| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://bit.ly/1t5tCqO
Political MoJo
→ Congress, Corporations, Economy
Elizabeth Warren's Next Target: Walmart
—By Erika Eichelberger
| Mon Nov. 17, 2014 5:22 PM EST
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has it out for Walmart. On Tuesday, the freshman senator will hold an event on Capitol Hill calling out the retail giant for its low wages and terrible employment practices. The briefing will be held a week ahead of the nationwide anti-Walmart protests planned for Black Friday.
Warren will be joined by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.); members of OUR Walmart, a union-backed group helping organize Walmart workers; and representatives from other labor groups. Warren and her colleagues also plan to discuss legislation that could help Walmart employees and other low-wage workers around the country, including measures that would raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, forbid unpredictable irregular work schedules for part-time workers, and help prevent employers from retaliating against workers who share wage information.
Roughly 825,000 of Walmart's hourly store employees earn less than $25,000 a year. About 600,000 Walmart workers are part-time, and many rely on food stamps and Medicaid. Walmart, the largest private employer in the US, says its average full-time hourly wage is $12.83, though OUR Walmart has calculated it as closer to $9 an hour.
Walmart has retaliated against employees who have protested these low wages. In January, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the company illegally fired, threatened, or disciplined more than 60 workers in 14 states for publicly complaining about wages and working conditions.
OUR Walmart is planning on holding a wave of protests at 1,600 Walmart stores the day after Thanksgiving to call for a $15 minimum wage and more opportunities for full-time hours. Last year, the group held demonstrations at more than 1,200 stores.
"The Walmart economy—a business model where a few profit significantly on the backs of the working poor and a diminishing middle class—perpetuates the income inequality problems that are devastating our country," OUR Walmart and the United Food and Commercial Workers union said in a statement Monday.
. |
|
|
Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:16 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/walmart-disability-benefits-supreme-court
Walmart Is Trying to Block Workers' Disability Benefits
If the Supreme Court rules in the retail giant's favor, it will be easier for companies to deny workers benefits.
—By Erika Eichelberger
| Mon Nov. 4, 2013 6:00 AM EST
Shelves: Robert S. Donovan/Flickr; Sign: Walmart Corporate/Flickr. Photoillustration by Matt Connolly.
Last week, amidst a deluge of criticism about Walmart's poverty-level wages, the retail giant announced promotions for 25,000 of its roughly 1.3 million US employees. But although Walmart has raised pay for some of its employees, it is simultaneously fighting to convince the Supreme Court to allow it to more easily avoid paying disability benefits.
Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a case brought by Julie Heimeshoff, a Walmart employee who sued the company and its insurance provider in 2010 for refusing to pay her disability benefits. Heimeshoff worked at Walmart for nearly 20 years, most recently as a public relations manager. About 10 years ago, she was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, lupus, and other chronic pain problems, and in June 2005, the pain became so severe that she had to stop working. Heimeshoff applied for disability benefits and, after a long internal review, her claim was denied. She sued over the denial of benefits less than three years later. That was within the statute of limitations—or so she thought.
When Heimeshoff started working for Walmart, she signed a contract saying that if she were ever denied disability benefits, she could only sue the company for wrongful denial of benefits if she did so within three years of filing her disability claim. But the US government and consumer lawyers say that Walmart's contract is bunk, because established law stipulates that the clock doesn't start ticking on those three years until an employee's claim for benefits is improperly denied. A ruling in Walmart's favor could make it more difficult for millions of workers—not just people who work for Walmart—to obtain disability benefits.
Walmart's argument is "crazy," Arthur Bryant, executive director of the public interest law firm Public Justice, wrote earlier in October. He explained that "every first-year law student learns that statutes of limitations, which set a time limit on how long a person has to sue, don't start running—can't start running, as a matter of common sense—until a person suffers a wrong and could actually file a case in court."
It's "a fundamental rule of law, established by the Supreme Court…that has been in place for two centuries," says Matt Wessler, the attorney who argued on behalf of Heimeshoff before the high court. "The only way this can change is where Congress itself says so…Walmart is nevertheless trying to change it itself."
Ginger Anders, an assistant to the solicitor general for the Department of Justice who also argued in support of Heimeshoff, echoed this, telling the court that Walmart's disability benefits contract undermines bedrock principles governing how statutes of limitations work.
Walmart did not respond to a request for comment, but in its March brief, the company contends that a number of lower courts have backed its position. And in oral arguments, Catherine Carroll, the attorney for Walmart and its insurance company Hartford, said that if another situation arose in which a Walmart employee couldn't sue for benefits because the internal denial process took longer than the statute of limitations, Walmart would make an exception for that employee. Chief Justice John Roberts summarized her response: "[Y]our answer to the problems is: Well, don't worry. If it ever turns into something that's going to be enforced, we won't enforce it." An employee could also sue Walmart anyway, the company contends, and hope that a judge rules that Walmart was being unreasonable in that specific instance.
Several of the justices didn't appear to find Heimeshoff's particular situation all that unfair, because, as Carroll explained to the court, Heimeshoff was notified of the statute of limitations period as early as 2006, and she still had a year under her disability plan's statute of limitations to file her lawsuit after her benefits were denied. Even so, a ruling in favor of Walmart, Wessler says, would have broader implications. It will become much easier for companies to deny benefits to employees by simply dragging out the benefits approval process until the statute of limitations is over or nearly expired. By the time their benefits are denied, Wessler says, the injured person will either no longer be able to sue, or they'll have so little time to sue that a lawyer might feel too pressed to take the case.
It is already common for companies to game the disability benefits approval process, Wessler says. Employers can draw out the process by asking for medical records that are not pertinent to determining the legitimacy of an employee's claim, or by compelling an employee to go see a doctor affiliated with the company's insurance provider (and thus inherently biased against determining that the employee is disabled). A Supreme Court ruling in favor of Walmart's provision, Public Justice's Bryant says, "would give it [and other companies] an incentive to make the process as long as possible." Walmart, in its brief, contends that this notion is "unfounded," and adds that its insurance provider Hartford did not engage in any delay tactics.
If the high court alters its position on statutes of limitations, it could also open the door to companies that want to try the same thing for other types of claims. "Why not try and start the clock running [early] for discrimination claims, for instance?" Wessler says.
The very first bill that President Barack Obama signed into law addressed a similarly thorny statute of limitations problem. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the time limit within which an employee can bring an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer first makes a discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck. The 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act stipulated instead that the statute of limitations for filing a pay discrimination suit resets with each new paycheck reflecting discriminatory pay.
In the Heimeshoff case, the Supreme Court could very well decide that the matter should instead be resolved by the Department of Labor or individual state legislatures. Then again, the high court could take a cue from its 2011 decision in Walmart v. Dukes. In that case, the Supreme Court allowed Walmart to block its female workers' sex discrimination claims by changing the rules governing class action lawsuits.
Erika EichelbergerReporter
Erika Eichelberger is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She has also written for The Nation, The Brooklyn Rail, and TomDispatch. Email her at eeichelberger [at] motherjones [dot] com. RSS | Twitter
If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...
Wall Street is the New Wal-Mart
How Walmart, ExxonMobil, and Coke Buy Latino Friends in Congress
Lobbyists and corporations that employ them can't give gifts to lawmakers—unless they funnel the money through a nonprofit.
New Report Shows How Walmart Forces Its Employees to Live on the Dole
Walmart's low wages don't just hurt its workers—they're costing taxpayers millions.
Why Raises For Walmart Workers Are Good For Everyone
New research shows that increasing pay at |
|
|
|
Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:23 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://www.thenation.com/blog/175875/fired-walmart-workers-arrested-rally-announcing-labor-day-deadline
Labor in the Walmart economy.
.
Fired Walmart Workers Arrested at Rally Announcing Labor Day Deadline
Josh Eidelson on August 22, 2013 - 1:33 PM ET
Workers hold a sit-in in front of a Walmart office in Washington, DC, on August 22, 2013. (Credit: Making Change at Walmart)
Nine fired workers and a current employee were arrested around 2:30 pm Thursday after locking arms and sitting in front of the entrance to a Washington, DC, Walmart office. The planned act of civil disobedience concluded a noon rally at which workers announced a Labor Day deadline for Walmart to raise wages and reinstate workers they allege were fired for their activism. Twenty workers who joined a June strike by the labor group OUR Walmart have since been terminated; another fifty-some have been otherwise disciplined by Walmart.
“Hopefully it opens Walmart’s eyes and lets them know that this is just the beginning,” OUR Walmart activist Barbara Collins told The Nation prior to her arrest. If Walmart doesn’t meet the Labor Day deadline, she said yesterday, “then we’re going to give them a lot more actions, a lot stronger actions, a lot bolder ones. And it’ll be across the country.”
Collins was fired by Walmart in June, after protesting fellow strikers’ firings by participating in civil disobedience at the headquarters of Yahoo! CEO and Walmart Board Member Marissa Mayer. As The Nation first reported, this wave of alleged retaliation—the most serious to face OUR Walmart since its founding two years ago—began two weeks after workers concluded a weeklong work stoppage and caravan to the company’s Arkansas shareholder meeting. OUR Walmart is closely tied to the United Food and Commercial Workers union.
Organizers say hundreds of supporters joined this afternoon’s rally to demand Walmart cease retaliation and offer full-time jobs that pay a minimum of $25,000 a year. Chants included “Whose Walmart? OUR Walmart!” and “If we don’t get it, shut it down!” In live video posted online by the campaign, people in suits could be seen stepping over the human chain of seated ex-workers to enter the Walmart office. According to the campaign, arrests took place following three warnings issued over a bullhorn by police; participants in the civil disobedience were individually escorted to a nearby area where they were issued citations for a misdemeanor of blocking a passage, and then released.
The DC protest comes as the city’s mayor mulls a veto of a retail living wage bill fiercely opposed by the retail giant. Some marched to the rally from the offices of the federal National Labor Relations Board, the agency charged with investigating the workers’ claims of widespread illegal discipline against activists. OUR Walmart has urged the NLRB to seek a federal injunction to more quickly address the alleged retaliation; the NLRB did not respond to a Wednesday request for comment on the case.
In a Wednesday e-mail, Walmart spokesperson Kory Lundberg said, “No associates were disciplined for participating in any specific protests.” Rather, he said, “we applied the time and attendance policy to the individual absences in the same way we do for other associates.” He noted that some protesting workers “did not receive any discipline because their absences in their individual circumstances did not trigger the no-fault attendance rules.” Lundberg previously told The Nation that “as a general rule, the law does not protect hit-and-run intermittent work stoppages that are part of a coordinated union plan.”
Asked in June about Walmart claims that workers were fired for threatening customer service by violating attendance rules, former Obama-appointed NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman said that “the case law doesn’t sustain that as a valid defense” against the charge of illegally punishing strikers. As for the lack of legal protection for “intermittent strikes,” Liebman told The Nation, “I think it would be hard on the facts so far to say that the conduct constitutes intermittent striking.”
The fired workers were on Capitol Hill yesterday to meet with congressional staffers and seek sponsors for a bill introduced by Congressman Alan Grayson that would dramatically strengthen the legal remedies available to workers fired for workplace activism. In an August 5 letter, sixteen congressional Democrats criticized the Walmart discipline, urging CEO Mike Duke “to stop all retaliatory actions against employees engaged in protests regarding Walmart’s labor policies.” Walmart’s “tense labour relations” were also cited by the major Dutch pension administrator PGGM in its July 1 announcement that, like some peers, it would cease investing in the company.
While fired Walmart workers were rallying against the company in DC, US Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker was delivering remarks and participating in a panel at an afternoon US Manufacturing Summit in Orlando hosted by Walmart. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment this morning on the alleged retaliation or the administration’s participation in the summit, and has not responded to inquiries from The Nation over the past nine months regarding labor strife at the retail giant.
Asked this month whether the Obama administration should stop praising and appearing with Walmart, Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry, whose union has backed organizing efforts against the company, told The Nation she “would rather, instead of dealing with the specific tactics of the president’s behavior with individual companies, keep calling on the president to say we have to have both a tax policy and an ability for workers to bargain again as a way to get off this low-wage road that the economy’s on. And I’d like to keep pressing on him to lead on the sort of bigger concern [rather] than grievance publicly about what he’s doing on individual things.”
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
Another of the fired workers arrested today, Brandon Garrett, yesterday told The Nation that his termination had taken a toll in his Baker, Louisiana, store: “When we came back from striking and we wasn’t fired right away, even more associates wanted to join the organization. But I guess Walmart got a sense of that, and when they terminated me, they kind of scared a lot of them off.” Now, said Garrett, “they’re still behind us,” but “a lot of them are scared to be retaliated against. So that’s another reason I’m standing up like I am.”
OUR Walmart Field Director Andrea Dehlendorf said that in some stores where activists were fired, “there’s really been a chill that’s created, which is clearly why Walmart does this.” However, she said, “We have some stores where people have gotten so angry and so frustrated about it that they’re really stepping up and getting more involved…. And not one person who’ve been fired or disciplined has backed off.”
Barbara Collins said that since being fired, she hasn’t had as much contact with workers at her Placerville, California, store because managers “are putting that fear back into the workers.” “But some of them,” she added, “they really do know that it’s all a bunch of lies.” Collins said OUR Walmart members in her store are “definitely standing stronger, even though management’s intimidating them. They still know that if we stand together and strong, hopefully it will stop.”
This story has been updated with additional detail about the afternoon's protest.
Are Americans working too much?
Related Topics: Labor Organizing and Activism | Corporations |
|
|
|
Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:43 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://www.thenation.com/article/177254/labor-board-sides-workers-walmart-cant-silence-employees-any-longer
Labor Board Sides With Workers: Walmart Can’t Silence Employees Any Longer
A landmark ruling by the National Labor Relations Board says Walmart unlawfully harassed and fired employees for protesting.
Peter Dreier November 19, 2013
Walmart’s 1.3 million workers won a big victory Monday when the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the retail giant had broken the law by firing and harassing employees who spoke out—and in some cases went on strike—to protest the company’s poverty pay and abusive labor practices.
The federal agency will prosecute Walmart’s illegal firings and disciplinary actions involving more than 117 workers, including those who went on strike last June as part of a growing movement of company employees. The ruling is likely to accelerate the burgeoning protest movement among Walmart employees, upset with low pay, stingy benefits, arbitrary work schedules and part-time jobs.
Over the past year, protests against the world’s largest private employer have escalated, led by OUR Walmart, a nationwide network of Walmart workers. Last fall, the group announced that it would hold rallies outside Walmart stores in dozens of cities on the day after Thanksgiving—the busiest shopping day of the year, typically called Black Friday. In response, Walmart executives threatened disciplinary action against workers who participated in rallies and strikes, even though they are perfectly legal. Speaking on national television, Walmart spokesperson David Tovar threatened workers, saying that “there could be consequences” for employees who did not come to work for scheduled shifts on Black Friday. Despite the threats, several hundred Walmart workers joined tens of thousands of supporters at the Black Friday protests around the country.
In June, over 100 striking Walmart workers, along with allies from labor, community and faith-based groups, trekked to Walmart’s annual shareholder meeting in Bentonville, Arkansas, the company headquarters, to tell shareholders about the company’s abusive practices. When these workers returned to work, Walmart—hoping to knock the wind out of the sails of the growing movement—systematically fired at least twenty-three workers and disciplined another forty-three employees despite their legally recognized, protected absences.
In its statement, the NLRB explained: “During two national television news broadcasts and in statements to employees at Walmart stores in California and Texas, Walmart unlawfully threatened employees with reprisal if they engaged in strikes and protests on November 22, 2012.” It also ruled that “Walmart stores in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Washington unlawfully threatened, disciplined, and/or terminated employees for having engaged in legally protected strikes and protests.”
Under the NLRB ruling, Walmart could be required to reinstate the workers and award them back pay. The board could also require Walmart to inform and educate all employees of their legally protected rights. (Federal labor law doesn’t allow the NLRB to impose fines on companies that violate workers’ rights).
This is not the first time that the NLRB has sanctioned Walmart for labor violations. In California, the Board recently decided to prosecute Walmart for eleven violations of federal labor law for threats that managers made around Black Friday last year. In Kentucky, Walmart reached a settlement with Aaron Lawson, whom the company fired after he distributed flyers and spoke out against the company’s attempts to silence those who called for better wages and consistent hours. As part of the settlement, Walmart agreed to rehire Lawson and provide full back wages for the time that he was out of work.
In fact, Walmart has a long history of law-breaking, not only in retaliation for employee activism but also in exploiting immigrants, paying women less than men for the same jobs, breaking environmental laws and bribing Mexican officials, among many other infractions. Walmart has also recently earned well-deserved negative publicity for its complicity in thwarting safety improvements at Bangladesh sweatshops that make clothes sold in Walmart stores. One of them was the eight-story Rana Plaza factory building near Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, where last April at least 1,100 workers were killed after the building collapsed—the deadliest garment industry disaster in history.
Prior to the extended strike in June, American Rights at Work/Jobs with Justice released a report documenting Walmart’s extensive and systematic efforts to intimidate employees. At that time, there were more than 150 incidents in stores across the country, but that number has now skyrocketed in response to the growing organization and militancy of Walmart workers.
“It is time for Walmart to obey the law,” said Joseph Hansen, international president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, which has been supporting Walmart workers’ organizing efforts. “A message was sent loud and clear, far and wide, that the company must change.”
“Walmart continues to show that it’s afraid to have real conversations about creating better jobs, but would rather scare us into silence,” said Tiffany Beroid, a Walmart worker from Laurel, Maryland. “But change at Walmart is too important to our economy and for our families for us to stop speaking out.”
The new ruling makes it more likely that many more Walmart workers will be willing to stand up to the company and participate in Our Walmart’s efforts to improve pay and working conditions. In fact, the NLRB decision happened to come on the same day that Our Walmart was announcing another series of Black Friday protests, scheduled for November 29. Our Walmart leaders said that the number of rallies and demonstrations this year will exceed those that occurred a year ago.
Last week, in anticipation of the Black Friday protests, 500 labor, faith-based and community activists rallied in front of a Walmart store in Los Angeles’s Chinatown neighborhood, and fifty-four were arrested. On Monday, Walmart employees and community supporters in Ohio—about fifty in Evendale (a Cincinnati suburb) and seventy in Dayton—demonstrated outside Walmart stores to build momentum for the Black Friday actions.
At this year’s Black Friday protests, workers will demand that Walmart increase hours so that employees work full-time, ensuring a minimum wage of $25,000 a year, and end the company’s illegal retaliation against those who speak out for better jobs. Bill Simon, CEO of Walmart US, recently told financial analysts that 475,000 employees make more than this amount. In doing so, Simon confirmed that more than half and as many as two-thirds of the company’s American employees—as many as 825,000 workers—make less than $25,000 a year because of low wages and their not getting enough hours. (In what has become yet another embarrassment for the company, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer reported Monday that a Walmart store in Canton, Ohio, had organized a food drive for its poorly paid employees. The store set up several plastic bins in an employees-only area with a sign that read: “Please donate food items here so our Associates in Need can enjoy Thanksgiving Dinner”).
Raising Walmart workers’ wages to at least $25,000 would not only lift them and their families out of poverty but also stimulate economic growth and create additional jobs in other sectors because of what economists call the “multiplier effect.”
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
Walmart has become a symbol—and a major cause—of the nation’s widening gap between the super-rich and the rest. The company’s controlling family, the Waltons, have a net worth of more than $144 billion. This is more than the total wealth of 40 percent of all Americans—over 125 million people. Walmart CEO Michael Duke received over $20 million in compensation last year. Last year Walmart made $17 billion in profits.
Even Fortune magazine—hardly a radical rag—observed that “Walmart can afford to give its workers a 50% raise,” without hurting its stock value.
Allison Kilkenny reports on a Cleveland Walmart that announced a food drive for its own employees.
Peter Dreier November 19, 2013 |
|
|
|
Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:50 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Walmart Workers Plan Black Friday Protests Over Wageshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/walmart-black-friday-protests-2014_n_6158984.html
Reuters
Posted: 11/14/2014 11:15 am EST Updated: 11/17/2014 12:59 pm EST
(Recasts with Black Friday protests planned)
By Nathan Layne
CHICAGO, Nov 14 (Reuters) - A group of Walmart employees pushing for higher wages said on Friday they were planning protests at 1,600 Walmart stores nationwide on Black Friday, the biggest shopping day of the year in the United States.
The labor group, Our Walmart, said it had protested 1,200 to 1,400 Walmart stores last year on Black Friday, the day after the Thanksgiving holiday.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc, owner of Walmart brand stores, and the largest private employer in the United States, has been a target for activists in the contentious national debate over proposals to raise the minimum wage.
The announcement comes a day after police arrested 23 people outside a Los Angeles-area Walmart protesting what they say are the company's low wages and its retaliation against employees who pushed for better working conditions.
The arrests on Thursday followed several hours of protest by a number of Walmart workers in California, according to Our Walmart and The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, or UFCW.
About 30 workers entered a Walmart store in the Crenshaw neighborhood of Los Angeles on Thursday morning and held a sit-down protest for two hours, UFCW spokesman Marc Goumbri said.
The workers then protested at a Walmart store in Pico Rivera in eastern Los Angeles where the arrests eventually took place.
"Over the last year, Walmart workers have pressured Walmart to change its pregnancy policy, provide access to more hours and most recently to pledge to phase out its minimum wage jobs," the UFCW said on its website.
The 23 people arrested were blocking an intersection and were cited for failure to disperse and then released, police said.
Asked about the workers' complaints, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said the company does not retaliate against workers who strike or protest.
"The reality is that few Walmart associates participate in these labor-organized protests," she said.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc Chief Executive Douglas McMillon last month said the company would work to phase out minimum wage jobs "over time," a move seen as largely symbolic as just 6,000 of its 1.3 million U.S. workers make minimum wage.
The average full-time hourly wage at Walmart stores is $12.92, compared with the federal minimum wage of $7.25, according to the company. (Additional reporting by Shailaja Sharma in Bangalore and Fiona Ortiz in Chicago; Editing by Susan Heavey) |
|
|
|
Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:58 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/15/news/companies/nlrb-walmart/index.html
U.S. charges Wal-Mart over protesting workers
By Emily Jane Fox @emilyjanefox January 16, 2014: 9:33 AM ET
walmart protest
Wal-Mart workers have been protesting against the company since November 2012.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Federal officials have filed a complaint against Wal-Mart for allegedly retaliating against workers who staged Black Friday protests in 2012.
The National Labor Relations Board, which protects the rights of workers who organize for better working conditions, is taking a next step in a case against Wal-Mart (WMT) for alleged unfair labor practices. The agency had warned in November that the complaint could be filed.
The complaint, filed Tuesday and circulated Wednesday by union representatives, details times when Wal-Mart allegedly illegally threatened "reprisal" against workers who protested on November 22, 2012, both on national television and to employees directly.
The agency also said Wal-Mart stores in 14 states unlawfully threatened or disciplined workers who participated in legal strikes and protests.
The complaint involves more than 60 employees, 19 of whom were allegedly fired as a result of their participation in the protests. It also named more than 60 Wal-Mart supervisors and one corporate officer.
Related: Millennials turn up heat against low wages
The complaint means that Wal-Mart will face a hearing in front of an administrative law judge of the NLRB. A date has not been set for the hearing, but Wal-Mart has until January 28 to respond.
Wal-Mart spokesperson Brooke Buchanan said the filing is just a procedural step, and it gives the company an opportunity to present the facts in the case.
"We don't believe it's reasonable or okay for people to come and go from their scheduled shifts as part of a union-orchestrated PR move and not be held accountable," she said. "We take this very seriously and look forward to presenting our side." |
|
|
|
Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:02 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
