Judge To Walmart Rehire Workers Fired For Striking

So walmart fired workers because they went on strike (so getting paid and not doing their job)?

and there's a law saying that the employer can't do that? am i understanding that right?

Good news.

Unfortunately Walmart's anti-union propaganda in store trainings is so strong, and many of its workers so misguided over the course of their lives, that they think collective bargaining and unionizing hurts them.

Walmart is held to a very specific standard due to its anti-union stance. It's allowed to be that way, but there are very, very specific rules it has to follow or else it can be found to have violated workers' rights to which they are legally entitled with or without a union. You don't get paid while you're on strike, generally. At least, not by the employer.

But they can't fire you for it, either. What they're receiving back pay for is the shifts they would have worked otherwise had they not been fired.

It would be really nice to live in a world where strikes and unions weren't necessary, because unions have their own set of problems, it's true. But until greed stops ruling the world...

I worked for Walmart for many years before I realized what a sham it was. I'd rather be completely broke and starving than continue to be their prostitute for even one more day. It's good to see them under so much pressure lately.

But they provide jobs to Americans!

...jobs that explicitly instruct workers to collect government benefits because the wages are generally awful. Ah, nothing like the smell of a government subsidy because companies cant be arsed to pay workers.

I worked there as well. It's a shame that some aspects of employment there are so terrible, because some aspects really weren't that bad and I even miss a little bit.

A big part of the problem though is that you can be working their and still be completely broke and starving. Which is why so many Walmart workers qualify for public assistance of various sorts.

It's a fairly complex issue that's easily twisted into a very easy issue by either side.

Much like so many other things.

The bottom line is that -- in my opinion -- all workers for large businesses should have collective bargaining representation of some sort and be working on contracts.

Of course, there's realizing exactly what this means for everyone, not just employees. It means lower profits for businesses pretty much across the board, small or large. And it means higher prices for consumers.

However, I'm personally willing to pay more to know the people serving me are being treated like human beings.

People talk about how bad the wages are but that's really only scratching the surface. I could go on and on for days about it but I really don't feel like losing the good mood I'm in today.

Agreed. It was never just the wages. The wages were generally what they should have been for unskilled to semi-skilled worked, depending what you did.

It'd be a side effect of eliminating the need to work for a living, but even I admit that we're not there yet technology wise.

We could potentially be in my lifetime, but even then it would bring on it's own problems, or make current ones (like obesity) worse.

I'd be all for letting the market fend for itself with pay and ***if it didn't literally mean lives on the line.

You mean the crippling sense of hopelessness associated with your co-workers, managers and everything around you? A genuine culture of ignorance.

The inability to form a proper schedule when you're essentially on call at all times? People say 'get another job' but thats problematic when your schedule is all over the place.

The grim acceptance that nothing you do really matters? Pretending to be happy is difficult when you're a broken man/woman.

Hehe. Yeah. I got "just get another job" a lot from the same people who would tell me to "just get a job." It's more than a little disheartening however when you put out 150 applications and Walmart is the only one to call-- every time. --but that's what it all boils down to... a lack of choices. Nobody works for Walmart because they want to.

Unfortunately there's little you can do for these people because much like the people they despise because they don't understand them, they've grown up and thrived in a certain environment around a certain mindset, and they've constantly been reinforced that their way of thinking is right.

And hey, again. Can you blame them? It's so much easier to think that way. It really makes sleeping at night easier when you're positive that you're successful only because of your hard work and people who have it hard only have it hard because they're lazy and lack work ethic.

The problem is there actually are examples of largely self-made people, and people who largely are lazy, entitled, useless ***. So both extremes of the argument have empirical evidence to back up their arguments, even if they're outliers.

I like you and your crushing soulless existence.

Do you do this on purpose?

Your confusion is understandable, but you jumped right to attacking and being condescending without further clarifying what any additional issues may have been.

Scheduling and hour reduction decreasing as you receive mandatory wage increases is a major problem.

When I started working there I was making approximately 133% of minimum wage, which seems appropriate, to me, for entry-level retail work. They had me working 32 hours a week, which is where Walmart's guidelines set as a maximum for part-time work. And I worked it in four eight-hour days. Occasionally they would bump me up to 40 hours, even, because they can give you a certain number of full-time weeks without making you full time.

The longer you're there, however, the harder they make things on you. They do everything in their power to avoid making people full-time employees. And part-time employees only are required a minimum of (iirc) 12 hours per week.

And, as stated, they're mandated to give you a raise at certain times. So the higher your mandated wage, the more they cut your hours. By the time I left I was down to 12-18 hours a week, worked in 3-6 hour shifts in very odd times. Basically they make your schedule as inconvenient and erratic as possible in order to keep you on their payroll, and on no one else's, all the while constantly jerking you around.

So even while I was making approximately 200% minimum wage by the time I left, I was actually making less per year because
Their supervisors are forbidden from acting as employment references for anyone. Luckily I knew a few managers who were cool enough to do it anyhow. But not everyone is so lucky to have someone who will risk formal reprimand from their employer for you. And they were willing to do this for me because I was a good employee with good work ethic despite the situation, because they knew how shitty it was.

And we'll forget the complete and utter lack of anything resembling real benefits. They have "benefits" to be able to point at them and go "look what we offer" (to a select few who we're trying to phase out...).

Like I said. It wasn't all bad. But there's enough wrong with it that it's really not on the up-and-up.

No one is dying of black lung or selling their child to the company into slavery (literally, at least, though I did know parent-child combos that worked there).

But it's far from treating employees with respect and dignity like the good, Christian, American, family-focused store they want to present themselves as.

Edit: All this is to say, yes, making ~$12.00/hr for retail work wasn't the worst, assuming you were working enough hours, but when you only work 15 hours a week, that's not really enough to survive.

I attacked nothing.. It's just the second time in as many days you have held two completely opposite views, on the same page no less.. I had to ask.. My bad.

Before I even respond to the rest of your post which I want to do. I would like to know when it was that you worked for them?

I was quite aware of the contradiction made yesterday as, while I was serious when I first started the post, it rapidly snowballed into what was intended as a way to cram as many issues into a post nonsensically as possible. My only failing was not adding climate change somehow.

These particular statements, as clarified, aren't really a contradiction.

I worked for them (roughly) 9/2006-1/2010. And say what you like about the period during the recession, but sales and profits for our store were constantly up and new hires were frequent, and new hires were frequently given more hours. The entire process of increased wages-decreased hours was noted by older employees to be a pretty steady cycle in practice for a very long time.

There is no inability involved. Its policy.

Same thing in fast food. Keep them unable too look for another job.

So you do it on purpose hoping someone will call you out so you can then clarify..?


Don't care about the impact of the recession in this particular post. Wal-Mart is a company that recessions can potentially help.
Which makes it really interesting that they are closing over 200+ stores right now. But anyways..

Wal-mart is not the only company that does that to its employees, nearly every factory around my area does the exact same thing now. It all started happening around the years 2007-10. Wanna take a guess what was going on during those years besides the recession? Do you need a hint?

I addressed this in another thread, but the thing about the stores closing is that many are their "small" stores that were an experiment in the "neighborhood market" type of store that was predictably not very well-performing for a brand that's so successful by being a one-stop shop for everything.

Also as I stated elsewhere, at this point it's hard for Walmart to expand. They're already building Walmarts across the street from existing stores.

How about instead of firing them just start scheduling them for 1 hour a week shifts. (It's super effective)

Same thing, just different thread eh Alti?

lol, I knew you would answer this and totally ignore the rest of my post.. I actually backspaced that sentence but later decided to but it back.

So your basically saying it is hard for Wal-mart to expand but they are closing stores that no other Wal-marts are by because they don't want to expand them.. It's also not the simple fact that Wal-mart is closing the stores its when they choose to close them that is significant. Anyways..

I hated my job at Walmart because not only did I hate the customers but also the social stigmas of Walmart employees, but we had cameras in the break room...

My point was this was a common thing with Walmart for at least a decade before that.

Of course everyone starts doing it when policies intended to help their employees go into place. They can't be taking away from ownership's copious returns.


Again, because they were built on the premise that they could get away with mistreating employees, and when they don't have that option, it becomes less profitable.

Look, I get it. You think companies should be allowed to exploit people if people are dumb enough or unfortunate enough to be in a position to be exploited. You're hardly alone.

I personally don't think it's right. But obviously I'm not alone, either.

I see this thread took a turn for the worse.

But also the ****

A decade before, a lot more places existed for people to be employed and they payed A LOT BETTER than Wal-mart.

This is the problem right here.
Everyone with any business experience said these polices would hurt not only business but the employees it was meant to help. And here we are. With every business taking up the Wal-mart how to treat employment handbook.

In the past maybe something could have been done about it but now that everyone does it, thanks to our government shoving through horrible forced legislation, times are not looking good for the middle-lower class.


Exactly where do you get the idea they don't have that option? This ruling is meaningless and doesn't even help the people that got fired, It's been two tears they either got another job or are on unemployment/welfare.

The places people have to work have been rapidly receding ever since both the recession and the ACA took hold. Employers can treat employees however they want because what are they going to do? Get another job? Where? HAHAA... It is not getting better hate to tell you. I am seriously torn on who to feel sorry for business that can barley survive or the employees that have no other choices.