Comments on: Wal-Mart Fined $172 Million Over Meal Breaks

By: Conservative Revolution » Blog Archive » Abraham Linkin 7- A Conservative Blog from Cleveland, Ohio

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:33:33 +0000

[...] - Wal-Mart fined $172 Million over lunch breaks? Give me a break. [...]

By: greg beckham

greg beckham — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:30:30 +0000

One of the reasons there was such a huge number of affected employees is that being "employees at will" everyone is too terrified to speak out, that would violate the "team concept" and you would be ostricized or fired. It took the an investigation to find out how reaching the problem was. I heard Wal-Mart even alluded to the idea that employees themselves were at fault for not taking their breaks, like they love their job so much. In reality, when you are busy checking people it is hard to abandon the job and go look for your relief. It was supervision's job to provide that relief and they failed. Much of it was deliberate.

By: Josh Cohen

Josh Cohen — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:48:52 +0000

I hope my company notices this. We don't have a meal break policy -- you stop working and eat whenever you want, but you have to make sure that the system remains freshly updated throughout. I don't mind doing it that way, but I'd like maybe a little something for it. Like being able to leave a half hour early, come in a half hour later, or make an extra half-hour worth of money.

By: Attila Girl

Attila Girl — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 05:53:52 +0000

What I minded was "sidework," in the restaurant business. The stuff you have to do after you clock out and before you go home.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:09:08 +0000

$172,000,000.00. Is there a correlation between loss of perspective and deep pockets? Or is it between loss of persepctive and Angry Left targets?

By: Troy

Troy — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:46:21 +0000

I work union construction and in this harsh pysically demanding profision you need breaks. Try toating around lumber wearing tool bags that weigh 30lbs + and see if you dont get tired and hungry. unless your a chain smorker or crack head you'll be begging for a couple of ten minute breaks and 30 min. lunch. part timers and desk joks if you want to skip lunch and break just quit you job, problem solved

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:20:03 +0000

Don't know about Wal-Mart, but the restaurants often deny breaks to their employees. I suspect the pratice is widespread in retail...

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:13:40 +0000

Here is an interesting commentary on the whole Wal-Mart situation...

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:02:16 +0000

Fersboo wasn't saying that W-M shouldn't comply? I said that W-M's denials of breaks were "hardball" and Fersboo said that W-M should be playing hardball. Don't know how I misunderstood that.

donât you find that 5,500 employees within the state of California were denied thier state-mandated 30 minute break, on a daily basis for 4 years a bit, um, far-fetched?

How, exactly, is that far-fetched? Retail employees frequently are poor workers, not least because "poor" workers (in both senses of the word) are all the retail chains are willing to hire. Good managers use the carrot and the stick. W-M, and those who encourage "hardball," are leaving out the carrot.

By: Fersboo

Fersboo — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:02:40 +0000

Anderson endorses workers to slack off and not be productive, but hey, it isn't going to hurt anyone, its not like the companies don't have enough money, right?

Anderson, I wasn't saying that Wal-Mart shouldn't be in compliance, but don't you find that 5,500 employees within the state of California were denied thier state-mandated 30 minute break, on a daily basis for 4 years a bit, um, far-fetched?

I have worked hourly in retail and on commission in retail and I know that many, I repeat many, retail employees are a waste of cells & tissue.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:48:37 +0000

I'm a right of center blogger who worked part-time for WalMart for almost two years. I actually support the law.

Bill

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:28:57 +0000

Fersboo endorses forcing workers to serve full shifts without breaks. Lovely. Two days before Christmas, at that.

By: Dale B

Dale B — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:09:11 +0000

This explains what was going on at a part time hourly job I had for a while in college. I worked nights for 6 hours. The schedule was 2 hrs work, ten minute break, 2 hours work, 30 min for dinner, 2 hours work, 10 minute break, go home. They would even ring a bell at the begining and end of all the break periods and I was required to leave my work area during the breaks.

I wanted to skip all the breaks and go home 40 min early. They wouldn't budge an inch. I even had to stay for the last break. I thought they were just being anal retentive jerks. It was REALLY annoying.

I quit that job.

By: odograph

odograph — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:31:58 +0000

Pfft. "efficient."

By: odograph

odograph — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:31:08 +0000

Read "The World Is Flat" to get what I consider a market-friendly realist's take on Wal Mart. A fragment (pg 137):

Sam Walton bred not only a ruthless quest for efficiency in improving WalMart's supply chain but also a degree of ruthlessness period. I am talking about everything from WalMart's recently exposed practice of locking overnight workers into store, to its allowing WalMart's maintenance contractors to use illegal immegrants as janitors, to its role as defendand in the largest lawsuit in history [etc.]

My 2 cents is that it's too bad that some (not all!) conservatives want to prop WalMart up as a model for ethical buisiness ... when it isn't. Promoting a ruthless company as ideal, just devalues the proponent. There are plenty of good, efficienty, companies out there who don't stoop so often to this kind of BS.