- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
This past week, Walmart lost its appeal of a $224 million dollar judgement to its Pennsylvania employees for forcing all of them to work through lunch breaks. The Supreme Court declined to hear Walmart’s appeal, so 187,000 workers who have been waiting to get paid since 2006 will finally receive their paychecks. National labor union Making Change at Walmart rejoiced saying, “The world’s largest retailer won’t be able to continue to mistreat its workers and get away with it. Walmart workers, when they come together, have a powerful voice that cannot be silenced.” The lawyer representing Walmart’s hungry workers was even more emphatic:“Wage theft will not be tolerated, and class actions are an optimal way for large numbers of workers to recover wages stolen by their employers,” said attorney Michael D. Donovan of Donovan Litigation Group said, noting that with interest, the employees, who had been owed $140 million of the $187 million, will now split $224 million.
Read more @: Walmart Loses $224 Million Lawsuit For Stealing Lunch Breaks From 187,000 Workers
:clap:[/FONT][/COLOR]
A little bit of justice for these workers who had their wages taken straight from them all in name of greed and exploitation. :clap:[/INDENT]
a little bit over the top but if they were working and not taking their lunches then they should get paid for it.
no doubt about it.
however I don't think this is going to be the huge pay day they think it is.
their layers are taking 25% or so off the top.
so that is about 56m dollars gone.
that leave 168m
if you divide it out equally among 187k people that is 898 dollars and some change.
Read more @: Walmart Loses $224 Million Lawsuit For Stealing Lunch Breaks From 187,000 Workers
:clap:[/FONT][/COLOR]
A little bit of justice for these workers who had their wages taken straight from them all in name of greed and exploitation. :clap:[/INDENT]
Yes, individually the lawyers are making out like bandits, but the point it that WAL*MART is going to have to write a large check and it's embarrassing for them.
Will they have to pay income tax on that $898?a little bit over the top but if they were working and not taking their lunches then they should get paid for it.
no doubt about it.
however I don't think this is going to be the huge pay day they think it is.
their layers are taking 25% or so off the top.
so that is about 56m dollars gone.
that leave 168m
if you divide it out equally among 187k people that is 898 dollars and some change.
Breaking news: Ultra-wealthy lawyers milk an ultra-wealthy company.
On related news, some people who worked through lunch for a long time, get about $900 pre-tax in back pay. Win!
I find it amazing this occurred and was not caught be the army of HR people or Attorneys. On second thought, I'm not amazed by that.
I think a judge knocked that down saying it was too much.The lawyers make about 7 mil. It's usually 30%. Walmart however is now known to have cheated their people out of lunches and has to pay out 224 mil in punitive damages. Walmart is getting closer and closer to organizing in order to save themselves.
I think a judge knocked that down saying it was too much.
Ya' gotta link?
U.S. top court rejects Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo class action appeals | Reuters
The appeals court threw out a $37 million attorneys' fee award and ordered the trial court to recalculate that portion of the judgment.
so I am not sure what they are recalculating it to. evidently the number was not correct.
maybe they thought it was to high.
Read more @: Walmart Loses $224 Million Lawsuit For Stealing Lunch Breaks From 187,000 Workers
:clap:[/FONT][/COLOR]
A little bit of justice for these workers who had their wages taken straight from them all in name of greed and exploitation. :clap:[/INDENT]
I'm not going to comment on the court case...it's already been discussed in other threads and, in any case, the Supreme's have made their decision.
But I do have to comment on that dumbass, spun article you posted. Not only is it full of crap that has nothing to do with the case, it is a prime example of someone who just doesn't like this particular company and using this case as an excuse to bring up every evil imagined about that company.
(It's kind of like the arguments I used to have with my ex-wife...first she would find something to complain about and then she would bring up every damned thing she ever complained about in the past...whether they were relevant or not...because she thought it somehow supporter her present complain.)
Furthermore, the headline betrays the writer's ignorance about exactly what the court case was about. It had nothing to do with "lunch breaks", which are not paid time at all...but were about workers not getting their paid breaks.
You know, TheDemSocialist, if you really wanted to talk about this issue you should have, at least, come up with a link to an article that was accurate and actually about the issue.
I'm not going to comment on the court case...it's already been discussed in other threads and, in any case, the Supreme's have made their decision.
But I do have to comment on that dumbass, spun article you posted. Not only is it full of crap that has nothing to do with the case, it is a prime example of someone who just doesn't like this particular company and using this case as an excuse to bring up every evil imagined about that company.
(It's kind of like the arguments I used to have with my ex-wife...first she would find something to complain about and then she would bring up every damned thing she ever complained about in the past...whether they were relevant or not...because she thought it somehow supporter her present complain.)
Furthermore, the headline betrays the writer's ignorance about exactly what the court case was about. It had nothing to do with "lunch breaks", which are not paid time at all...but were about workers not getting their paid breaks.
You know, TheDemSocialist, if you really wanted to talk about this issue you should have, at least, come up with a link to an article that was accurate and actually about the issue.
a little bit over the top but if they were working and not taking their lunches then they should get paid for it.
no doubt about it.
however I don't think this is going to be the huge pay day they think it is.
their layers are taking 25% or so off the top.
so that is about 56m dollars gone.
that leave 168m
if you divide it out equally among 187k people that is 898 dollars and some change.
Read more @: Walmart Loses $224 Million Lawsuit For Stealing Lunch Breaks From 187,000 Workers
:clap:[/FONT][/COLOR]
A little bit of justice for these workers who had their wages taken straight from them all in name of greed and exploitation. :clap:[/INDENT]
So Walmart was requiring them to work and not get a lunch but then not paying them for it?
and who are these morons who were clocking out and then going back to work? Yes people deserve to get paid for their work but seriously how ****ing stupid were these 187,000 people to work off the clock like that?
and who are these morons who were clocking out and then going back to work? Yes people deserve to get paid for their work but seriously how ****ing stupid were these 187,000 people to work off the clock like that?
So Walmart was requiring them to work and not get a lunch but then not paying them for it?
But who can see any reason the country’s wealthiest family should treat their work force so horribly, paying them low wages and stealing their lunches too.
I'm curious, how did the Waltons "steal" their employees' lunches?
They were forced to skip a meal or rest break or work off the clock.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?