Wal-Mart ordered to pay $78 million

[Rob Lister]

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.

As stated in the original post,

More to the point, I'm unhappy about the existance of the labor laws they proportedly violated.

 

[davefoc]

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.

That is in the range of a fair comment.

I am now less "disappointed" although I understand my disappointment level (reasonably enough) isn't all that important to you.

ETA: As to the substance of this issue, I didn't see enough information in the article for me to form an opinion on.

Did Walmart loose because people were taking breaks and just weren't punching out when they took them? When I worked as a box boy many years ago for an hourly wage I don't remember punching out for breaks. It was your responsibility to figure out when it was time to take it and you told somebody that you were going to take a break and you took it. If you didn't take a break, nobody thought about coming back and suing the store.

Of course things change and I know this issue is one that is strongly enforced in places. Was there a state law that required punching out for breaks? Was Walmart allowing people to work without breaks and this in itself was a violation of some laws?

I doubt very much that Walmart was actually requiring people to work without breaks but if that was the case I didn't see evidence of it in the linked article.

 

[Cleon]

That is in the range of a fair comment.

Well, gee, thanks.

I am now less "disappointed" although I understand my disappointment level (reasonably enough) isn't all that important to you.

Perhaps you should've asked first rather than leapt to the conclusion that my comment was motivated simply by the fact that I disagreed with the troll in question?

Did Walmart loose because people were taking breaks and just weren't punching out when they took them?

WalMart lost because after the workers' shifts were completed, or during their lunch breaks, WalMart management demanded that they work without punching back in. Management threatened them with termination if they didn't put in a couple "extra hours." In other words, they demanded that the workers work for no pay.