Wal-Mart workers win big award, Frank Azar says
More could come later, according to Colo. attorney
By James Paton, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published June 30, 2008 at 9:12 p.m.
Frank Azar
Wal-Mart workers represented by a Colorado law firm and other attorneys have won a roughly $6 million award in Minnesota, one of the lawyers said on Monday.
A jury is expected to decide the amount of punitive damages and penalties in October, according to the judge's order. And that could drive the amount Wal- Mart pays to hundreds of millions of dollars, said lawyer Frank Azar, whose Colorado firm was involved in the case and began fighting Wal-Mart in the 1990s.
"This is a big victory for us," Azar said.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Daphne Moore, reached on Monday evening, declined to comment on the case. "The court has asked both parties to refrain from sharing or discussing the order until (today)," she said.
Workers across the country have filed lawsuits claiming that Wal- Mart forced them to work off the clock and deprived them of meal and rest breaks.
Wal-Mart's lawyers have fought back aggressively.
Azar and Colorado lawyer Gerald Bader sued Wal-Mart in 1998 on behalf of workers in southern Colorado and brought in another attorney, Steve Long. Wal-Mart settled for a reported $50 million.
After the Colorado case, workers across the nation filed dozens of similar lawsuits. Those in several states, including Minnesota and Washington, gained class-action status. But mostly courts have refused to give the plaintiffs class-action certification, ruling that each case must move ahead individually.
Only a few have gone to trial.
In Pennsylvania, Wal-Mart workers won a $78.5 million verdict, and a judge later increased the damages by another $62 million. That followed a case in California, in which a court awarded roughly $170 million to Wal-Mart employees.
In the Minnesota case, workers were represented by Azar's firm as well as Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand and Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben.
The lawsuit was filed by Nancy Braun - an employee at Wal-Mart's Apple Valley, Minn., store between March 1999 and May 2000 - and other employees.
Azar said he is involved in lawsuits in several other states, too.
patonj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2544
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
June 30, 2008
9:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
piping_up writes:
How much of the money do you think the employees will get after Frank takes his share?
June 30, 2008
9:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay045 writes:
I don't think they were out to get Walmart. I think there was a widespread policy to make employees work off the clock. They are getting those earnings paid to them,and Walmart is being punished for its practice.
June 30, 2008
9:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
joeblow writes:
Let us not cry crocodile tears for Walmart (new logo). It has unflinchingly put American companies out of business in order to 'shop China' for similar products. It has ruined scores of communities across the nation by opening up on the outskirts and essentially turning once vital downtowns into catatonic shadows.
I certainly don't want Walmart to go out of business, but sooner or later we all have to pay for our sins.
As to the poster who asked how much Frank Azar will make out of this case, it doesn't matter. His job is to win these types of cases---all cases, in fact. While Azar isn't everyone's idea of scrupulousness and honor, he apparently did a pretty good job of convincing a judge that Walmart was culpable. Don't blame ol' Frank. Congratulate him...and keep his number close by if you ever need a lawyer.
I'm guessing, though, that there will be an appeal and that the huge damages will be greatly reduced. Another thing. Walmart will certainly change its practices with respect to walking on the rights of its workers from this day on. And, that is not a bad thing!
June 30, 2008
9:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thetrainer090 writes:
And we all know who will be paying off all of these suites. THE CONSUMER
June 30, 2008
9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
kirbysfriend22 writes:
There's the "made in china" thing, the "anti-ma & pa" thing". But this is really, simply about workers rights and I'm damn glad to see a company that neglects those rights be punished. If those workers had refused their mistreatment they would have simply been fired.
This isn't about picking on Walmart. I'm bummed that Azar was the winning lawyer. Maybe it's just the perception I get from his commercials but he just seems so smarmy.
June 30, 2008
9:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
I don't think those workers "forced" to work off the clock lost the kind of money being awarded by the courts, unless Wal-mart pays better than I thought . . .
June 30, 2008
10:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnmike293 writes:
Walmart epitomizes the attack on the American worker in this country that has been the trend for many years. Rights gained by labor unions years ago that we all take for granted are being sytematically whittled away at by corporate America. We all sit meekly back and put up with it. Its not vogue to belong to unions or employee groups that speak on behalf of the employee. So we leave the door open and allow this to continue.
The 40 hour work week; the wage you enjoy; overtime; child labor laws; pensions; health care; workman's compensation; were all paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of the American Labor movement. Things we take for granted. Benefits most Americans do not know were fought for and not simply given to them. If not for the battles they fought your lot as an employee would be far worse, and this country would not have the luxury of a middle class.
I really could care less how much money the attorneys in this case made. As a matter of fact I guarentee you the Walmart lawyers did well them selves. The bottom line is the workers stood up to this and scored a big victory for all of us. Something that is rare in today's world of the spineless employee who is just glad to have a job. You can accept that or reject it; but it is a fact.
June 30, 2008
11:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
global writes:
Mtnmike293
Right On!!!
June 30, 2008
11:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Domino writes:
The next victory over Wal-Mart must be unionization. It cannot happen under Bush or McSame. I certainly hope that Obama changes the NLRB to allow this to happen.
With a union, Wal-Mart would not be able to pull their attempts at off the books work or other atrocities that occur against their workers.
July 1, 2008
12:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
xeeian writes:
Those off the clock hours resulted in direct saving to consumers.
They should be fined more like $10,000 or so and promise not to do it again.
That would truly teach them a lesson.
In the same vein, tax fraud should be a $50 fine, plus half to the taxes one really did owe.
July 1, 2008
3:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ithink writes:
I used to work for Walmart, and they are actually better that most places about making sure you get your breaks in a timely manner. To be fair, in some businesses it is nearly impossible to fit breaks in due to customer service needs. As far as Walmart goes, their policies are perfectly reasonable, and I am surprised by this lawsuit. As to the unionization comment, I think that would be bad for Walmart and for the prices that keep us shopping there.
July 1, 2008
4:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
Aw it looks like thee big bad old wal-mart fall down and go boom.
Thats all right they can get cut rate care right in their clinics.
Oh well if you screw over your employees then prepare to have the feeling returned.
Also no one likes a big old cry baby if you did it and I most certainly believe they did.
Now too bad pay up and get over it.
Just call me a big fan of karmic repayment.
By the way Wal Mart don't ever change the little guy you mistreat needs the money.
Have you ever seen a Wal Mart paycheck only one word descibes it pathethic.
July 1, 2008
6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
bira44 writes:
I know a 19.9-year Wal-Mart employee whose job it was to set up new stores. A small town country girl from Alabama, she literally saw the world setting up Wal-Mart displays.
Closing in on that all-important twenty year mark, she was fired from Wal-Mart on a typical ruse. She was driving to her job, got stuck in a traffic jam where she could not get cell service, and showed up no more than 15 minutes late.
Her supervisor, also a near 20-yr employee, was fired the next week. Her boss saw her put a "Wal-Mart" tool box in the trunk of her car. It was the set of tools she had used to set up new stores for the past fifteen years. They accused her of theft and fired her on the spot.
In both cases the women are suing.
July 1, 2008
7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
What Walmart does is not uncommon in the retail business. They went after Walmart because they had money.
What about the other workers in retail who have to work in the same conditions? In this economy you either do what your bosses say , work for yourself or work union.People who work for company's like Walmart really don't have much of a job choice.
How about getting the agencies that are supposed to stop this from happening to do their jobs. The Labor Relations Board or the EEOC.What a concept.
July 1, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
boulder1259 writes:
I really miss the days when it was illegal for lawyers to advertise on TV. Now it seems like every fourth or fifth commercial tells you that it is not your fault and to please call 1-800-A-Chaser...
I actually believe that lawyers are a bigger threat to our country than global warming or terrorism.
July 1, 2008
8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
nonunion writes:
THE UNIONS ARE WORSE THAN WALMART. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE
WORKERS OR THE WORKERS RIGHTS. THEY JUST WANT THE MONEY! DO
THE MATH. 1.3 MILLION WORKERS PAYING UNION DUES EVERY WEEK
EQUATES INTO A LOT OF MONEY. CHA CHING CHA CHING!
July 1, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
alwaysright writes:
And guess who ends up paying for it all. Not Wal-Mart
July 1, 2008
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
People should have the choice to join a union. My husband is in a union. He makes over $75,000 a year, we have never been without health insurance and he doesn't mind being in a union. He chose to be union. I hate the fact that unions use his dues for political purposes, especially for Democrats but that's the price of being in a union. He could not make what he makes in the private sector with all the benefits. As for job security he has none. If he doesn't do his job , he gets fired. I personally would have never joined a union. I'm more of a self employed type person. That's the beauty of our country we still have a choice.
July 1, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Milehighguy writes:
Breaks? Who gets breaks at work these days? Gimme a break!
July 1, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
nonunion writes:
THAT IS NOT THE WAY UNIONS WORK. IT IS NOT A CHOICE.
ONCE THE UNION GETS IN IT BECOMES A REQUIREMENT OF
WORKING THERE. IT'S PART OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
UNION AND THE COMPANY. THEY CAN NOT HIRE ANYONE WHO
WILL NOT JOIN THE UNION. I'VE NEVER BEEN A PART OF A
UNION BUT I KNOW A FEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE. THAT'S WHAT
THEY TOLD ME. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THAT'S CORRECT OR
IF I WAS MISINFORMED.
July 1, 2008
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Well, I worked for a boss who demanded unpaid hours. I left ten minutes later. Not easy, nor practical since we needed the money. Found a new job two days later that paid more and had more hours.
Some live ty the legal lottery.
I still say that if punitive damages are a fine for bad behavior, the punitive damages should NOT go to the victim but to some other agency. Nor should the lawyers be able to obtain any percentage of those fines. What isn't said yet is that lawyer Burger Boy will also charge expenses like five dollars a page for copies, fifty dollars each for letters sent to the court or the plaintiff and expert witness testimony, time charges for those who examined the time cards and all other things. Most will see less than a quarter of the monies awarded. Reports from one former client indicate that ten percent is more likely.
As for unions at Wal-Mart...they will continue their extremely wise policy of closing any facility or part of any facility that votes in a union. They built a million dollar meat cutting facility in one store and the meat cutters voted in the union. The entire companies meat cutting facilities were closed. A store unionized somewhere, I forget exactly where, and it was closed inside of a month. That is the proper answer to unionization. Vote in a union-vote out your job. The government can't force any business to stay open. That's why I love Wal-Mart. I can usually save money over many of their things and I make them price match all the grocery ads so I can save gas. I shop there to celebrate their NO UNIONS ALLOWED philosophy as well as to buy the same appliance there for ten dollars less than it costs online.
Wal-Mart will appeal this down the line. It will also fire some managers and demote some others and pass the costs on to the consumers.
Ah tort reform. We can only dream.
July 1, 2008
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
In the end, it will be the consumers that pay for this.
BTW, Froward, conservative "Activist Judges"? No such thing.
July 1, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
ofcourse writes:
STOP SHOPPING AT WAL-MART.
They'll get the message. Low prices equate to low quality. This is not an American Company, it's an importer on a mega scale, then has the nerve to cut every penny it can on the backs of it's staff. Just talk to a manager after three beers and the truth comes bubbling to the top. Funny, how Target isn't in this kind of trouble. As for Frank....well most the Denver's educated folks know who he's strong arming.
July 1, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
I worked for safeway, and was forced into paying a couple of bucks a week for dues, I resented it. On the other hand I had benefits, the company wasn't either A) forcing employees to stick with part time hours to avoid benefits or B) forcing employees to clock out and keep working, I would have really resented that, and I wouldn't have been able to find another retail job, because good ole wally world had driven out the small retailers from the small community I lived in at the time. The safeway was looking to push out the union so that they could compete when walmart tried to bring in their grocery store, so that would have been the end of represented labor in the town. Luckly the town rejected walmart's efforts to expand, and the number of cars in their lot seemed to be limited to tourists.
If you think that walmart is going to pass the loss on to the consumers resulting in a raise of walmart's supposedly low pricing, then you beleive that the savings at walmart are significant, you also believe that original trial awards are even close to final payouts after years of appeals. This won't cost walmart 1/4 of the original award amount, and the savings from shopping at walmart as compared to Target are negligable.
But if you don't beleive me, and you think this massive settlement will not be wittled down, and you think they will raise their prices, you could simply shop somewhere with prices that have not been affected by tort law.
July 1, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
jibbons writes:
Maybe walmart's next ad will show that little yellow smiley face adding pennies to the prices, not knocking pennies off. Maybe he would have to be a frowney face for the new ads.
July 1, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
So-called US based businesses (I say so-called since they choose to offshore the manufacturing of the goods, the IT support, etc) are forcing mandatory, off the clock OT - in point of fact, for the prior 2 years I worked over 2500 BILLABLE hours, but as a salaried IT employee, was paid for 2080 (standard annual hours). This year, to honor my efforts (and those of others in the company who also worked unpaid OT to make sure the CEO got a raise) we were changed from salaried to hourly, were given a 15% pay CUT (taking us to wages below what we made in 2000), were told that we still make too much to get a raise this year, and were told that to earn the same as we have to work 5 hours/week OT (52 weeks out of the year). So I absolutely believe that WalMart forced this on their workers.
Sam Walton is spinning in his grave (remember how his big thing was "made in America"). Too bad there's no way to link average compensation to CEO/board member compensation! WAIT - we must reward greed - and slap down the lower and middle class workers whenever possible.
As for those of you whining about the fact that the consumer will end up paying for this - I sincerely hope you too are faced with the issues that the overworked, uncompensated employees at Walmart and other corporations are have to deal with daily. You seem to be of the opinion that none of these folks had their jobs offshored and that they had other alternatives for employment. What fools.
July 1, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
antloni writes:
Let's remember that Walmart gives people second chances, hiring quite a few who might not be considered employable by other companies. Case in point, we know people who've served their prison time, retired people and people with few marketable skills who are all welcome at Walmart. Each has developed marketable skills as a result. For that alone, I believe, they deserve our admiration!
After losing jobs in high tech, we've been self-employed for a decade or so and, yes, paying cash for medical expenses and extra taxes isn't easy but the freedom of lifestyle and independence is WELL worth it! It's easier than complaining.
I wonder how much the union guy who makes $70K+ annually could make if he started his own business? How many other people could he employ?
July 1, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
mtnrunner2 writes:
What's Actually Wrong In This Case
==============================
Being competitive and driving out other businesses, or paying low wages and fewer benefits is not a reason to condemn Wal-Mart. They are successful because consumers walk into the store and buy stuff. And if people choose to work there, as far as I'm concerned the discussion ends there. It should be between them and Wal-Mart.
However, if Wal-Mart agrees to pay an employee $X dollars per hour for working, and does not do that, it is a breach of their contract with the employee and they should be held liable. Unless the employee agreed in a legally binding contract to work off the clock... which I doubt.
July 1, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
GlacierDragon writes:
I worked at a number of Wal-Marts in 2 different states. I also have a lot of friends who have worked at and with various Wal-Marts in Colorado, Wyoming and Arizona. *Never* did I even hear about being forced to work off the clock. I did get the letter inviting me to join the class action lawsuit, though. I can't help but wonder how many people went "Oh cool" and jumped on the bandwagon despite never having been forced to work off the clock. I agree with the ruling requiring people to go through with these cases individually. If it happened to you, then I have no problem with you doing something about it.
I could have sued them over a couple of issues, but instead I decided to just move on with my life. I quit and now make a *lot* more money.
I have better things to do than to run around suing people.
July 1, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dinty writes:
That's just great! Now the prices at Wal Mart are going to go up. So, this is a victory for the "little people"?
July 1, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
I haven't set foot in a wal-mart since 1991. As a customer they treated me like crap, so it doesn't surprise me they would treat their workers like crap.
Interesting, two of the stories today are about large organizations (wal-mart & catholic church) paying out a lot of money for criminal activity. Fortunately I have not contributed one dime to either corrupt organization - and never will.
July 1, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
melodyann569 writes:
I am a Walmart shopper only when I have to be.I worked for them for 6 LOOOONNNNNGGG months. It was the hardest 2 years I ever spent. They will not give you enough hours to live on yada, yada yada. My ex-nephew was with Walmart all through college and then became an assistant manager/ He was caught making whoopee with one of the female employees in the back room. She was fired. He was moved to another Walmart out of state and given the position of Manager. Go Walmart.
July 1, 2008
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
piping_up writes: "How much of the money do you think the employees will get after Frank takes his share?"
$2.99 each. I see Azar has branched out.
July 1, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mighty_Mile writes:
MtnRunner,
it doesn't "end there" between Wal Mart and their employees like you believe it should because employees in the United States are granted certain rights such as those under the Fair Labors Standards Act which requires employers to pay employees at least 1.5 times their regular pay after 40 hours have been worked in a week. So by law it can never be "between them and Wal Mart."
July 1, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Katoom writes:
Several years ago a Walmart here in Colorado had a box just outside the store. The box was for donations of toys for the "poor" at Christmas. Good hearted people would buy toys at the Walmart and then drop them in the box as they left the store. The store manager then went to the box removed the donations and placed them back on the shelves to be sold again. This is the type of company that Walmart is. The company I work for just won a case against Frank Azar's firm but I can't help but cheer for him this time.
July 1, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
Nothing against Walmart, I just can't get out of Walmart in 15 minutes or less so I avoid the place.
July 1, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Justin_Credible writes:
Unions S-u-x.. Just look at the U.S. Auto Industry. The Unions have bled them dry to the point of no longer being able to compete with foreign automakers.
July 1, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
Wal Mart needs to compete on a same level playing field.
Stop cheating the people who work for you.
By the way the majority of employees are part time and that means they get their medical off our tax dollars.
Forget about getting injured and getting benefits they will never pay them and because they are so big most states won't hold them accountable. Also bankrupting or forcing a former employee to sell all they own to feed themselves waiting for Wal Mart to pay the benefits guaranteed by law.
Wal mart does not or ever will treat people with the dignity or respect they deserve.
Look up the many anti wal mart websites and see how they really treat the employees when the customer is out of sight.
July 1, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Justin_Credible writes:
Tbone,
NOBODY has to work anywhere they don't want to (including a place for minimum wage).
If you make make minimum wage, you deserve minimum wage.
July 1, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
chief writes:
I'm not a Wal-Mart shopper, supporter or hater, however I'm confused by the idea that Wal-Mart is China's retail proxy. When you walk into the local store, where do you think their merchandise comes from? I'll guess that you'll see a "Made in China" sticker on a variety of goods.
July 1, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
d1234 writes:
Workers rights? Workers rights? I am so damned tired of hearing about the rights of workers. What about the responsibility of workers? Isn't that just as important. Don't they owe something to the company for that paycheck and those benefits? But of course, my opinion will be judged meaningless as I am an evil manager who just sits on my as* and cracks the whip...not!
July 1, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
Outrider@9:44
The strong Arm jumped out of his vehicle into the bushes..to avoid a DUI. Kinda like the illegals do no ins, no license, no documents. He did the same thing. LOL
A friend uses him for a car accident and wasn't satisfied. Friends
told him that Azar doesn't fight for your case, just settles. I beg to differ, for his case a rear -end he got $50,000 clear. I now see Azar in a different light. :)
July 1, 2008
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Best solution for this is to make class action suits near impossible, allow attorneys to only collect their 30% without any side charges for services like copying or expert testimony, 30% to be charged only on the cash awards. NO collections on medical benefits, rehab services or any other thing besides actual damages already suffered. Punitive damages go to neither plaintiff or lawyer. Send them to a service or agency that helps pay medical for injured people.
Change the laws to do this and make it loser pays as well. The rest of the problems will go away.
Make it three times the actual loses of the people damaged. Let the lawyers collect on that amount only. See how many lawsuits clog up the court when a frivolous or predatory action results in the plaintiff paying the bills.
I did work part time for a while and then on the computer for some other time for a personal injury attorney. She didn't get involved in class action suits and only took clients who were really disabled not suffering from recurring hangnails. She charged 25% of the actual damages and left the rest of it to the injured party. Needless to say, she never got rich. She did get a reputation and we once asked my husband's employer, truck company, for money they had "forgotten" to pay him. They laughed in our face and told us to sue them. I gave him her name and asked him to call his lawyer and ask if he wanted to go to court against her. He had us wait while he cut a check. Bill had been on the road for sixteen months without getting home and they didn't think anyone could keep track of all the means they had to cheat drivers. We used CompuServe and a modem. I made a WordPerfect document that allowed me duplicate the info sheet the check had. The company deliberately used old ribbons to print this as the fax machines had a lot of trouble back then with such smudgy faint documents. If a driver asked questions they demanded a reference number from that sheet. He kept track of everything on his end. When he got home he picked up the paperwork including the spreadsheet, cleaned his stuff out of the truck and went to the office and quit. When the last check came it was tiny because they thought they could get away with it. We'd saved up for his laptop and spent three paychecks for it. Got it back double in that check.
Bad bosses and companies exist. Legal redress exists. Just cut out the legal lottery for punitive damages and a system that lets the lawyer make ten times the amount the worker gets.
July 1, 2008
4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
d1234 writes: "Workers rights? Workers rights? I am so damned tired of hearing about the rights of workers."
Hey guys, Mr. Burns is posting on the thread!
p_myers661 writes: "Best solution for this is to make class action suits near impossible, allow attorneys to only collect their 30% without any side charges for services like copying or expert testimony, 30% to be charged only on the cash awards."
One day, you may find a company or person has recklessly behaved in a negligent way that ends up reaping great harm to you or a loved one. I wonder if you'll still be advocating the essential cutting-off of a private citizen's right to legal action.
By the way, do you also advocate that it becomes "near impossible" for *corporations* to sue each other??
Probably not.
July 2, 2008
12:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
GWBushwacked writes:
Pssssst....economy is getting better in China....labor costs go up minimally, but with the rising costs of fuel, it is going to get more expensive to manufacture crap in China and ship it here....It is no time at all before it may end up being cheaper to manufacture stuff here....giving white trash another chance at their slice of Wonder Bread.
July 2, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
underpaid writes:
THIS suite is going to cost the workers of walmart.........they have already cut the number of employees and expect more of the ones that are left, and they are running the campaign of save money live better!HA!!!! hope you people are enjoying it, cause I can tell you the employees of walmart are losing their homes among other things.........because they won't give us a decent wage, forget a cost of living raise..............so don't say the consumer is the one going to pay for this suite!!!! maybe a few pennies..........it's the employees that get to reap the benefit of working harder for less money!!!!!!!!!!@!!
July 3, 2008
1:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
mytwosense
Already happened. Worked for Yellow Cab. for all the drivers. Got a fractured skull when the trunk lid came down on my head.
Their doctors diagnosed it, ordered treatments and agreed it was work related and compensable. They fired the doctors and refused to appoint another one. Under the law, even with a diagnosis from their doctors of work related injury, I was not legally able to charge the company for medical treatment. Even if I won the court case those bills would not be paid.
They'd failed to pay the WC bill and lost coverage 20 hours before I was hurt. They ended up in court with a unique defense.
First: I wasn't hurt and, if I was hurt, it wasn't on the job and, if it was on the job, it wasn't after WC was cancelled, it was before.
They had their doctor testify. We were amazed to see a stranger claiming I wasn't hurt. When asked he insisted that he was qualified to testify because he'd examined the records.(We'd saved our copies of doctor orders and conclusions at the end of each visit.) The judge was upset when he discovered that the files given to him were frauds. When asked outright if he had ever examined me the doctor pointed at my husband and said, "I've examined him!"
The judge was now furious. He asked my attorney to draw up the orders and gave her the amounts. I'd suffered a miscarriage because I didn't have the oxygen ordered by their first doctor.They'd refused to pay and the oxygen company gave it to me for free for as long as they could and then had to collect their machine. I miscarried three days later. The final award was tripled by law and included lifetime medical coverage, recompense for the miscarriages according to Colorado Law, rehab, re-education and actual damages. The total was 6.5 million. Yellow Cab posted a 25K bond and appealed. They lost them all. Yellow Cab filed bankruptcy. That was in 1990. In 2007 I received a check for 4500 dollars and one for five hundred dollars. They had signed with me to reduce the award to 100K which I found fair as I had been able to work and didn't need the rehab or education. My attorney had told me that, when we collected, her bill would be 25K of the 6.5 million. When I got my checks, she reduced her fee to twenty five cents. Turns out they reduced 6.5 million of unsecured damages to 100K of unsecured damages.
I suffered at the hands of a business and went through the courts. I never asked and never wanted punitive damages. The court awarded according to law and my attorney explained what each part was. Two million is an average cost for causing one miscarriage via deliberate bad actions, and I was left unable to have children.
The reforms I suggest are hers. An attorney who wants the system cleaned up and fair. No wonder she retired with moderate means. She never spun that lottery wheel for herself.