Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Wal-Mart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wal-Mart. Show all posts

Saturday, November 30, 2013

How foodies can become champions for workers' rights

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from america.aljazeera.com

The FCWA estimates that almost 8 million workers throughout the food system would benefit from a national minimum wage boost, and that 29 million workers over all industries would get a raise. In a Thanksgiving-themed "menu" of ways to help improve the lives of food workers, the FCWA asks foodies to sign its petition to raise the wage to $10.10, to spread the word via social media, and to write their members of Congress to urge passage of the raise.
Food workers are also mobilizing to win on three more fronts: they want nationally guaranteed paid sick days, so that they are not forced to show up to work while sick, thus contributing to the spread of infectious disease. They are demanding the right to safe workplaces: Many agricultural employers could easily provide better protections from harmful pesticides for harvest workers. Finally, the workers are demanding their right to a voice on the job, protesting against the abuse and intimidation that frequently occur in the restaurant industry when workers try to unionize.
To push for these rights, the FCWA's member groups are reaching out to consumers with messages about specific bad-actor employers in each of these areas. These employers include Wal-Mart, which has allegedly stolen wages from workers and routinely quashed unionization drives at its stores; and the Darden restaurant group, which owns Red Lobster, Olive Garden and other family-style chains. Workers at Darden establishments are still denied any paid...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Breaking: Wal-Mart workers on strike, defying firings

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.salon.com


Breaking: Wal-Mart workers on strike, defying firings
Breaking: Wal-Mart workers on strike, defying firings
Dozens of workers at a Florida Wal-Mart walked off the job this morning, mounting the first Wal-Mart store work stoppage since the firings of 20 workers who participated in an extended June strike.
“I don’t have fear,” striker Jose Bello told Salon in Spanish. “I don’t have any fear. They could punish us – we’re used to that.” Bello said that at least 80 of the employees at his Hialeah, Fla., store had joined the strike, which began at 9 a.m. Wal-Mart did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“I decided a long time ago to do this, but we needed to come together as a group to make the decision,” said Bello. He described the strike as a response to “abuse and discrimination” by managers, as well as insufficient hours. “I have four years here,” he said, and “they’re give me 29 hours … as a human being, I want 40 hours.” Bello told Salon that workers met Thursday and decided to strike.
As Salon first reported, workers last fall mounted the first ever coordinated U.S. Wal-Mart strikes, including a high-profile “Black Friday” walkout the day after Thanksgiving. The group behind those strikes was OUR Walmart, a non-union labor group closely tied to the United Food &...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Wal-Mart worker: Fired for helping assaulted woman

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.miamiherald.com

HARTLAND TOWNSHIP, Mich. -- A Michigan man says he was fired from his job at Wal-Mart after he tried to help a woman being assaulted in the parking lot of one of the retail giant's stores and ended up fighting with her attacker.
Kristopher Oswald told WXYZ-TV in Detroit (http://bit.ly/18qGyBh ) that Wal-Mart has policies against workplace violence to prevent employees from assaulting co-workers or tackling a shoplifter, but that it appears that nothing allows for them to assist in situations of imminent danger and self-defense.
A spokeswoman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. told The Associated Press on Thursday that while the company understood Oswald's intentions, his actions violated company policy.
"We had to make a tough decision, one that we don't take lightly, and he's no longer with the company," company spokeswoman Ashley Hardie said.
Oswald, 30, said he was in his car on his break about 2:30 a.m. Sunday when he saw a man grabbing a woman. He said he asked her if she needed help and the man started punching him in the head and yelling that he was going to kill him. Oswald said he was able to get on top of the man, but then two other men jumped him from behind.
Livingston County sheriff's deputies arrived and halted the fight.
Oswald said the Hartland Township store's management gave him paperwork saying that "after a violation of company policy on his lunch break, it was determined to end his temporary assignment." Oswald had worked for Wal-Mart for...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Friday, September 27, 2013

The Impact and Echoes of the Wal-Mart Discrimination Case

This article is shared from propublica.

The post is shared from probulica.org.

Betty Dukes talks to the press on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court after the class action lawsuit Dukes v. Wal-Mart was argued before the court in Washington, March 29, 2011
(Photo: Reuters)
When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes in June 2011, no one needed a Richter scale to know it was a Big One. In throwing out a mammoth lawsuit by women employees who claimed that they’d been systematically underpaid and underpromoted by the world’s biggest corporation, the ruling upended decades of employment discrimination law and raised serious barriers to future large-scale discrimination cases of every kind.

Employers rejoiced. Others predicted serious setbacks for women and minorities, especially in employment discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That landmark law had opened the way to the use of the class-action lawsuit as a potent weapon for people who could not stand up for their rights on their own.
Two years later, it’s becoming clear just how much the ruling has reshaped the American legal landscape.

The Dukes decision has already been cited more than 1,200 times in rulings by federal and state courts, a figure seen by experts as remarkable. Jury verdicts have been overturned, settlements thrown out, and class actions rejected or decertified, in many instances undoing years of litigation. The rulings have come in every part of the country, in lawsuits involving all types of companies,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, September 14, 2013

How Wal-Mart keeps wages low

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.washingtonpost.com


“I think they don’t want me to actually let people know what’s really going on at Wal-Mart as an associate,” Lopez told me in an interview for the Nation following her June 21 firing. “So they’d rather get rid of me.”

Firings like Lopez’s may not come as a shock — Wal-Mart once shut down a store in Canada after workers there won collective bargaining rights, and it eliminated its entire U.S. meat-cutting department after a handful of meat-cutters at one store voted to unionize. But the alleged retaliation defies an eight-decade-old promise from the federal government to most U.S. workers:

Banding together to improve your workplace, whether you win or lose, shouldn’t cost you your job. That 1935 law — the National Labor Relations Act – is still on the books. But its ban on retaliation today reads more like a cruel joke than an ironclad commitment. A 2009 study released by the progressive Economic Policy Institute found that pro-union workers are fired — allegedly illegally — in at least a third of unionization election campaigns supervised by the government.

As expected, Wal-Mart denies illegally retaliating against anyone. The company claims that some of the discipline was unrelated to the protests — Lopez ostensibly lost her job for violating a food safety policy by bringing the employee handbook into the deli area where she works. And Wal-Mart says other workers were punished not for...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

OSHA cites Wal-Mart Super Center for repeat and serious safety hazards - proposes $52,600 in fines


The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for alleged repeat and serious violations of workplace safety standards at the Wal-Mart Super Center store located at 139 Merchant Place in Cobleskill. The retailer faces a total of $52,600 in proposed fines following inspections by OSHA's Albany Area Office.


OSHA found that emergency exit access from a receiving and storage area was obstructed by the storage of pallets containing merchandise and equipment, and employees were not able to safely operate pallet jacks in aisles and passageways that were obstructed by stacked merchandise. In addition, portable fire extinguishers were not mounted and located in safely accessible areas, and the lack of a protective fitting and strain relief for an electrical conduit entering a control box presented an electrical hazard.


These conditions resulted in the issuance of citations with $48,200 in proposed fines for three repeat violations. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. In this case, OSHA had previously cited Wal-Mart for similar hazards at stores in Newington, Conn.; Chelmsford and West Boylston, Mass.; Centralia and Joliet, Ill.; Coshocton, Ohio; and Lewisville, Texas.


"The recurring nature of these hazards is disturbing and needs to be effectively addressed," said Kimberly Castillon, OSHA's area director in Albany. "An employer with multiple locations, such as Wal-Mart, needs to ensure that hazards are identified, corrected and prevented at all of its workplaces."


Additionally, a citation with a $4,400 fine has been issued for a serious violation involving a lack of eye, face and hand protection as well as safety training for employees operating cardboard balers. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.


"One step an employer can take to protect its workers against on-the-job hazards is to develop and maintain an effective illness and injury prevention program in which management and employees work together to proactively identify and prevent hazardous conditions," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York.


Arkansas-based Wal-Mart has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.


To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency's Albany office at 518-464-4338.


Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Accidents Caused by Fatiguing Employment Require a Remedy

Employees sometimes are directed to work long and stressful hours and then if they become injured they are left without a remedy.  A Court recently held that even though an employee who was killed as a result of fatigue related accident while driving home after working  22 hours straight on "Black Friday" for Wal-Mart was without a remedy.


The Court reasoned that the law barred any recovery. The Workers' Compensation Act is not an available remedy the Court held since the injured occurred off the premises of the employer and not under the employers control. Also a civil action was barred by the deceased's estate against Wal-Mart since the Court reasoned that, "...The imposition of a duty upon an employer for injuries sustained by an employee, arguably arising out of the fatiguing conditions of employment, yet occurring outside of the course of employment would alter the necessary balance struck by the New Jersey legislature when defining the scope of compensable injuries." 

Despite the changing economic times, the laws should keep pace with the growing momentum of making the workplace safer. Regressive employment practices are not the solution for a healthier workplace. It is more important than ever that the Legislature revisit working conditions and strike a balance to provide a regulatory response to injuries and accident caused by such adverse situations.

See: Aylward v Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CA No. 10-4799, 2011 WL 2357762 (D.N.J.) Decided June 9, 2011

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Related articles

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Concentra Denied a Protective Order in Wal-Mart RICO Lawsuit

Concentra was denied a protective order in a pending Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. claim filed in Federal Court in Colorado. The plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart withheld, delayed, denied and dictated treatment to Wal-Mart workers who filed workers' compensation claim.


In the case, Concentra, a health care company, sought to prohibit plaintiff's attorneys from contacting any Concentra Medical Staff member, former or current, on an ex-parte basis. The Court denied the request.

Gianzero v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 1740624 (D. Colo. 2011) Decided May 5, 2011.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Colorado Court Allows RICO Case to Proceed Against Wal-Mart

A partial summary judgment motion was denied by Judge Robert E. Blackburn in a pending Colorado case against Wal-Mart where the plaintiff alleged that the employer,  working in concert with other defendants "dictated and interfered unlawfully " with employees who were entitle to medical treatment flowing from occupational accidents. 

The Court stated that, "The plaintiffs allege that the defendants improperly required, and continue to require, treatment providers to follow protocol notes that improperly direct and/or restrict the medical treatment provided to injured Wal-Mart workers under the Act. The plaintiffs allege that the policies implemented by the defendants result in delays in the injured workers' receipt of treatment, denial of prescribed medical treatment, withholding of benefits, and/or the inability of the injured workers to obtain prescribed medical treatment."

The case involves a certified class of plaintiffs. The defendants had sought to limit the number of claimants by shortening the statute of limitations for the viability of the claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968. Since the relevant time periods were not evident on the face of the complaint, and the defendants did not offer proof to establish it, the Court denied the motion.

Gianzero v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2011 WL 1085647 (D. Colo. 2011) Decided March 24, 2011.


Friday, January 28, 2011

The RICO Consequences of Managing Health Care in Workers Compensation

It is one thing to provide workers' compensation coverage to injured employers and it is another issue how involved an employer can be in managing  medical care. That right was never addressed by the crafters of the workers' compensation system almost a century ago.

That dilemma is now being addressed by a Federal Judge in Colorado where a class action lawsuit pending against Wal-Mart for micro-managing and restricting medical care to injured workers.  Brooks Magratten, Esq, has addressed these issues in a recently authored article. "Class Action Attacks Wal-Mart Health Care Model." 25 No. 13 WJEMP 1 (Jan. 25, 2011). The landmark action has the potential to expand workers compensation medical care into the umbrella of a national universal medical care system.

The plaintiffs in the pending action, all former and present Wal-Mart employees, are seeking treble damages against the mega-corporation, with an aggregate market value of $108.8 Billion, for interfering with medical care. Judge Robert Blackburn has denied Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss, now setting the stage for a definitive test of the workers' compensation medical system nationally.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Stay Lifted in RICO Class Action Against Wal-Mart

A Federal Judge has lifted a stay in a class-action law suit against Wal-Mart that charges the company with conspiring with workers' compensation insurance companies to limit medical treatment for injured workers. The stay was lifted by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Blackburn on July 1, 2010. 

The claim, on behalf of 7,000 Colorado Wal-Mart workers charges conspiracy with: Claims Management Inc., American Home Assurance Co. and Concentra Health Services Inc., to control medical treatment, who may have been entitled to treatment under the Colorado Workers Compensation Act. Other allegations of fraud are also asserted.

Gianzero et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores et al., No. 09-00656, stay lifted (D. Colo. July 1, 2010).

Click here for additional articles about Wal-Mart and workers' compensation. For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered asbestos related illnesses.