OK, first of all, here is the link to the UFCW story in the US:

Wal-Mart uses children for hazardous jobs in the USA

The most repulsive aspect of this story is the "sweetheart" deal that Wal-Mart got from the regulatory authorities in the US. That's Dubya for ya...

quote:

---

[Wal-Mart]... got a sweetheart deal that gives the company fifteen days advance notice before the government will initiate any investigation of future violations of federal workplace laws.

---

What this essentially means is that Wal-Mart has plenty of time, before the inspectors come, to ensure that they don't get caught using children again. Just move 'em around before the inspectors come. Good thing Wal-Mart donated so much to their friend in the White House.

The allegations are that

quote:

---

Wal-Mart was engaged in the unconscionable practice of using children to operate hazardous machinery in stores in New Hampshire, Arkansas and Connecticut. The machinery referenced in the case— balers, shredders and compactors— are standard equipment in retail stores, and are commonly associated with injuries involving the crushing or severing of arms and hands.

---

[ 16 February 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

The most repulsive aspect of this story is the "sweetheart" deal that Wal-Mart got from the regulatory authorities in the US. That's Dubya for ya...

---

The most repulsive part according to Jonathan Tasini...

quote:

---

WhileThe New York Times’ Steven Greenhouse deserves kudos for bringing to light the story of the Department of Labor’s promise to alert Wal-Mart prior to launching an investigation, the big point is this: Wal-Mart endangers children and then gets away with a fine of 135 grand and change. Does anyone have a calculator to figure out what percentage that financial “penalty” represents to a company that had sales of $256 billion in 2003 or to the five Walton kids who are worth almost $100 billion? And, by the way, that damn fine is considered a business expense that Wal-Mart deducts from its taxes (unlike poor slobs like you and me, who cannot deduct legal fines).
***
We have a system in America that encourages companies to violate the law because it’s a tiny cost of doing business. Sure, it’s a scandal that Wal-Mart will now get tipped off when the feds want to come visit. But even if investigators descend like Elliot Ness on Wal-Mart’s Bentonville, Ark. headquarters, Wal-Mart will happily write a check for 135 grand and change 10, 20 or 100 times a year if the trade-off is to keep those registers humming and piling up the cash.

---

quote:

---

The machinery referenced in the case— balers, shredders and compactors— are standard equipment in retail stores, and are commonly associated with injuries involving the crushing or severing of arms and hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

That equipment is not dangerous at all if you know how to use it. Although I can't imagine why they would have seperate people running them instead of having stock clerks bale their own trash...

---

quote:

---

The U.S. Department of Labor’s inspector general announced on Feb. 18 his office would investigate the department’s agreement to give Wal-Mart 15 days advance notice to investigate and fix complaints of all federal wage-and-hour law violations before any department investigation.

---

quote:

---

Workers in six countries filed a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on Tuesday, claiming the world's largest retailer overlooks sweatshop conditions at toy and clothing factories from China to Nicaragua.

The suit, filed in California state court in Los Angeles, lists as plaintiffs 15 workers in Bangladesh, Swaziland, Indonesia, China and Nicaragua. They claim they were paid below minimum wage, forced to work unpaid overtime and in some cases even endured beatings by supervisors.

The lawsuit also lists four California plaintiffs, including two unionized workers at Kroger Co. unit Ralph's and Safeway Inc. grocery stores, who claim Wal-Mart's entry into Southern California forced their employers to reduce pay and benefits.

The suit could cover anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 workers, according to attorney Terry Collingsworth of the International Labor Rights Fund, which represents the plaintiffs. Wal-Mart's potential liability could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, he said.

---

quote:

---

The lawsuit also lists four California plaintiffs, including two unionized workers at Kroger Co. unit Ralph's and Safeway Inc. grocery stores, who claim Wal-Mart's entry into Southern California forced their employers to reduce pay and benefits.

---

That's great. Followed to it's logical conclusion that means that anytime a company has to cut back because some competitor turns up the employees of the first company have a cause of action.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

That equipment is not dangerous at all if you know how to use it. Although I can't imagine why they would have seperate people running them instead of having stock clerks bale their own trash...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:

That's great. Followed to it's logical conclusion that means that anytime a company has to cut back because some competitor turns up the employees of the first company have a cause of action.

More to the point, Wal-Mart is being picketed, not by their employees, but by picketers hired by the union [United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)] through a temp agency. I find it amusing to say the least that the union would employ people to protest jobs that are better than theirs. I'd find the actions of the union less self-serving if they hired the employees directly and treated them as well as Wal-Mart treats their staff.

---

If an international manufacturer sells products below cost, it can be charged with dumping and a competitor can be compensated for it. Why shouldn't it work the same with labour? At least where you dealing with a behemoth like Wal-Mart, with its market power.

quote:

---

When the boy is worth a hundred pounds to me, am I to lose what chance threw me in the way of getting safely, through the whims of a drunken gang that I could whistle away the lives of! And me bound, too, to a born devil, that only wants the will and has the power - Fagin expressing his appalling greed to Nancy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
This is a society that is deeply shallow...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
If there was any way to measure the babbler turn-out, I'd take that bet in a *heartbeat*, scooter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Sorry, Fidel, but you're being foolish. There will only ever be a revolution in the States if someone tries to stop the flow of sweatshop-manufactured cheap consumer goods provided by Wal€Mart. Let's not forget, in 2004 more Americans voted on American Idol than voted in the federal election. This is a society that is deeply shallow...

---

quote:

---

An internal memo sent to Wal-Mart's board of directors proposes numerous ways to hold down spending on health care and other benefits while seeking to minimize damage to the retailer's reputation. Among the recommendations are hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart.

In the memorandum, M. Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits. The memo voices concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive.

To discourage unhealthy job applicants, Ms. Chambers suggests that Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)."

The memo acknowledged that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, had to walk a fine line in restraining benefit costs because critics had attacked it for being stingy on wages and health coverage. Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid.

---

quote:

---

California jury on Thursday ordered Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, to pay $172 million in damages for failing to provide meal breaks to nearly 116,000 hourly workers as required under state law.

The verdict came after a trial that lasted more than three months in a class-action suit filed at Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland.

The suit, filed on behalf of employees of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in California, argued that the chain violated state law more than eight million times from Jan. 1, 2001, to May 6, 2005, said the plaintiffs' lawyer, Jessica Grant of the Furth Firm of San Francisco.

California law requires that employers provide a meal break of 30 minutes for every five hours on the clock, Ms. Grant said. If the break is shorter than that, provided late or not at all, the employer must pay an hour's pay, she said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Better to start a thread strictly on this topic. There's just so many. Let's see, where to begin? Well, since a ban on child labour is such a bad thing to some babblers, how about child labour violations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:
To the tune of 20%. Reasonable out of pocket expenses includes travel, meals, couriers, etc. all of which require receipts. No way can that total to $30 million.

---

Thought experiment.

Some lawyer dude who does your case for, say $50 million punitive and clips you for one-third contingency now waves a huge list of "miscellaneous expenses" at you and jabbers about all the hard work he did on your behalf.

You, the client, are not a particularly assertive individual given the culturally inculcated tendency to be somewhat deferential to "professional" occupations, and therefore wilt like a flower under a barrage of paperwork and jibber-jabber.

What are the odds you'll demand to actually look at the itemized list plus receipts?

abnormal, you really need to put yourself in the shoes of the people who get hurt by The Screwing of the Average Man.

quote:

---

What are the odds you'll demand to actually look at the itemized list plus receipts?

---

Besides, clipping clients for "miscellaneous" expenses on a multi-year, multi-million-dollar court case on top of the contingency can make a dent in the award to the clients.

Consider, as an example, private investigators, $50 an hour. Say they run you up a thousand hours of poking around. That's $50k right there. And if they charge even more... well, you get the idea.

[ 28 December 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
Some lawyer dude who does your case for, say $50 million punitive and clips you for one-third contingency now waves a huge list of "miscellaneous expenses" at you and jabbers about all the hard work he did on your behalf.

---

I find your repeated use of the word "clip" quite interesting. Are you really a doctor? Because if you are, you know, glass houses and all that.

ETA: If by "miscellaneous expenses" you are meaning disbursements incurred on behalf of the client, then why on earth would the lawyer be paying for those?

ETA: Sounds to me like this is a case where every professional is a rip off except for the profession you happen to be in.

ETA: Just out of curiousity, what do you feel a fair percentage of a win would be, given that a loss means the lawyer collects nothing?

[ 08 January 2006: Message edited by: Blink ]