The Wal-mart Class Action Decision is a Gamechanger

[Conan71]

Quit writing....OTASCO was a part of a huge conglomerate floated with junk bond financing. It was built with the backs of their employees and then smashed by greedy stockholders many years later.

Sam used to steal his concepts from them. He just didn't treat his employees as well so his family could grow....still happening.

Why would you think I'd be envisioning the bastardized and over-leveraged version of smaller retail chains?  I don't like 100,000 sq. ft. big boxes.  I like smaller retailers which can operate with 5-10 employees like Weslakes, or the Ace store on 31st where I can stop in and shoot the smile with Jim Sweeney. 

Get out of my brain clown.

[Teatownclown]

Why would you think I'd be envisioning the bastardized and over-leveraged version of smaller retail chains?  I don't like 100,000 sq. ft. big boxes.  I like smaller retailers which can operate with 5-10 employees like Weslakes, or the Ace store on 31st where I can stop in and shoot the smile with Jim Sweeney. 

Get out of my brain clown.

So, you don't understand greed and the necessary "growth" to getting there in retail?  Those you mention are franchises hoping some day to be 1000,000 sq.ft. with 20-30 employees but a whole lot bigger margins for profit. Who you kidding? Where are all the mom and pops? History.

[Gaspar]

So, you don't understand greed and the necessary "growth" to getting there in retail?  Those you mention are franchises hoping some day to be 1000,000 sq.ft. with 20-30 employees but a whole lot bigger margins for profit. Who you kidding? Where are all the mom and pops? History.

When they build a better mouse trap, the only ones that get upset are the mice.

[Teatownclown]

good one! beers on me....Conan, take a nap!

[Conan71]

So, you don't understand greed and the necessary "growth" to getting there in retail?  Those you mention are franchises hoping some day to be 1000,000 sq.ft. with 20-30 employees but a whole lot bigger margins for profit. Who you kidding? Where are all the mom and pops? History.

At some point, people will begin to place higher priority on service in a smaller setting over convenience and selection, as well as quality goods when they realize what the cheapening of our goods has done to the American economy as a whole. 

The fact that you can still buy a washer and dryer or refrigerator for about what you could buy it for 20 years ago says a lot about why our unemployment is stuck and likely will be stuck at 9% as well as our GDP just barely loping along.  Cheaper parts made by cheaper labor and assembled by even cheaper labor because we think cheap goods are, well, good.

Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer, but I'd really like to see a retail revolution where people place value and true service over price.

[Ed W]

And do not even get me started as to who really makes money in these type of cases where they are "trying to get victims before a jury."

Wait a minute.  Do you work for free, Guido? What's a reasonable fee for taking on a class action case that might, just might, pay off sometime in the future?  I think we can assume that these attorneys aren't charging the clients up front, so their only hope of getting paid is if they win. So what's reasonable for taking a gamble like that?

[Conan71]

Wait a minute.  Do you work for free, Guido? What's a reasonable fee for taking on a class action case that might, just might, pay off sometime in the future?  I think we can assume that these attorneys aren't charging the clients up front, so their only hope of getting paid is if they win. So what's reasonable for taking a gamble like that?

Any of the suits I've been in the class for, the attorneys have gotten truckloads of money and the plaintiffs got vouchers or a few bucks credited to their account.

One in particular I recall was for Ford Mustang owners.  I don't remember what the original cause was, I do recall that the attorneys got $15mm cash, the plaintiffs got a voucher for $500 off if they bought a new Ford in the next six months.  Are you bucking kidding me?  I have to spend $25K or whatever to be made whole again while the attorneys walk with major cash? 

[we vs us]

At some point, people will begin to place higher priority on service in a smaller setting over convenience and selection, as well as quality goods when they realize what the cheapening of our goods has done to the American economy as a whole. 

The fact that you can still buy a washer and dryer or refrigerator for about what you could buy it for 20 years ago says a lot about why our unemployment is stuck and likely will be stuck at 9% as well as our GDP just barely loping along.  Cheaper parts made by cheaper labor and assembled by even cheaper labor because we think cheap goods are, well, good.

Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer, but I'd really like to see a retail revolution where people place value and true service over price.

I might also add that wages have been flat for a long long time.  In truth, we can only afford to pay for consumer items that remain affordable or get cheaper. 

[guido911]

If I got it wrong, you might try posting an article that explains the situation clearly, rather than the piece of smile you did post.

I am tired of you coming off like a know-it-all on every damned subject. And NO. I am not going to waste my time educating you. Do your own research.

[Conan71]

I might also add that wages have been flat for a long long time.  In truth, we can only afford to pay for consumer items that remain affordable or get cheaper. 

Or would wages rise if we were willing to pay more for better quality, made by U.S. workers?  It's another chicken v. egg economic issue.  Not being sarcastic, but what do you see as a solution for that?

And BTW, is that John Corbett (Northern Exposure, Big Fat Greek Wedding) in your avatar?

[guido911]

Wait a minute.  Do you work for free, Guido? What's a reasonable fee for taking on a class action case that might, just might, pay off sometime in the future?  I think we can assume that these attorneys aren't charging the clients up front, so their only hope of getting paid is if they win. So what's reasonable for taking a gamble like that?

Ed. I do not think you understand what really happens behind the scenes in these cases. Class action cases are not remotely close to a personal injury case. Hell, in many of these, the first year or two is nothing but big law firms informing to the court on how great they are so they get to be lead counsel. Sorry CF, but having litigated numerous class cases, the only victims are ultimately the members and not from any injury they had initially received. Oh, and Conan's right.

[cannon_fodder]

Wevus:

The case was not and has not been decided on the merits.  They said 1.3 million women from part time checkers to storemanagers trying to get into corporate was not a "similarily situated class".  One justive said there was no glue holding the class together.

They will break the class up - part timers denied full time because they are women, managers who hit a glass celing, young mothers denied entry into salary, etc.

Even the 3 scotus women wanted to send the case back down to have the class status evaluated under a different test/standard/theory.

[nathanm]

I am tired of you coming off like a know-it-all on every damned subject. And NO. I am not going to waste my time educating you. Do your own research.

That's all in your head, my man. You post shitty article, I respond to the issue as presented, because that's the limit of my knowledge about the ruling. You then complain that I didn't know more. Odd. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, it helps to provide references.

[guido911]

Wevus:


Even the 3 scotus women wanted to send the case back down to have the class status evaluated under a different test/standard/theory.

And I agree with that. The lumping of all the women together, despite the differing facts and job positions. I heard Hall Estell is part of this mess. Do you know?

[guido911]

That's all in your head, my man. You post shitty article, I respond to the issue as presented, because that's the limit of my knowledge about the ruling. You then complain that I didn't know more. Odd. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, it helps to provide references.

My article was "shitty". Well here is its text:

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Walmart today, ruling that female employees can't sue the retail giant in a class action alleging wage discrimination.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April 2010 that the employees could sue, which left Walmart open to $1.6 billion in damages, the AP reports. The Supreme Court said lawyers failed to identify a corporate policy that resulted in thousands of women at Sam's Club and Walmart stores being paid less than their male peers.

Walmart's 3,400 store managers across the country decide who gets promoted, a subjective policy that the justices ruled today the company could not be held liable for. Eighty-six percent of those managers are men, the LA Times reported, even though two-thirds of Walmart's employees are women.

The court had not looked at a class-action certification suit in more than a decade, Bloomberg reports.

Correction: An earlier version of this report incorrectly stated the Supreme Court decision was unanimous. The court unanimously agreed the case was wrongly certified as a 23(b)2 class action, but dissented 5-4 over whether the women could all prove they were discriminated on by their sex. Forbes has a good explanation here.

What specifically is "shitty" about it wiseass? Oh, I know what happened. You never bothered reading any of the several hyperlinked references in that Yahoo summary piece which provided in depth analysis of the decision did you before going all Clavin. Now, you want blame your being caught with posting idiocy on the article.  Here's an idea for next time. Don't like my article, read another one. And again, do your own damned research.