On 4/26/10 4:18 PM, jps wrote:

I hope this isn't lost on homemakers who direct their household income
towards Walmart...

A divided federal appeals court in San Francisco says Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. must face a massive class-action lawsuit that claims the world's
largest private employer discriminates against women workers.

The 6-5 ruling by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Monday
exposes the retailer based in Bentonville, Ark., to billions in
damages if it loses the case at trial. The lawsuit was filed in 2001
and includes more than 1 million current and former workers.

The lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart pays women less then men for the
same jobs and that female employees receive fewer promotions and have
to wait longer for those promotions than male counterparts.

I heard on NPR that one million women could be part of the class action
suit.

I live it...let's see...a settlement of $10,000 each.

Bye, bye Wal-Mart.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

On 4/26/2010 9:49 PM, hk wrote:

The lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart pays women less then men for the
same jobs and that female employees receive fewer promotions and have
to wait longer for those promotions than male counterparts.

I heard on NPR that one million women could be part of the class action
suit.

I live it...let's see...a settlement of $10,000 each.

Bye, bye Wal-Mart.

You live it? Hmmmm.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:49:52 -0400, hk
wrote:

Bye, bye Wal-Mart.

Harold, as the self professed great humanitarian that you claim to be,
how could you take any pleasure in Wal-mart going out of business,
thus putting hundreds of thousands of hard working people out on the
unemployment line? Is it because they may be non-union, and in your
warped view of the world, don't deserve to have jobs?

It's not like the Wal-mart employees have a lot of choices.

On 4/27/10 3:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:49:52 -0400,
wrote:

Bye, bye Wal-Mart.

Harold, as the self professed great humanitarian that you claim to be,
how could you take any pleasure in Wal-mart going out of business,
thus putting hundreds of thousands of hard working people out on the
unemployment line? Is it because they may be non-union, and in your
warped view of the world, don't deserve to have jobs?

It's not like the Wal-mart employees have a lot of choices.


My assumption assumes several possibilities:

A more worker-friendly company may bid on wal-mart's stores and fixed
assets after the chain goes belly-up because it cannot satisfy a huge
judgment, and, if Wal-Mart goes belly-up, the event alone may revitalize
Main Street and smaller shows in communities everywhere.



--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

On 4/27/10 3:34 PM, hk wrote:
On 4/27/10 3:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:49:52 -0400,
wrote:

Bye, bye Wal-Mart.

Harold, as the self professed great humanitarian that you claim to be,
how could you take any pleasure in Wal-mart going out of business,
thus putting hundreds of thousands of hard working people out on the
unemployment line? Is it because they may be non-union, and in your
warped view of the world, don't deserve to have jobs?

It's not like the Wal-mart employees have a lot of choices.


My assumption assumes several possibilities:

A more worker-friendly company may bid on wal-mart's stores and fixed
assets after the chain goes belly-up because it cannot satisfy a huge
judgment, and, if Wal-Mart goes belly-up, the event alone may revitalize
Main Street and smaller shows in communities everywhere.



er, shops, not shows.




--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:34:15 -0400, hk
wrote:

Harold, as the self professed great humanitarian that you claim to be,
how could you take any pleasure in Wal-mart going out of business,
thus putting hundreds of thousands of hard working people out on the
unemployment line? Is it because they may be non-union, and in your
warped view of the world, don't deserve to have jobs?

It's not like the Wal-mart employees have a lot of choices.


My assumption assumes several possibilities:

A more worker-friendly company may bid on wal-mart's stores and fixed
assets after the chain goes belly-up because it cannot satisfy a huge
judgment, and, if Wal-Mart goes belly-up, the event alone may revitalize
Main Street and smaller shows in communities everywhere.

There is a third assumption that is even more unlikely: The
asssumption that Wal-Mart will lose the suit. I wouldn't bet a nickle
on it.

On 4/27/10 3:43 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:34:15 -0400,
wrote:

Harold, as the self professed great humanitarian that you claim to be,
how could you take any pleasure in Wal-mart going out of business,
thus putting hundreds of thousands of hard working people out on the
unemployment line? Is it because they may be non-union, and in your
warped view of the world, don't deserve to have jobs?

It's not like the Wal-mart employees have a lot of choices.


My assumption assumes several possibilities:

A more worker-friendly company may bid on wal-mart's stores and fixed
assets after the chain goes belly-up because it cannot satisfy a huge
judgment, and, if Wal-Mart goes belly-up, the event alone may revitalize
Main Street and smaller shows in communities everywhere.

There is a third assumption that is even more unlikely: The
asssumption that Wal-Mart will lose the suit. I wouldn't bet a nickle
on it.


Well, I am assuming Wal-Mart will buy the verdict, but there is always
hope. So far, apparently all there is is a path to a class action suit.

--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

On Apr 27, 3:43*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:34:15 -0400, hk
wrote:

Harold, as the self professed great humanitarian that you claim to be,
how could you take any pleasure in Wal-mart going out of business,
thus putting hundreds of thousands of hard working people out on the
unemployment line? *Is it because they may be non-union, and in your
warped view of the world, don't deserve to have jobs?

It's not like the Wal-mart employees have a lot of choices.

My assumption assumes several possibilities:

A more worker-friendly company may bid on wal-mart's stores and fixed
assets after the chain goes belly-up because it cannot satisfy a huge
judgment, and, if Wal-Mart goes belly-up, the event alone may revitalize
Main Street and smaller shows in communities everywhere.

There is a third assumption that is even more unlikely: The
asssumption that Wal-Mart will lose the suit. *I wouldn't bet a nickle
on it.

It's a class action lawsuit. Walmart will settle, the sleazy lawyers
will get rich, and the plaintiffs will each get a $15 gift card to...
wait for it... Walmart.

Or it gets tossed.

On Apr 27, 4:55*pm, Jack wrote:
On Apr 27, 3:43*pm, Wayne.B wrote:







On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:34:15 -0400, hk
wrote:

Harold, as the self professed great humanitarian that you claim to be,
how could you take any pleasure in Wal-mart going out of business,
thus putting hundreds of thousands of hard working people out on the
unemployment line? *Is it because they may be non-union, and in your
warped view of the world, don't deserve to have jobs?

It's not like the Wal-mart employees have a lot of choices.

My assumption assumes several possibilities:

A more worker-friendly company may bid on wal-mart's stores and fixed
assets after the chain goes belly-up because it cannot satisfy a huge
judgment, and, if Wal-Mart goes belly-up, the event alone may revitalize
Main Street and smaller shows in communities everywhere.

There is a third assumption that is even more unlikely: The
asssumption that Wal-Mart will lose the suit. *I wouldn't bet a nickle
on it.

It's a class action lawsuit. *Walmart will settle, the sleazy lawyers
will get rich, and the plaintiffs will each get a $15 gift card to...
wait for it... Walmart.

Or it gets tossed.

Gee, I dont know about that. my Daughter (while 7 mths pregnant)
slipped on an "un posted" just rinsed floor at our Walmart. She got a
Gift Card for $200.00 . She also had to sign a " No Reproach " form as
well.

On 4/27/10 5:21 PM, *e#c wrote:
On Apr 27, 4:55 pm, wrote:
On Apr 27, 3:43 pm, wrote:







On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:34:15 -0400,
wrote:

Harold, as the self professed great humanitarian that you claim to be,
how could you take any pleasure in Wal-mart going out of business,
thus putting hundreds of thousands of hard working people out on the
unemployment line? Is it because they may be non-union, and in your
warped view of the world, don't deserve to have jobs?

It's not like the Wal-mart employees have a lot of choices.

My assumption assumes several possibilities:

A more worker-friendly company may bid on wal-mart's stores and fixed
assets after the chain goes belly-up because it cannot satisfy a huge
judgment, and, if Wal-Mart goes belly-up, the event alone may revitalize
Main Street and smaller shows in communities everywhere.

There is a third assumption that is even more unlikely: The
asssumption that Wal-Mart will lose the suit. I wouldn't bet a nickle
on it.

It's a class action lawsuit. Walmart will settle, the sleazy lawyers
will get rich, and the plaintiffs will each get a $15 gift card to...
wait for it... Walmart.

Or it gets tossed.

Gee, I dont know about that. my Daughter (while 7 mths pregnant)
slipped on an "un posted" just rinsed floor at our Walmart. She got a
Gift Card for $200.00 . She also had to sign a " No Reproach " form as
well.


She let them off lightly.


--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.