh treatment of employees and devastating impact on small towns. The Mexican Supreme Court has made an even more extreme condemnation: the court recently compared Wal-Mart’s labor practices to those of Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz, whose rule was known for brutal use of power and widespread corruption.

The comparison arose after a Wal-Mart employee complained to the court that Wal-Mart was essentially paying its workers in store credit, rather than actual money. Vouchers handed out to employees as part of their salary could only be used at Wal-Mart stores, the employee said. President Diaz used similar plans during his regime.

Labor problems have dogged Wal-Mart in Mexico since it began expanding in the country in the early 2000s. A worker strike at several Walmex stores in February ended suspiciously, leading many to wonder if the company hired false negotiators or intimidated employees. Prior to that incident, Wal-Mart workers rallied in Mexico City to demand better conditions and a union. The company has also been criticized for refusing to pay teenagers employed as baggers at its Mexico stores. In light of these problems, the Supreme Court’s comparison seems somewhat fitting.

Mexico’s Supreme Court slams Walmart’s labor practices [AFP]

Mexico’s Supreme Court compared the practices of US retail giant Walmart in Mexico to employer-worker relations during the dictatorship of former president Porfirio Diaz.

Diaz served as president and absolute ruler of Mexico from 1877-80 and from 1884-1911.

Mexico’s top court on Thursday backed a Walmart employee who had complained that vouchers handed out by the company as part of its salary payments could only be spent in the company’s stores.

Read the rest of this story ...

29 comments

---

In an opinion delivered yesterday, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark Bernstein wrote that the Pennsylvania Superior Court should reject a Wal-Mart appeal and affirm a 2006 jury verdict that found over 186,000 current and former Pennsylvania Wal-Mart employees were not properly compensated for off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks. He also sought to support his awarding last year of an additional $62 million in statutory liquidated damages. His opinion was delivered after Wal-Mart had contended in post-verdict motions that, among other things, the two class actions (Braun and Hummel were combined at trial) should never have been certified in the first place.

The total judgment against Wal-Mart in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart currently stands at nearly $188 million.

According to Bernstein, “the trial evidence showed that Wal-Mart corporate leaders ceased all record-keeping of employees’ rest break periods after numerous lawsuits over the missed rest breaks were filed.” Bernstein allowed the jury to infer that Wal-Mart changed its policy to ensure that there were no records of missed rest breaks, an argument Wal-mart sought to preclude at trial, only to be denied.

The case is now with the Pennsylvania Superior Court on appeal.

Judge Upholds $185 Million Award in Wal-Mart Class Action [The Legal Intelligencer]

Read the rest of this story ...

7 comments

---

Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in the world, with just over 2 millions employees on its payroll. So when the company does something wrong, there are usually a lot of people involved and for that reason, Wal-Mart often finds itself the subject of class action lawsuits.

An article today from Bloomberg News notes that there are currently over 70 lawsuits currently pending against Wal-Mart which deal with wage-and-hour violations alone. A 2005 federal law, which ruled that any lawsuit involving parties from multiple states and damages exceeding $5 million must go to federal court, means some of the cases filed since 2005 and currently pending against Wal-Mart will be combined. This had included class action suits from Delaware, South Dakota, Nevada and Alaska, until U.S. District Judge Phillip Pro denied their class status in June. Today’s article asserts that Wal-Mart stands to benefit from the 2005 law, which could make it harder for employees to collectively litigate against the company.

Whether Wal-Mart “shaved” time off employees’ schedules is not up for debate here: Judge Pro explained each wage-and-hour violation will simply be treated individually. Wal-Mart continues to look for ways to spend as little as possible on payroll, even if this means unfairly compensating employees for their hours worked. Rulings such as this one make it more difficult for employees to change Wal-Mart as a whole, but the company should stop breaking labor laws in the first place and pay its workers fairly.

Wal-Mart Shareholders Benefit From Judge’s Pay Ruling [Bloomberg News]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., facing as much as $2 billion in damages in a Minnesota employee-pay trial, may be shielded from similar cases in the future thanks to a 2005 federal law.

The statute requires federal courts to handle class-action lawsuits of $5 million or more when plaintiffs and defendants are from different states. Because judges have been less willing to certify these cases as class actions, the law may save Wal-Mart as much as $5 billion, said Robert Bonsignore, lead workers’ attorney in Nevada suits against the world’s largest retailer. That’s equivalent to 77 percent of Wal-Mart’s $6.5 billion first- half profit.

Read the rest of this story ...