Hackers leak walmart's guide to silencing workers.

[bannination]

http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/2014/0 ... e-workers/

“If you see something, say something” is no longer just a motto for the Department of Homeland Security. It’s also how Walmart plans to snuff out labor organizing drives before they happen, according to internal company documents leaked on Tuesday.

[Mr.B]

And just last Sunday, a federal court in Los Angeles ruled that Walmart will have to face trial to determine if it is liable as a “joint-employer” for the abuses experienced by the contracted warehouse workers who move its goods. According to Warehouse Workers United:

“Their lawsuit alleges that the workers who load and unload Walmart’s truck containers, many of whom have worked at these warehouses for years, were routinely forced to work off the clock, denied legally required overtime pay, and retaliated against when they tried to assert their legal rights, or even asked how their paychecks had been calculated.”

As emboldened above, this is not Walmart's doings. If there was any retaliation as mentioned above, it does/did not come from Walmart.

If you are not "on the clock", a supervisor or manager can't discuss the least trivial of company business with you. Hours are scheduled so as not to run into overtime; if at the end of the week you have worked more than your scheduled hours, you're advised when to clock out so as to avoid overtime. There is no "required" overtime.

Of course, if you go into O/T, you're paid O/T; however you are politely (but sternly) advised to keep better track of your time so as to avoid O/T pay.
Lowes has the same identical policy, and all of the big chains operate similarly.

As to the union issue, Walmart does go to extreme lengths to discourage even the mention of a union.

[Boatrocker]

. . . As emboldened above, this is not Walmart's doings. If there was any retaliation as mentioned above, it does/did not come from Walmart.

If you are not "on the clock", a supervisor or manager can't discuss the least trivial of company business with you. Hours are scheduled so as not to run into overtime; if at the end of the week you have worked more than your scheduled hours, you're advised when to clock out so as to avoid overtime. There is no "required" overtime . . . .

Calling double bullshit on that one. Feel free to back it up.

[O Really]

Mr.B is right, sorta. Corporate Wal-Mart, with their three floors of lawyers whose main job is just to manage the cases handled by their massive army of outside counsel, is rabidly adamant about following (most) labor laws. Without doubt, there is a strong policy against working off the clock or for any supervisor or manager to engage in any work-related activity with an employee who is is off the clock. They have a strong policy about hiring only legals, and a bunch of other stuff that they still manage to routinely get into trouble for.

Problem is, Wal-Mart has over 4,000 US stores, and the management of each store has a fair amount of responsibility, and a heavy burden to make budget in revenue and costs. Maybe not in places Mr.B has worked, but typically top store management will push that burden downhill, resulting in many thousand mid-level employees who may not care much what corporate thinks as long as their boss is off their ass. That's where you get the violations. How many violations you ask? I don't know nationally, but they rack up a hundred or so a year just in Florida. That's just labor violations, not contracts, liability, financial stuff, or criminal issues.

As to the joint employment issue, that's not something they just thought up to harass Wally. It is common to consider joint employment where temporary services are used, and the entire issue of "independent contractors" has been high on the IRS and DOL target list for many years.

[Mr.B]

"Calling double bulls**t on that one. Feel free to back it up."

Feel free to provide citation for your doubts.
"Their lawsuit alleges........", meaning this is an accusation. If these workers have been working there "for years", why is this just now coming out despite the fact that Walmart has been embroiled in legal labor issues for years? I have never heard of any company denying "legally required overtime pay". I do know that they frown on one's working overtime, but they pay up if you do. Like Lowe's and a few other companies, if you continue to rack up O/T, you can be dismissed, unless a manager requested you to work....and that manager better have a good reason for asking.

As far as that "routinely forced to work off the clock", I call that b.s., that is an allegation until it is proven, and there's always the possibility it might be.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not siding with Walmart; I'm speaking from my personal experience as I work p/t for a division of Walmart, and I am paid and treated very well, but I owe them no sympathy or loyalty in the matters of their legal issues.

".....the management of each store has a fair amount of responsibility, and a heavy burden to make budget in revenue and costs." ....... "That's where you get the violations."

True. Store managers have a slew of upper management breathing down their necks, and you-know-what runs downhill. Still, with all the training, rules and regs concerning their employees, store managers still make stupid mistakes and decisions that gets their hineys in a sling; not only with the company, but state and federal rules as well. (Grandpa used to say "Buy 'em books and buy 'em books, and all's they do is eat the da*n covers off'n them")

All of Walmart's labor issues have been the result of local managers making wrong decisions, and many of those no longer work for Walmart.

[Boatrocker]

Walmart- like every other corp guilty of this- knows exactly what is going on and not only supports it, but instigates it. Their paper "rules" are ass-covering policy, nothing more. Their bigstick dealings with lower management types- brow-beating them to meet ridiculous performance standards that cannot be met within the "rules"- is ample evidence of their complicity.

[O Really]

You are right, 'rocker, but Mr.B is too, at least in principle. Corporate Wal-Mart really would be happier if they didn't have to defend thousands of charges, and the DIRECT culprits of violations are local - disposable people who, as Mr.B notes, can be thrown under the bus. But the system itself, that still allows such violations to occur even though there is long history of central control ineffectiveness...well, sure - they know what's going on.

[bannination]

You are right, 'rocker, but Mr.B is too, at least in principle. Corporate Wal-Mart really would be happier if they didn't have to defend thousands of charges, and the DIRECT culprits of violations are local - disposable people who, as Mr.B notes, can be thrown under the bus. But the system itself, that still allows such violations to occur even though there is long history of central control ineffectiveness...well, sure - they know what's going on.

As long as it's cheaper to defend the lawsuits than the benefits of being dirty, it will continue to be a problem.

Yeah, upper management knows about it and creates and environment where local management's only recourse is to cheat.

[O Really]

I'm sure you're correct in many instances but "the DIRECT culprits of violations" in the federal SoCal warehouse case are not "local - disposable people". It reaches far higher than that as a matter of corporate policy.

Just curious - In your experience when "local - disposable people" are found to have broken labor law do they get fired?

A lot of the time, yes. But don't forget Wal-Mart fights everything, no matter how guilty they might be, and never settles even when they know they'll lose. So sometimes the sacking is well after and not always directly connected to the violation. They also stand behind a lot of wrong-doers, too, depending on the circumstances. Life in Wal-Mart management isn't too bad, unless you have a problem with them being so cheap on expenses that they won't pay for you, a senior attorney, to stay at the hotel where the convention in Bonita Springs you're speaking at (as a Wal-Mart representative) is held and the convention sponsors end up paying for your room so you don't have to stay at Motel 6. For those who do the work, however....

[O Really]

As long as it's cheaper to defend the lawsuits than the benefits of being dirty, it will continue to be a problem.

BINGO! Give the man a prize.

[O Really]

Just curious - In your experience when "local - disposable people" are found to have broken labor law do they get fired?

BTW "in [my] experience" does NOT include ever representing Wal-Mart in any matter ever in my lifetime or in this universe. But I do know some people who are part of Wal-Mart's army of outside counsel. For them, Wal-Mart's attitude and strategy is a cash cow.

[O Really]

I meant in general, not just Walmart.

...Life in Wal-Mart management isn't too bad, unless you have a problem with them being so cheap on expenses that they won't pay for you, a senior attorney, to stay at the hotel where the convention in Bonita Springs you're speaking at (as a Wal-Mart representative) is held and the convention sponsors end up paying for your room so you don't have to stay at Motel 6...

Ahh, the torments you have to endure.

Just to be excruciating clear, that was not me.
True story, though, I was at the convention, I knew the organizer who invited him. But it was not me. Point being, the convention was a national trucking group and he was invited to discuss various legal issues affecting truckers and that were being done well by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart had a chance to look good, be seen as innovative and a positive example, and they would only pay Motel 6 reimbursement to their guy. I've never personally known anybody (and we've got some expense-picky clients) who wouldn't have paid for their guy to stay at the hotel where he was speaking at a convention.

[O Really]

That was just an easy tease.

In general, not just Walmart, when local managers are found to have broken labor law do they get fired?

Depends. Out of the entire body of labor violations, most of them aren't exactly willful. Most arise out of misinterpretation, or maybe "creative" interpretation or the requirements. For example, most minimum wage violations don't involve somebody actually saying "I'm only going to pay you $6.00/hour." A violation occurs because the employer took a deduction (like for uniforms) that is OK, but not if it takes the employee below the minimum wage for the week. Employers' think a given employee or group of employees is exempt from overtime, and find they classified them incorrectly (like the developers who worked for the Grand Theft Auto game creators and the company paid out $30 million - twice.) Or somebody asked employees to show up 10 minutes early to get work assignments, and didn't know that time should be paid. Or let them sit at their desks during lunch when there were incoming calls. Or thought that if they had a voluntary "independent" contract with a guy, that the guy really was an "independent contractor." Labor law can be complex, mistakes are made. That's how a lot of us earn a living.

But yes, if the violation is willful, particularly if the employer has provided guidelines and training, etc., then a lot of violators get sacked. But there is even a legal distinction between a willful labor violation and one considered not willful. The non-willful people rarely get sacked.

[Boatrocker]

. . . Or somebody asked employees to show up 10 minutes early to get work assignments, and didn't know that time should be paid . . . .

I don't think it's your intention to bullshit, but I'm calling bullshit on that one, too. "Didn't know that time should be paid" is stretching credibility to the point of structural failure. Just saying.

[O Really]

. . . Or somebody asked employees to show up 10 minutes early to get work assignments, and didn't know that time should be paid . . . .

I don't think it's your intention to bullshit, but I'm calling bullshit on that one, too. "Didn't know that time should be paid" is stretching credibility to the point of structural failure. Just saying.

No, it's not. In fact, it's only relatively recently that there have been major lawsuits covering such pre- or post-work activities like putting on protective gear. It isn't that much of a stretch for an employer to think that if employees are supposed to start work at 8:00, then they need to arrive before that time, and that there could be some sort of instruction to them as they head for work. There is also a lot of misunderstanding of what constitutes "voluntary," also. It may seem ignorant (and it is ignorant of the law), but there really is a lot of misunderstanding including what constitutes "compensable time." I generally tell my clients that if they have to ask, it's probably compensable.

[Wneglia]

My daughter works at WalMart and starts getting paid the moment she gets in her car and drives to the store and back, plus she gets paid mileage.

[O Really]

My daughter works at WalMart and starts getting paid the moment she gets in her car and drives to the store and back, plus she gets paid mileage.

Surely not for normal commute. I'd find that hard to believe unless her entire job is hi-tech and on-call

[Boatrocker]

. . . Or somebody asked employees to show up 10 minutes early to get work assignments, and didn't know that time should be paid . . . .

I don't think it's your intention to bullshit, but I'm calling bullshit on that one, too. "Didn't know that time should be paid" is stretching credibility to the point of structural failure. Just saying.

No, it's not. In fact, it's only relatively recently that there have been major lawsuits covering such pre- or post-work activities like putting on protective gear. It isn't that much of a stretch for an employer to think that if employees are supposed to start work at 8:00, then they need to arrive before that time, and that there could be some sort of instruction to them as they head for work. There is also a lot of misunderstanding of what constitutes "voluntary," also. It may seem ignorant (and it is ignorant of the law), but there really is a lot of misunderstanding including what constitutes "compensable time." I generally tell my clients that if they have to ask, it's probably compensable.

Nope. Wrong Disagree on every point.
You're speaking legalese and I'm speaking English. Anyone with enough sense to pick his/her nose knows you can't mandate folks come early and not get paid for it.

[O Really]

Nope. Wrong Disagree on every point.
You're speaking legalese and I'm speaking English. Anyone with enough sense to pick his/her nose knows you can't mandate folks come early and not get paid for it.

I'd agree with the nose picking, but believe me there are a lot of people in business management that can't manage to get that done. If you asked whether or not it's "working" for a guy to drop off mail at the drive-through box on his normal way home, a lot of people would say "no," but of course they'd be wrong. A lot of people think that if they don't "require" the admin to sit at her desk for lunch, but s/he chooses to do so, they don't have to pay for the time if she answers the phone. They would of course be wrong. A lot of people can't define "de minimus" time, so they don't know whether it's enough to pay for or not. A lot of people think that if the employee really does "volunteer" to stay late to finish up something they thought they were slow at, that it wouldn't be compensable time. They also would be wrong. A lot of people think that if they specifically tell the employee not to work overtime, that if the employee does work, they don't have to pay them. Still wrong. I could go on, but I've never lost fees underestimating the willingness of management to step on its own tail.

[Wneglia]

My daughter works at WalMart and starts getting paid the moment she gets in her car and drives to the store and back, plus she gets paid mileage.

Surely not for normal commute. I'd find that hard to believe unless her entire job is hi-tech and on-call

She is a pharmacist and travels to about 5 different stores in Nashville and surrounding areas, as the need arises. Some are up to 1 1/2 hours away. I might be wrong, but I think the travel pay applies to all locations.