• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Walmart fined $172M

H

hipsterdufus

Here is the lastest in a long line of fines levied against Walmart for violating worker's rights. A sexual discrimination case is also pending soon.

Jury Awards $172M to Wal-Mart Employees

By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- A California jury on Thursday awarded $172 million to thousands of employees at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. who claimed they were illegally denied lunch breaks.

The world's largest retailer was ordered to pay $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages to about 116,000 current and former California employees for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to give 30-minute, unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours.

The class-action lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court is one of about 40 nationwide alleging workplace violations by Wal-Mart, and the first to go to trial. The Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer, which earned $10 billion last year, settled a similar lawsuit in Colorado for $50 million.

In the California lunch-break suit, Wal-Mart claimed that workers did not demand penalty wages on a timely basis. Under the law, the company must pay workers a full hour's wages for every missed lunch.

The company also said it paid some employees their penalty pay and, in 2003, most workers agreed to waive their meal periods as the law allows.

The lawsuit covers former and current employees in California from 2001 to 2005. The workers claimed they were owed more than $66 million plus interest, and sought damages to punish the company for alleged wrongdoing.

Attorney Fred Furth, who brought the case on behalf of the workers, said outside court that the jury "held Wal-Mart to account."

Wal-Mart attorney Neal Manne said the jury's verdict, reached after nearly three days of deliberations and four months of testimony, would likely be appealed.

He claimed the state law in question could only be enforced by California regulators, not by workers in a courtroom. He added that Wal-Mart did not believe the lunch law allowed for punitive damages.

"We absolutely disagree with their findings," Manne said of the jury's verdict. He conceded that Wal-Mart made mistakes in not always allowing for lunch breaks when the 2001 law took affect, but said the company is "100 percent" in compliance now.

The lawsuit was filed by several former Wal-Mart employees in the San Francisco Bay area in 2001, but it took four years of legal wrangling to get to trial.

The verdict comes as the company is waging an intense public-relations campaign to counter critics aiming to stop the retailer's expansion and make it boost workers' salaries and benefits.

Paul Blank, campaign director for WakeUpWalMart.com, an union-affiliated advocacy group that believes Wal-Mart's policies over wages, health benefits and other issues harm families and communities, said he was delighted by the verdict.

"It is a sad day when Wal-Mart provides these so-called low prices by exploiting their workers and even the law,"
Blank said.

The company added lower-cost health insurance this year after an internal memo surfaced that showed 46 percent of Wal-Mart employees' children were on Medicaid or uninsured.

A federal lawsuit pending in San Francisco accuses the company of paying men more than women.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...EAKS?SITE=MATAU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
So they grew big at the expense of stiffing their employees. I knew there was a reason why I don't shop there.
 
H

hipsterdufus

steen said:
So they grew big at the expense of stiffing their employees. I knew there was a reason why I don't shop there.
This is the tip of the iceberg with Walmart.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hipsterdufus said:
Here is the lastest in a long line of fines levied against Walmart for violating worker's rights. A sexual discrimination case is also pending soon.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...EAKS?SITE=MATAU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
You are going to hate me when I say this. I wonder what the price of Wal Mart's stock is right now and what it's fair market evaluation after the bad press? The stock price could be lower than it's fair market value and make it a good buy.
 
H

hipsterdufus

TimmyBoy said:
You are going to hate me when I say this. I wonder what the price of Wal Mart's stock is right now and what it's fair market evaluation after the bad press? The stock price could be lower than it's fair market value and make it a good buy.
I'm all for making money in the stock market.

I wish I had bought Haliburton and big oil stocks back in 2003. Cheney's stock options in Haliburton are up something like 3000%!
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hipsterdufus said:
I'm all for making money in the stock market.

I wish I had bought Haliburton and big oil stocks back in 2003. Cheney's stock options in Haliburton are up something like 3000%!
Wal Mart is a good buy right now (and no, I am not trying to do a pump and dump scam and I do not own Wal Mart stock currently, investing in stock, bond mutual funds in my 401k, so that was my disclaimer). It's fair market value is currently about 58 dollars a share and it's current price is going for about 48 bucks a share last time I checked. A good bargain. Warren Buffet bought alot of shares in Wal Mart through his company Berkshire Hathaway (which is another good company to invest in if you got the money). He also bought into Anhiezer Bush (sorry, can't spell it) which is also currently undervalued and an excellent company. I plan to buy into straight stock here pretty soon to invest towards accumulating enough wealth to start my own company without the need to go into debt in order to do so. I am also looking at investing towards buying some property once the real estate bubble bursts. You can make money from property using mortgage loans, but I still won't buy property through loans. I take a very strict conservative philosophy when it comes to making money and my personal finances.
 
Top Bottom