07.04.08
Why Wal-Mart needs unions.
Think how much money they would have saved: the events in the court case described by H.J. Cummins of the Minneapolis Star Tribune would have never happened if Wal-Mart had a good strong union.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. broke Minnesota labor law more than 2 million times over six years, routinely forcing some employees to work off the clock through lunch and rest breaks, a Dakota County judge has ruled.
The violations were willful, said District Judge Robert King in a ruling Monday in Hastings. They could bring a penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, which could mean a $2 billion fine for the world’s largest retailer. A jury will decide the size of the penalty during the second phase of the trial, expected to begin Oct. 20.
Nancy Braun, one of four named plaintiffs on the suit, said Tuesday that she was “ecstatic” about the judge’s decision. Braun, who worked in an Apple Valley store for about 14 months beginning in March 1998, said the store repeatedly didn’t find people to give her breaks when she was the sole cook and waitress at the store’s grill.
In several instances no one came in time for her to go to the bathroom. “I would end up soiling myself,” said Braun, now 53 and living in Rochester. “Sometimes I’d have other clothes with me in my locker, or they would say to me, ‘We have clothes in the store you can buy.’”
Braun said she kept complaining, “and they kept promising to get me help, but they never did it.” …
More at the link.
pobept said,
7 July 2008 at 12:47 pm
Your blog has just demonstrated why a union is not needed.
Courts have intervened and are correcting Wal-Mart’s personnel working off the clock and other misconduct involving their employees.
LeisureGuy said,
7 July 2008 at 3:17 pm
Reread the post itself, not just the title. As you will see on rereading, I was making the point that Wal-Mart would have saved considerable money by having a union and avoiding the court case (with the costs of legal fees, fines, and punitive damages).