The AP reports that in a class-action lawsuit, a Minnesota judge ordered that Wal-Mart pay $6.5 million in compensatory damages for violating state labor laws 2-million times. Violations were incurred when the company reduced break time for employees and “willfully” allowed them to work off the clock. Other infractions include the failure to keep time records and denying employees time for meal breaks. Details, inside…
The article says,
Dakota County Judge Robert King Jr. on Monday ordered Wal-Mart to pay $6.5 million in compensatory damages, but Wal-Mart could end up paying more than $2 billion after a jury in October considers civil penalties and punitive damages.
The judge said Wal-Mart should have known the employees were working off the clock while at computer-based training terminals and “willfully allowed” it to continue. The company also failed to provide employees with rest breaks more than 1.5 million times and shortened employees’ breaks more than 44,000 times, according to the order.
Wal-Mart was also found in violation of statutes relating to making and keeping employee time records and failing to let employees have any time for a meal break. While the plaintiffs won’t receive compensatory damages for those violations, Wal-Mart is subject to a $1,000 civil penalty for each incident.
The ruling, which was given to the parties Monday evening, comes after judgments against Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania and California found similar violations.
In Pennsylvania, workers won a $78.5 million judgment in 2006 for working off the clock and through rest breaks. A $172 million verdict against Wal-Mart in 2005 found the company illegally denied lunch breaks in California. Wal-Mart is appealing those rulings.
May justice be fair and swift.
Minn. judge rules against Wal-Mart on work breaks [AP] (Thanks to Erik!)
(Photo: chasingfun)
More From Consumerist
-
All Of This Walmart’s Enfamil Baby Formula Is Expired
-
Walmart Files Complaint Against Union In Attempt To Thwart Black Friday Protests
-
Walmart Worker Treated Store Shelves As Personal Snack Pantry For 4 Years
-
Judge Tries, Again, To Slap Wells Fargo With $203 Million For Overdraft Policy
-
Woman On The Hook For $220K In Online Music Sharing Saga After Losing Appeal In Third Trial
$3.25/violation doesn’t sound like a lot.
@sleze69: 2nd that!
Obligatory blame the workers for working at Walmart post!
@sleze69: yeah, but with the punitive that could go up to $1000/incident. That ain’t chump-change.
I am SOO glad I have not set foot in a Walmart!!
(since 2 days ago)
Obviously it isn’t good enough to pay bottom of the barrel wages. At least somebody out there represents the little guy.
@Televiper: So I’m not misinterpreted , it isn’t good enough savings for Wal*Mart.
Hooray! That’s 1 for the justice system! Now if only we could jail some Countrywide execs, then we’d be all set!
May justice be fair and swift.
I’m glad there is finally justice. As for swift, WallylWorld will just file appeal upon appeal. Those workers are in serious need of a union.
Wow, a judge voting in favor of the little guys. Who would of thunk it?
Ch… $6.5 million? That’s laughable, considering Wal-Mart gets 10 times that screwing America over.
Gee Golly…you would have thought that they would gotten the message the first time they got their asses handed to them.
I wonder how many more times Walmart* will keep doing this before someone in the boardroom finally says “You know, that wasn’t such a good idea after all….”
@EE: I’m surprised then when they were employed they weren’t forced to sign an arbitration contract!
I wonder how much money the workers will get.
@Ash78: Yea, I refuse to go to wal-mart today or tomorrow for this. This is absurd.
Heh. That is ridiculous.
I have friends who work at Walmart and have been told of pretty horrible experiences. I didn’t think it was anything like denying lunch breaks and things like that.
Stupid Walmart. Unfortunately, a logo change can’t change what’s inside.
Hey Walmart, how much money you got in your wallet right now? $6.5 Million? Ah… that’s good. We’ll just use that.
If the workers are working while off the clock, isn’t that their fault? If you’re off the clock, you should stay out of work areas. I just don’t have a lot of sympathy for the workers in this case. This whole story makes them sound so down trodden and pitiful but, imagine the labor issues in Mexico or in China. We’re very pampered here.
@Angryrider: Yeah, I’m guessing they paid in pocket money right there in the courtroom, a la Mr. Burns.
“I’ll take that statue of Justice, too.”
“Sold!”
Walmart has proven unequivocally that they do not care about their employees. I rarely shop their but sadly I still do sometimes.
Hopefully they lose enough money that they clean up their act.
So the workers get nothing and wal mart gets a slap on the wrist?
@Bourque77: Pretty much. I’m still gonna buy some food from Wal-Mart some time this week, though. In the long run, they aren’t going to do anything differently, and the amount of money they’re having to pay because of these suits is moot.
You have to realize that the $6.5 million is the estimated ACTUAL loss of pay to the workers. Denying a lunch break or shortening a lunch break would cost up to $4 or $5 there. Also working off the clock was something the workers would have been forced to do. It just happens that no one can prove it.
I love how it will cost them $2 Billion in just one state. Can you imagine if they got hit with fines like that in every state? That would be nice.
Minnesota is a liberal state, so I am not surprised by this.
Supporters of this ruling act like this was the only company denying meal breaks, shorting breaks and making people finish the jobs they started off the clock while trying to leave after doing a half-assed job.
I’m shocked that they didn’t fine Wal-Mart more for locking the doors at night to keep customers/thieves out (a.k.a. locking workers in).
@MrWashy:
a arbitration contract does not give a wal-mart a free pass to brake labor laws. Also you can’t sign away you rights.
@howiedi2:
The works are be forced to work off the clock and some times they are locked in.
@howiedi2: It could be their fault, if they had ample opportunities to work other jobs. However, many of the people who work at Walmart are people who can’t find jobs anywhere else and are just trying to put food on the table. This could very well have been a situation where if the workers refused to work off the clock, they would be fired. They are, remember, “at will” employees.
@Jesse: It doesn’t matter if the company was trying to make someone finish a “half-assed job” or not. You don’t make someone work and not pay them. That’s illegal.
WalMart’s intention here was, I believe, to get work done while keeping payroll costs down. If they were so focused on quality then their products wouldn’t suck as hard as they do.
My husband briefly worked at Sam’s Club, and he got locked in at night. I can understand locking the doors from the outside, but to not let the workers out seems like it should be illegal.
My husband was working there when his father was in the hospital. I got the call at 1am. I called Sam’s Club every 10 minutes until 5am when someone finally picked up. His dad did later pass away.
@howiedi2: Yeah, but when your boss is telling you that you’ll be fired if you don’t work and that’s your only source of income, you tend to do what they say.
@Jesse: I’ve never encountered a commercial, government, or public building that requires locking people in order to lock them out. You don’t have to lock people in, to keep people out.
It is still illegal to short breaks. If the people aren’t doing their jobs there are many other avenues of discipline and eventually dismissal. Those have to be fair too.
@Bladefist: I assume this line: “While the plaintiffs won’t receive compensatory damages for those violations” means that those guys won’t be getting a penny after all this.
Very sad thing indeed!
@Ash78: 2 days? pushaw! I boycott walmart for 2-weeks at a time!
“the workers are working while off the clock, isn’t that their fault?”
I was waiting for someone to take Wal-Mart’s bait.
Do you really think that all of these employees accidentally worked off the clock? Do you personally know anyone who regularly and consistently works for a multinational corporation for no money? No, I didn’t think so.
The deal is that these employees are told to work off the clock by their supervisors under threat of being fired. I’m assuming this is all related to avoid paying overtime. When someone hours reaches 40 hours, their supervisor makes them work for free.
When faced with losing their job and working a payless shift, they take the payless shift.
@azntg: lol. They care so much for these people, who were treated unfairly, but not enough to give them a penny. Where is the money going? So stupid. I am officially infuriated.
Those people should get all the money, less lawyer expenses.
@GMFish: You’re right on these counts. That is the manager of XXXXXX Wal-mart store, however, and not “Wal-Mart corporation” that forced it to happen. The corporate office takes the blame legally, as they have to, but it’s not directly their fault, and the managers in these stores have probably been fired.
@GMFish: I’ll it’s bet it’s common for employees to be forced to their set-up, and close-up off clock. IE, you’re a cashier that works from 6-10 you have to be there at 5:45 to get your cash drawer to be at the till at 6, and then you don’t start closing out till 10pm. Or someone is late, and someone is forced to fill in without being given overtime.
@MrWashy: The victory in this case proves they don’t need a union, filthy organizations as corrupt as some of the companies they supply labor to.
Televiper: “I’ll it’s bet it’s common for employees to be forced to their set-up”
I used to work for K-Mart in the early 80s. That place bent over backward to ensure we got our legally required breaks, lunches, and overtime. But then again, maybe that’s why K-Mart is in the financial dumpster while Wal-Mart is doing so well. It’s probably much easier to make a profit when you’re willing to break the law.
Does a judgment like this against Wal-Mart by the state preclude civil suits against Wal-Mart by the employees?
Excellent! Finally some justice and one of the reasons I detest shopping at Walmart as detailed here: [www.savingtoinvest.com]
Ethcically their corporate approach worries me. They are compromising their own employees welfare for the sake of company profits!
@sisedi: Actually a contract with a union would have protected both the employees and WalMart. Contracts are written by both sides and are meant to protect both sides.
Besides, I doubt you could name 5 unions that are demonstrably corrupt while I can name a plethora (love that word!) of corporations.
Just judging by the amount of “violations,” I just have a feeling that a lot of this was probably initiated by a bunch of whiny part-time workers with a sense of entitlement in an advantageous legal climate. I worked retail many years through high school and college. At both places I worked, breaks on some busy days were sporadic or non-existent. It happens all the time. I’m not saying it’s right, but why just go after Wal-Mart when there are probably plenty of other retailers out there doing the same thing.
I’ll be honest. I actually work at Wal-mart. (I started part-time there in High School, and unless I want to make $6 less per hour starting at minimum wage at some other retail store so I can have a full time job that bends to my college schedule’s whim, I don’t have much choice). Anyway, these stories always confuse me. I guess I live in a “good” wal-mart state or something because in the 6(ew, I know) years I’ve worked there I have never once been denied a break, asked to work off the clock, or forced to do anything unsafe, and I don’t know anyone who has.
Obviously it’s not like this is being made up, but I just don’t get how the company is apparently run so differently in different areas. Anyway, not trying to defend Wal-Mart(and I’d be the last to do so in most any situation, I have no loyalty to the company despite my ridiculous amount of time there), but these stories always make me wonder what makes one company seemingly run so differently in different areas.
This story was on the front page of the Minneapolis StarTribune today. One of the lead plaintiff’s worked at the store’s grill and was not allowed to take required breaks. She indicates it was so bad she soiled herself on more than one occasion. I can’t imagine being in a situation so bad that you felt your only option was to pee your pants. I’m sure many of use would simply have left to use the facilities and dealt with the consequences (I know I would have). However, we don’t know her personal situation and how badly she needed the job. If it was me, I’d say NO job was worth that embarrassment, though.
The article goes on to indicate that an internal audit had reported many of these violations to Sr. Management, but apparently had been ignored. It’s safe to say that it wasn’t just a few renegade managers that were doing this, but rather part of the accepted culture at Wal-Mart.
Finally the article indicates that it’s unlikely Minnesotans will change their shopping habits and stop shopping at Wal-Mart despite stories like this. That’s the scariest thing of the whole article IMO. It seems many want to bitch about poor service, poor treatment of workers, etc, but when it’s time to lay down their hard earned dollars, saving a few cents is more important than sticking to their principals. As long as large percentages of the population continue to base every decision on whatever is cheapest we will continue to receive crappy service. Wal-Mart is no different than the airlines in this regard.
I’m a union worker and can count on one hand the number of lunch breaks I got last month. Oh, and I work 50 hour weeks and get paid for 40 most weeks. Mostly my choice or my negligence, but I don’t blame my employer at all. So don’t pretend unionizing is the only answer – actually, it would help Walmart in cases like this. “What, you’ve got a union in place and you still aren’t taking breaks and you’re still willfully working through breaks/off the clock? Go talk to your union rep and we can start an arbitration process which will tell you to stop doing that.” [/lawsuit]
Should I sue my employer because nobody held my hand and reminded me what time lunch was, and I better go at that certain time or I’m not going to get it, and oops! I never went for my scheduled break but now it’s an hour til my shift is up, can I take my hour long break now while we’re closing? What do you mean I can’t – you’re denying me a break! Please. I managed for a year in a very similar situation as a retail manager supervising 17 people making minimum wage on an hourly floating hour basis and this is the type of stuff that happened on a daily basis. I wasn’t a mean heartless corporation so I didn’t get class-action sued. I never *denied* anyone a break, but if they didn’t take their scheduled break and didn’t inform me that there needed to be a change so I could adjust coverage, I didn’t feel bad for them if they didn’t get a break. I especially didn’t feel bad if they felt like skipping a lunch break should mean they got to skip closing by playing the “So, you’re going to deny me a break” card.
4 breaks per year per employee? I’m not going to shed a tear.
@Front_Towards_Enemy: They won’t stop until they lose more money in lawsuits than they save in cheating.
@darksunfox: You made a choice to not take your breaks. If you don’t stand up for yourself when you’re in a position to do so then by all means enjoy surrendering them. You are, as we say, a company man.
If your union doesn’t follow the law or your own contract then it’s weak. I do hate the complains of “my union didn’t do this” or “my union doesn’t stand up for me”. Your union is you; don’t like what it’s doing then get involved.
@sleze69: $3.25/violation doesn’t sound like a lot.
@valarmorghulis: yeah, but with the punitive that could go up to $1000/incident. That ain’t chump-change.
Courts typically consider any punitive damage award more than a single order of magnitude greater than the actual dmage award to be unreasonable. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Exxon Valdez case doesn’t bode well for an award of even $10 per incident in this case.
@Bladefist: This isn’t a class action lawsuit. This is a state taking a company to court for breaking the law.
The employee’s should also bring a class action suite against Walmart and with this ruling supporting they should be able to win pretty quickly.
Thing is, I don’t think this is necessarily a “Wal-Mart” thing. It sounds a lot like my $8/hr retail job at Apple, including the required off-the-clock computer-based training and the break situation. I’m sure it’s more of a “crappy manager” thing, which you can get anywhere if you hire bad management.
Apple has a computer-based employee-training program that they are required to do, but that they are not allowed to do on the clock (at least in the store I worked in). If you completed a certain number of training points, you got a pin that commemorated that. Incidently, my manager kept my pin for herself. (Point: bad management).
The break situation was often fairly humourous (after the fact); they lived by it as if it were the law. A particular example was if your name wasn’t on the scheduled break list (like if you were working but hadn’t been scheduled), you didn’t get a break.
I could give horror stories from other jobs, but I picked one that most people think is a loving, trendy job.
My point is that while I still despise Wal-Mart, I can’t help but wonder if this ruling wouldn’t have happened if the defendant had been a different company.
@celticgina: The obligatory “Obligatory X Post!” posts stopped being funny some time ago.