• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wal-Mart ordered to pay $78 million

Ohmer

Muse
Ohmer
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
674
So Wal-Mart is not all powerful and must follow the law.

CNN Money

I'm not one to villify Wal-Mart, but I am happy to see this ruling.
 
Ohmer said:
So Wal-Mart is not all powerful and must follow the law.

CNN Money

I'm not one to villify Wal-Mart, but I am happy to see this ruling.
Click to expand...

I AM one to villify Walmart (I hate the store because its crappy), but I am not too happy at this ruling. It appears to be pile-on. More to the point, I'm unhappy about the existance of the labor laws they proportedly violated.

Then again, I'm salary. Difference in attitude, I guess. I'm legally treated like this all the time...times 10.
 
Sad to see this defiling of a clear shining example of how the free market automatically provides the very best for everyone concerned.

(Wait, I can't snicker at this point, right?)
 
DanishDynamite said:
Sad to see this defiling of a clear shining example of how the free market automatically provides the very best for everyone concerned.

(Wait, I can't snicker at this point, right?)
Click to expand...

Assumes facts not presented but snicker as you wish.

It's sort of like snickering when you stub your toe and the pain has not reached your brain.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Sad to see this defiling of a clear shining example of how the free market automatically provides the very best for everyone concerned.

(Wait, I can't snicker at this point, right?)
Click to expand...

Free markets require the rule of law to work. This is an example of a corporate giant being reminded of that.
 
Rob Lister said:
I AM one to villify Walmart (I hate the store because its crappy), but I am not too happy at this ruling. It appears to be pile-on. More to the point, I'm unhappy about the existance of the labor laws they proportedly violated.

Then again, I'm salary. Difference in attitude, I guess. I'm legally treated like this all the time...times 10.
Click to expand...

So paying people by the hour shouldn't be allowed? People wanting to be paid for their labor is wrong?
 
Oh, boo-hoo. Poor WarMart actually has to pay their workers to work. You know, after this, it's just a hop, skip and a jump to outright communism!
 
Rob Lister said:
Your questions must have been meant for another post since they don't apply to mine.
Click to expand...

Why it applied to yours, you seemed to be objecting to the concept of paying people by the hour. I wonder how that works out for you with say auto mechanics and plumbers, and why should they be special?

You might be right, walmart emploies should be happy with a salary of $13000 a year and be required to work as much as the company wants.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why it applied to yours, you seemed to be objecting to the concept of paying people by the hour.

You might be right, walmart emploies should be happy with a salary of $13000 a year and be required to work as much as the company wants.
Click to expand...

1) you are mistaken
2) if they are not happy, they are free to leave.
 
Rob Lister said:
1) you are mistaken
2) if they are not happy, they are free to leave.
Click to expand...

So you are against all labor laws?

It is right to agree to pay someone for the number of hours they work and then make them work more hours that they are not paid for?
 
Rob Lister said:
1) no, just most
2) nope.
Click to expand...

So in other words walmart was wrong and shouldn't be violateing the contract that they had with their emploies and the courts made the right decision.

And it is good to see that people are really in favor of the good old days of labor relations from say the 1880's.
 
davefoc said:
It is disapointing that you would have said that. When somebody disagrees wtih you Cleon that doesn't mean they are trolling and I see no evidence here that Rob Lister was trolling.
Click to expand...

No, the fact that he's trolling means that he's trolling. If you don't see it, that's your issue.

He posts something about disagreeing with the ruling, then when questioned on it tapdances around with small comments like "you are mistaken" and "that works for me too" with zero actual commentary.

He threw a comment out there to provoke a response, then tried to drag it out without actually contributing anything. That is the dictionary definition of trolling.

Be as "disappointed" as you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom