another reason to hate Walmart

October 4, 2005 12:46 PM

My daughter was hired at Wal-mart full time (with benefits after a period of time) in their photo lab...just as she was about to achieve that time (surprise surprise) they cut her to thirty hours. Part time. First, has this happened to anyone else you know? Is it pretty common practice? And if provable, would this be considered an illegal practice?

Not to fret, her old job has offered to make her a manager at almost two dollars more than she was making. But this has done nothing to discourage me from my detestation of Wallyworld.

posted by konolia to work & money (25 comments total)

From what I've heard, this practice is common at many employers.
posted by reverendX at 12:53 PM on October 4, 2005

State and federal labor laws require FT workers receive benefits, like overtime, healthcare, vacation time, etc. Management will do anything — anything — to cut hours of service workers to locally mandated PT standards to get around these laws. What's worse is how this affects scheduling for workers who are juggling two or more PT jobs.
posted by Rothko at 1:02 PM on October 4, 2005

Welcome to "right to work." They pull this all the time.
posted by bshort at 1:04 PM on October 4, 2005

IANAL.

I don't know if it's the federal law or just state law here in NY, but anyone who works more than a certain number of hours (1000, I think) on-location are entitled to benefits.
posted by mkultra at 1:06 PM on October 4, 2005

Not to pile on commentary but isn't there a class action case going on about this right now?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:13 PM on October 4, 2005

My brother and his girlfriend both experienced these practices -- and worse -- while working at Wal-Mart. Fortunately, both moved on to better jobs.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 1:23 PM on October 4, 2005

Hey, if there is we would love to hear about it.
posted by konolia at 1:23 PM on October 4, 2005

Wal-Mart is known for its shady labor practices, that's how they keep costs and prices low. See this essay from the NY Review of Books: Inside the Leviathan.
posted by slow, man at 1:30 PM on October 4, 2005

I believe Barbara Ehrenreich talks about this in her book, Nickel and Dimed, in which she travels across America and tries to live on minimum wage jobs, including one at Wal-Mart. A great, if not saddening read all around.
posted by sarahnade at 1:39 PM on October 4, 2005

State and federal labor laws require FT workers receive benefits, like overtime, healthcare, vacation time, etc.

You mean state and fed laws MAY require certain benefits, however you are wrong on overtime. Overtime protection has never been tied to full-time or part-time status to the best of my knowledge. If your state mandates a rate to be paid when you work over X number of hours in a week that standard applies to everyone, even if they normally only work 4 hours a week or typically work 38.5.

I think you will find as well that what you think is mandated as required for full-time employees is a WHOLE lot less than you think. Health care, for example, is rarely required to be provided. Worker's compensation coverage for on the job injuries, yes, but the offering of subsidized health insurance to employees is a competitive measure to attract workers in most places. Paid vacation is another.

For better or worse, the majority of states are 'right to work' states and aside from certain safe labor practices there's very little the employer HAS to offer you in the way of benefits.
posted by phearlez at 1:41 PM on October 4, 2005

Here's a Department of Labor webpage with information on overtime compensation. You'll notice that the (artifical and employer-defined) terms full-time and part-time appear nowhere on the page. A (probably incomplete) set of links regarding state labor requirements can be found on their site here.

Answering the actual question - konolia, at least at the federal level the only possible legal violation there is one of equal access to health care. An employer cannot game the system to keep out possibly higher priced individuals nor can they arbitrarily offer health care to person X of similar caliber and responsibilities and not to Y.

This does not mean, however, they cannot establish two classification where one group gets health care and the other doesn't based on number of hours worked and put people in one or the other based on other non-protected criteria.

I suspect this is just a case of an employer being jerks and doing a bait-and-switch on people looking for benefits. They are allowed to tease you with the prospect of a promotion or different job classification and then not give it to you.
posted by phearlez at 1:55 PM on October 4, 2005

To illustrate what phearlez said, I had a full time job for two years that didn't provide any sick leave, retirement benefits or paid time off and required employees to pay the full cost of health insurance.

Lots of people kept telling me that this was illegal, but they were wrong. Just because an employer is a shady, manipulative asshole, don't assume they're breaking the law.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 1:56 PM on October 4, 2005

There are essentially no federal laws governing benefits for non-unionized employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act covers overtime pay, and as phearlez pointed out that doesn't have anything to do with full time/part time distinctions. There is no federal law mandating health care, vacation time or other common benefits. There are precious few states that have those kind of laws either.

It certainly isn't "illegal" in the sense that anyone at Wal*Mart commited a crime.

In terms of a basis to prevail in a civil case against Wal*Mart's, you are really beyond my ability to respond with any authority at all. I would think that the only applicable federal law would require you to demonstrate some sort of discrimination to a protected class. I think there would be a wide variety of potential state law claims if this practice is done intentionally, but none would be easy to prove. The superficial facts aren't that helpful (they decided to cut someone back to part time rather than pay benefits). If they routinely tell people that they are getting a full time job with benefits and then don't provide that job, that is something that could get them in trouble. Wal*Mart are notoriously aggressive litigants, so you might have very few practical options.
posted by Lame_username at 1:58 PM on October 4, 2005

It certainly isn't "illegal" in the sense that anyone at Wal*Mart commited a crime.

We don't know they didn't, but the situation as described absent additional ulterior motives is not a crime. They could say "only full-time employees get health care" and not make anyone a FT employee. Legal. If, however, they are deliberately exclusing from FT employment people who have certain health factors that could make having insurance more expensive then they are violating HIPAA. Or, as you say, discriminating against a protected class.

from the above DOL site:

I understand that my group health plan cannot deny individuals eligibility for benefits or charge individuals a higher premium or contribution based on a health factor. What are the health factors?

The health factors are health status, medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses), claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability, and disability. The term “evidence of insurability” includes conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence, as well as participation in activities such as motorcycling, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle riding, horseback riding, skiing and other similar activities.
posted by phearlez at 2:22 PM on October 4, 2005

Sorry, Konolia, I haven't been able to locate any class actions, but I do see that your daughter's situation is a common complaint about Wal-Mart.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:36 PM on October 4, 2005

The Wal-Mart class action suit is about sex discrimination and lack of advancement opportunities for women. I just wanted to chime in and say that what your daughter went through is shady, not illegal [unless she has a contract saying she is being hired full time which they reneged on] and sadly very typical of the Wal-Mart employment experience.
posted by jessamyn at 3:19 PM on October 4, 2005

Welcome to the free market. They're able to do pretty much whatever they want and you have very little recourse.

Fighting a class action against a company like Wal-Mart is pretty much a losing battle.
posted by bshort at 4:19 PM on October 4, 2005

They're able to do pretty much whatever they want and you have very little recourse.

Except, of course, to not work there.
posted by trevyn at 5:13 PM on October 4, 2005

You know, if they had simply hired her as part time to begin with that would have been...well, understandable. What chaps my hide is making her full time-promising her full time benefits when she got to a certain point- THEN doing the old bait-and-switcherooie.

My kid will be fine-as I said, her old job is glad to have her and is willing to pony up to show it-but if it is humanly possible Walmart will never get another dime out of me.
posted by konolia at 5:45 PM on October 4, 2005

This is the result of the policies of the Bush administration and the GOP in general. If you want to make a difference, start by voting for another party.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:08 PM on October 4, 2005

This kind of behavior helped spur on the creation of the Wal-Mart Workers Association, a sort of pseudo-union in central Florida. I'm glad your daughter has found a better position, but in addition to boycotting Wal-Mart, you should share her experience with as many people as possible, and support the cause of labor unions at the polls.
posted by junkbox at 7:23 PM on October 4, 2005

you should share her experience with as many people as possible

THAT won't be a problem.

Hey, Crash, WAl-mart was evil when Clinton was in office too.
posted by konolia at 7:53 PM on October 4, 2005

To reiterate, Walmart is absolutely famous for pulling tricks like this. Don't expect it to change. The primary reason it won't change is because it is a perfectly legal maneuver. Walmart is pretty well-known for exploiting its employees for various reasons, and it does indeed help keep their costs down. It's the reason that I (and many others) am willing to pay slightly more to other stores rather than support the burden that they place on their employees. It's also the reason why relatively unskilled workers are so easily able to find employment there. Walmart capitalizes on cheap/easily available labor.
posted by kamikazegopher at 8:06 PM on October 4, 2005

Isn't it strange that Wal-Mart got really huge after Bill Clinton signed trade agreements with China?

Where is WalMart headquartered? Arkansas?

Hmm, isn't that where Bill Clinton was governor?
posted by Wild_Eep at 8:49 PM on October 4, 2005

Walmart prices aren't as low as they appear. All those part-time employees without health insurance still get sick. Guess who pays? You do, with your taxes.

Walmart is the 'poster child' for Unions.
posted by Goofyy at 1:20 AM on October 5, 2005