Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 07, 2014

Laura Clawson, Daily Kos: Just a few short months ago, Walmart introduced a new policy that was supposed to give pregnant workers added protections under a disability policy. But it hasn't taken long to find out that concerns about the new policy's vague language and possible loopholes were absolutely merited. Candis Riggins, a Walmart worker who lost her job after her managers refused to reassign her to work she could do while pregnant, found that out the hard way. Riggins told Bryce Covert she asked her managers to be allowed to work as a cashier during her pregnancy, since her regular maintenance job involved exposure to harsh cleaning chemicals and lifting and carrying cleaning supplies.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

726

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

She had good reason to ask:

... the effects of the chemicals landed her in the hospital "multiple times," she said. It got so bad one morning that she passed out at the bus stop on the way to work and was taken to the hospital. "They asked me what kind of work I do," she said. "They said this is basically the cause, taking in all of these chemicals and fumes you shouldn't be taking in, basically breaking me down while I was pregnant."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Sounds like the real issue is that employees are being asked to handle harmful chemicals without the proper safety equipment. Calling the press is fine but she should be calling the DOL and OSHA too.

#1 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-06 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Real classy walmart.

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-06 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I was union steward for 30 years and when an employee says you have to let me do this other work, I really wonder. Could she be a greeter? Push a broom? Can she handle money and customers?

#3 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-08-07 08:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, since we are talking about Walmarts responsibility. Why is this woman having a baby while working a Non-Living Wage job??? Or Is that the taxpayer responsibilty

#4 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2014-08-07 08:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

In China they treat employees in this manner. Wal-Mart is simply acting this way by osmosis...

#5 | Posted by catdog at 2014-08-07 08:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Could she be a greeter? Push a broom?

I have a friend who is a manager for Walmart. She says they have a hard time finding people to actually work. Most people seem to just want a job that lets them socialize. She says it's part of the game for people to get hurt on the job and then get reassigned to be a greeter. That's why the greeter position is usually only given to mentally deficient workers or workers over 60 years old.

When I go to Walmart, I do note that employees are always walking around, no one is doing any real work, just busy work. And they are always walking away from you, never toward you to answer a question.

#6 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-07 08:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

When I go to Walmart, I do note that employees are always walking around, no one is doing any real work, just busy work. And they are always walking away from you, never toward you to answer a question.

#6 | Posted by boaz at 2014-08-07 08:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

When Boaz is right, he's right.

#7 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-07 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I have a friend who is a manager for Walmart. She says they have a hard time finding people to actually work."

100% of my clients have this problem.

nobody

wants

to

work

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-07 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

#8

and before someone deflects with wages, etc....I have clients who offer high wages, benefits, etc.....they still can't find anyone to work.

work ethic is this country is in the toilet.

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-07 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Floor workers are tasked with so much work to do in time given that customers looking for help will stop them from finishing.

That said, 3 different associates in Walmart yesterday helped me out, 2 without being asked. The other went out back to find the last item they had in the bldg because the shelves were empty.

#10 | Posted by 88120rob at 2014-08-07 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Self Check outs at Walmart is affront to everything that is good and wholesome with retail

#11 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-07 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

When I go to Walmart, I do note that employees are always walking around, no one is doing any real work,

#6 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2014-08-07 08:33 AM | FLAG:

I guess all them shelves get stocked by magic elves.

That and everyone on welfare drives a Cadillac.

#12 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-07 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

That said, 3 different associates in Walmart yesterday helped me out, 2 without being asked. The other went out back to find the last item they had in the bldg because the shelves were empty.

#10 | POSTED BY 88120ROB AT 2014-08-07 10:27 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Can't be true, Boaz sez no one is doing any real work at WalMart.

I just have to wonder just how they manage to keep those stores open with no one cleaning, stocking or cashing customers out.

#13 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-07 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

The times I go to Wal Mart I see both vendors and some employees stocking shelves. They aren't very helpful when it comes to finding stuff though.

#14 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Since Hillary Clinton is good friends with the Waltons and she did sit on their board maybe she could talk to the family and let them form a union? Nawwww she sat on the board and never once mentioned or suggested the employees form a union.

#15 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-07 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm always skeptical when I hear about peole offering "high wages" and not being able to find people. Do you know what they're offering or did they just tell you that they offer "high wages"? The most likely explanation seems to be that they are not offering what the market pays for the skills they want. You can get away with that if you are willing to train but few are.

I know there are plenty of people who are bad/lazy employees but I don't buy into the notion that most Americans don't want to work even for a minute.

#16 | Posted by sully at 2014-08-07 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you know what they're offering or did they just tell you that they offer "high wages"?

I would guess $7.26 per hour.

#17 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-07 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

American workers are more productive than ever before, but you wouldn't know that from looking at the rewards they're getting for pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. This has been true for longer than most millennial-aged Americans have been working-age adults, and the pain has been worse for the lesser educated bottom-wage earners than it has for college-educated professionals.

EPI labor economists looked at wage trends in all income levels and found that Americans earning at or below 60 percent of the distribution of wages in the U.S. -- a vast majority of working Americans -- saw no gains in their wages between 2000 and 2012. At the same time their productivity increased nearly 25 percent.

Groups like the CATO Institute say that the key to economic prosperity is to freeze or eliminate the federal minimum wage rather than increase it -- because they claim higher wages leads poorer people to lose their jobs as companies seek to offset payroll rises. But if stagnant and lower wages are the key to economic prosperity, then the U.S. economy has had more than a decade to prove that. It hasn't. www.ibtimes.com

#18 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-07 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#18 Wha????? Yet another wing ding economic fallacy bites the dust?!?!

Say it ain't so!

#19 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-07 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#19

Productivity is not necessarily a product of harder or more work. Computers and automation make up for the increased productivity.

#20 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-07 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Would anyone like to get back on topic instead of talking about how lazy the help is? Should this woman have been given other duties to perform.. instead of being shown the door?

#21 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-07 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

BTW.. it's amusing to watch the hypocrisy of several people who sit around posting on a blog all day, talking about how unproductive others are.

#22 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-07 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Good old Walmart. The transnational plantation owner of the 21st century. Can anyone think of any benefit to that company's continued existence?

#23 | Posted by apparatchik at 2014-08-07 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Productivity is not necessarily a product of harder or more work. Computers and automation make up for the increased productivity."

#20 | Posted by salamandagator

That and having one person do the work of three.

#24 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-08-07 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

" Should this woman have been given other duties to perform.. instead of being shown the door?"

Hired for a specific job, seems that task is what she agreed to. If they don't need her elsewhere then she can either quit or do it. I don't buy the chemical crap, if that were the case she would have an L&I claim as well as a civil lawsuit not for termination but harmful environment.

#25 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-07 12:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That and having one person do the work of three."

Which is not possible without automation and computers. Smaller workforce greater production is the way things are going and will continue to go. That is just the nature of things.

#26 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-07 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hired for a specific job, seems that task is what she agreed to

i.e. ---- women and their special circumstances. Health problems? ---- you. Pregnant? ---- you.

Oh, and I'm sure when we fire your pregnant ass and you lose all of your income and means of support, you'll be thinking it might be time to throw in the towel and head down to Parenthood.

---- you, baby killer!

-The Right

#27 | Posted by apparatchik at 2014-08-07 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Smaller workforce greater production and complaining that there aren't any good jobs anymore is the way things are going and will continue to go. That is just the nature of things.

FTFA

#28 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-07 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"i.e. ---- women and their special circumstances. Health problems? ---- you. Pregnant? ---- you."

So you believe that a woman should be a special class of person who is incapable of living up to her agreements?

Wow, you really think very little of them don;t you?

"Oh, and I'm sure when we fire your pregnant ass and you lose all of your income and means of support, you'll be thinking it might be time to throw in the towel and head down to Parenthood."
My ex- wife was fired while pregnant because she could not do her job. So , try again.

#29 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-07 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

#23
I can think of a benefit. ...their existence pisses off lefties.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-07 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you believe that a woman should be a special class of person who is incapable of living up to her agreements?

Mystifyingly stupid and obtuse interpretation of the day. Pregnancy is a medical condition that is _common_ among women. Its really that simple. Yes, it does affect what women can and cannot do during the term of their pregnancy. If the employer can't handle that, wish them luck stipulating that "women need not apply".

Wow, you really think very little of them don;t you?

Recognizing that women get pregnant and it can affect what job duties they are able to perform during the course of their pregnancy is an observation based on _reality_. If you want to say I "think very little of them", you're an idiot.

My ex- wife was fired while pregnant because she could not do her job.

Good for her. What's that got to do with the price of rice in China?

#31 | Posted by apparatchik at 2014-08-07 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I can think of a benefit. ...their existence pisses off lefties.

It should piss you off, too, ding bat. How many more reports have to come out on how Walmart is taking advantage of entitlement programs to under-pay their workers before you put 2 and 2 together and realize that Walmart is the fat welfare queen rolling around in a Cadillac?

#32 | Posted by apparatchik at 2014-08-07 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"Good for her. What's that got to do with the price of rice in China?"

Because unlike you i do not believe women are children that need to be cared for as they can not care for themselves. It's not a companies responsibility to facilitate any more then was agreed to.


"Yes, it does affect what women can and cannot do during the term of their pregnancy. If the employer can't handle that, wish them luck stipulating that "women need not apply"."

So again, in other words, you believe that women are not to be treated equal but as lesser who should become the wards of the company. Nice.

"If you want to say I "think very little of them", you're an idiot."

You are the one who says that they need to be taken care of and that they should not have to be held to their agreement. That's a very low view you have of them.


On the other hand i believe that they should be treated every bit as equal. They are not victims they are every bit as strong and men. I am sorry if you do not see them as such.

#33 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-07 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

App why don't you write a letter to Hillary Clinton? She sat on their board for years and is friends with the family that owns it.

#34 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since we are dealing with medical conditions... What if someone gets cancer and can no longer work? How long should companies pay that person? For life?

#35 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

What if someone gets cancer and can no longer work? How long should companies pay that person? For life?

#35 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Long Term Disability usually lasts until age 65 at which point they are expected to start Social Security payments/live off retirement savings. Its the insurance carrier who pays and its usually 60% of what they were making.

#36 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-07 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

What if someone gets cancer and can no longer work? How long should companies pay that person?

Glad you asked since I just did actually have and beat cancer and was unable to work for a year. I was paid my vacation/ sick days. When they ran out, I was no longer paid, but remained on the payroll for insurance which my employer did pay for. I was placed on a "sabbatical" in essence.

This is a small company with only 8 employees. If they can afford to help an employee dealing with circumstances beyond their control, then naturally so can a company the size of Wal-Mart.

Time to place people over profits. If you do, the profits will come as a result.

#37 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-07 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

App why don't you write a letter to Hillary Clinton? She sat on their board for years and is friends with the family that owns it.

#34 | Posted by Dalton

Why do you think this thread needs to be about Hillary Clinton?

#38 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-07 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

On the other hand i believe that they should be treated every bit as equal. They are not victims they are every bit as strong and men. I am sorry if you do not see them as such.

Its hard to treat women absolutely equally, as an employer, when its only _women_ who get pregnant, creating the circumstances necessitating a temporary change in working conditions and/or responsibilities. Your sad attempt at feigning gender egalitarianism by ignoring this reality in order to make a point is laughable.

#39 | Posted by apparatchik at 2014-08-07 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sala's "wife was canned cause she got pregnant".

So its okay for all women to get fired while pregnant.

Theres his story, he'll stick to it till the day he dies.

Sala loves his taxes paying for this woman's welfare since Walmart has chosen to terminate her due to her pregnancy.

Sala is a giver and he realizes our taxes are there so corporations don't have to be.

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-07 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

#37 | Posted by kanrei

You have a very kind employer. Empathy is probably the thing that's lacking most as the plutocracy takes over.

If I lived in your area and was aware of what they'd done, I'd attempt to reward your employer with my patronage. Walmarts greed and lack of empathy are primary reasons why I don't shop there.

#41 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-07 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

App why don't you write a letter to Hillary Clinton? She sat on their board for years and is friends with the family that owns it.
#34 | Posted by Dalton

Why do you think this thread needs to be about Hillary Clinton?
#38 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT AT 2014-08-07 12:56 PM

He's in Hillary mode.

All Hillary all the time.

Its driving a wedge between him and the wife.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-07 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Its hard to treat women absolutely equally, as an employer, when its only _women_ who get pregnant, creating the circumstances necessitating a temporary change in working conditions and/or responsibilities."

You seem to forget that those are enumerated at the time of hiring. So your contention is that a woman, only because she is a woman, should not have to adhere to the agreement. So to you a woman is incapable of making decisions and sticking to them or honoring an agreement. Sorry, i just have a higher opinion of them then you i guess.

" ignoring this reality in order to make a point is laughable."
I ignore nothing, you are the one who thinks that a woman's agreement should be ignored because she is a woman.

#43 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-07 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Long Term Disability usually lasts until age 65 at which point they are expected to start Social Security payments/live off retirement savings. Its the insurance carrier who pays and its usually 60% of what they were making.

#36 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-07 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

I understand that I was basing it on apparatchik claiming wal mart should continue to pay this woman b/c she was pregnant and it was a medical condition.

#44 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why do you think this thread needs to be about Hillary Clinton?

#38 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-07 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not all about Hillary. Just pointing out that she sat on the board at wal mart for years making tons of money and never once brought up a union for employees. Failed to push the company to raise wages etc...

#45 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I understand that I was basing it on apparatchik claiming wal mart should continue to pay this woman b/c she was pregnant and it was a medical condition.
#44 | POSTED BY DALTON AT 2014-08-07 01:07 PM

When your "point" gets thrown into the trash, no need to save face with "I was just trying to blah blah blah..."

We get it. You're a moron.

You equated this woman's pregnancy with cancer, which I agree with, but then when Sully answers your asinine question, you try to explain why you asked it?

You should of just stuck to "it's Hillary's fault".

#46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-07 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It's not all about Hillary. Just pointing out that she blah blah blah...

So, is this about Hillary or isn't it?

Because you start out with "It's not all about Hillary." But then you continue to try to make it about Hillary.

You always talk out of both sides of your head at the same time?

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-07 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Besides you guys go on and on about CEO's and board members and how they screw the poor and women etc... Can we not question what Hillary did as a board member of the company being discussed? That's she's friends with the family that owns the company?

#48 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#48

SO this Thread should be about Hillary.

Thanks for finally figuring it out.

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-07 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I understand that I was basing it on apparatchik claiming wal mart should continue to pay this woman b/c she was pregnant and it was a medical condition.

Funny thing is that I never claimed that. Temporary reassignment of work duties is a pretty normal thing in the case of medical conditions that preclude one's ability to carry out normal duties.

Do people get fired from their stocking jobs for breaking an arm?

They generally get assigned other duties on a temporary basis.

#50 | Posted by apparatchik at 2014-08-07 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I understand that I was basing it on apparatchik claiming wal mart should continue to pay this woman b/c she was pregnant and it was a medical condition.

#44 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Without knowing what this woman has tried, its hard to say anything for certain. But it sounds like maybe she hasn't tried all the legitimate remedies offered her. If her doctor told her that she can't safely do her job then she probably could have applied for STD or LTD.

I don't think that Walmart is obligated to pay her as if she's coming into work if she isn't working and not using the proper channels to seek a remedy to her situation. It also sounds like her boss had a conversation with her that he shouldn't have had and probably should have told her to utilize the appropriate benefits.

#51 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-07 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do people get fired from their stocking jobs for breaking an arm?"

Yes, if there is no other work that can be done and is available they can and are legally let go.
But this is of course not the case here and upon further looking into it it would appear that this girl is just playing the victim. She was fired because she went awol to many times. The pregnancy thing is a red herring.

#52 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-07 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jeff if she'd just kept that aspirin between her knees we wouldn't be discussing this.

#54 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Exactly.

If she had any gumption she would have had oral sex instead.

Or maybe a power tool.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-07 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

#53

I hope she has an abortion and nails the fetus to the front entrance of the Walmart.

#56 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-07 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#56

I second that.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-07 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#55

Sodomy is her best friend.

And will be for the next 9 months.

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-07 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well that escalated quickly.

#59 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-07 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

And as Sala points out.

She sucked at her job anyway.

she should just go belly flop in a pool a few dozen times.

#60 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-07 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

In a pool? Just do it on the driveway.

#61 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-07 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Being a mother and working a job are mutually exclusive. Saying otherwise won't make it so; the results are not in question - children raised without adequate parenting are usually problem children, then problem adults. Strangers don't have the vested biological interest required to instill a sense of belonging and social responsibility, to develop the empathy necessary to support what, until recently, were accepted societal standards. Most accept the degradations- the curfew, the school uniform, the constant arguing and disobedience - without accepting the responsibility or attempting to correct the problem, because the parents now, too, were raised to think their personal comfort more important than the truth and beauty of a properly functioning family.

#63 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-08-07 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Being a mother and working a job are mutually exclusive. "

Not in today's world. Single income homes are becoming a thing of the past and manufacturing in the US is going the way of the dodo. Even beyond that two parent homes are becoming rarer and rarer. Necessity is forcing many to work and use childcare. Yes it is at a detriment to the children, yes it would be better if there was a full time parent(mother or father) but many are forced into making due with what they have and most are doing the best they can and doing a pretty decent job.

#64 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-07 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you know what they're offering or did they just tell you that they offer "high wages"?

As I said, all of my clients have this problem. Some of them offer crappy wages, physically hard work, no benefits....so it's no surprise they struggle with finding help. there are plenty of those.....

But I do have many clients who offer good wages with benefits and they still can't attract anything except losers not worth hiring.

I'm talking about $16 an hour with health insurance, vacation, etc..and it doesn't take a lot of skill to qualify for one of these jobs. They'll train.

I also have some large farms in SW Kansas that pay $55-60K a year to drive a truck (no overnight...all local hauling) with benefits, retirement, etc....but they can't get help but it's fair to point out that SW Kansas isn't exactly the mecca of a labor pool (except Hispanic workers....which they love out there).

Employers love Hispanic workers mostly because of their work ethic. Wages are further down the line as to why. Hispanics can be trusted and relied upon more than their white counterparts. Period.

#65 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-07 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would guess $7.26 per hour.

#17 | Posted by 726

As I said...I'm not talking about those employers.

And I know their wages. I write their work comp so I see the work comp audits that reveal everyone's wage.

#66 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-07 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"American workers are more productive than ever before,"

because of technology...not because they work harder.

We invented dishwashers, CNC lathes, bigger welders, and other technologies to allow for more productivity.

I agree the wages have stagnated and it's not fair but productivity required investment into expensive technology, training, etc....

#67 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-07 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

She sucked at her job anyway.

In that case, fire away.

#68 | Posted by apparatchik at 2014-08-07 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hope she has an abortion and nails the fetus to the front entrance of the Walmart.

#56 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-07 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ah, the class of the left.

If she couldn't do the job she was hired to do, why should her employer make any reasonable accommodations to place her somewhere else? When a running back in the nfl has a career ending injury, does the team always find a job for him on the team doing something else?

If she was worth a darn as an employee, I am sure Walmart would have found a position for her - companies tend to keep good employees around even during hard times.

I suggest she reapply for a new position that doesn't require her to be around the chemicals - and to pay close attention to the job description she is applying for. I mean, isn't there ANY personal responsibility left? Is it always the employer's fault when an employee's work status changes caused by out of work experience? If she thought she was going to get pregnant, in month one she should have informed her employer she couldn't be around those chemicals and asked for a transfer. jeesh.

#69 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum at 2014-08-07 05:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Epu, clown was kidding

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-07 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I think my only somewhat serious post on this whole thread was #40.

Without maternity leave she will become a tax burden.

maybe she should get an abortion after all...

Besides, everyone's done a great job at pointing out how much she sucks at life.

I fear for that child's future.

Or maybe Obamacare will provide her with something to help her?

maybe advice on where to go to get an abortion?

Abortions for all!

#71 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-07 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's the deal:

1.All the info from this woman is hearsay.
2.If she had a problem, she could have gone to her physician and have him/her write something that would have restricted her from performing work that allegedly was a threat to her or her pregnancy. I see nothing in the article where she performed this simple act.
3.Without a letter or note from a physician outlining her problem and restrictions; if Walmart had placed her in the job she pined for, it would be an act of discrimination if they didn't do it for all subsequent pregnant employees.
4.She was not hired to be a cashier and possibly did not meet the job requirements.

Having dealt with issues like this one in the past, I have a feeling the young woman was probably attempting to game the system based on what I read in the article. She in all probability saw a chance to move into a job that she preferred. I also don't know what type of Walmart work would expose her to chemical fumes unless they had her spraying for weeds in the back 40.

#72 | Posted by matsop at 2014-08-07 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

They don't mention what state this was in(at least I didn't notice).In Arizona ,a "right to work state" employment is an agreement between employer and employee is that can be terminated by either party without cause.Tough luck here.

#73 | Posted by bruceaz at 2014-08-07 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

it would be an act of discrimination if they didn't do it for all subsequent pregnant employees.

I don't see why they can't accommodate all pregnant women. Especially since it is the Law.

What the heck happened to you people that you became so callous.

No wonder we have to pass laws to tell you how to act.

In May 2013, Governor Martin O'Malley signed into law the "Reasonable Accommodations for Pregnant Workers Act," which requires Maryland employers to provide reasonable accommodations to women suffering from pregnancy-related disabilities. See Md. Code Ann. State Gov't §§20-601, et seq. The Act applies to all employers with at least fifteen employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks. It also defines disabilities caused or contributed to by pregnancy or childbirth as "temporary disabilities."

Under the Act, employers must provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related disabilities, unless the employer would incur an undue hardship by doing so. An employer must explore all possible means of providing the reasonable accommodation, including:

Changing an employee's job duties or work hours;
Relocating an employee's work area;
Providing mechanical or electrical aids; or
Providing necessary leave.

www.bowie-jensen.com

If your state does not have a law like this law it obviously needs one for creeps like you so you will know how to properly treat pregnant women.

#74 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-07 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Real classy walmart.

#2 | Posted by Tor

Classy and Walmart never ever went together in same sentence in the first place...

#75 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-08-07 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"it would be an act of discrimination if they didn't do it for all subsequent pregnant employees. "

should have been in quotes....

#76 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-07 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

They don't mention what state this was in(at least I didn't notice).

I believe it was in Maryland and there is a law against this type of treatment of pregnant women. (as noted in #74)

"She started working at a store in Laurel, Maryland in June of 2013 and got pregnant around September."

thinkprogress.org

#77 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-07 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree the wages have stagnated and it's not fair but productivity required investment into expensive technology, training, etc....

These days many employers are dumping the training cost on to the employee. They take the hit on the technology but expect the employee to come in knowing how to work it. So the employees of today need to spend more of their own time and money to learn the skills required only to get paid like they were still digging with a shovel not a backhoe.

#78 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-08-07 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

2.If she had a problem, she could have gone to her physician and have him/her write something that would have restricted her from performing work that allegedly was a threat to her or her pregnancy. I see nothing in the article where she performed this simple act.
3.Without a letter or note from a physician outlining her problem and restrictions; if Walmart had placed her in the job she pined for, it would be an act of discrimination if they didn't do it for all subsequent pregnant employees.

Agreed I don't see where she ever provided a doctors note to her manager. Without that there is not much he can do.

#79 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-08-07 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tao...just because you didn't see where she provided a note doesn't mean she didn't.

"When she first started to feel sick, she went to her manager and asked for an accommodation -- to work as a cashier temporarily while she was pregnant and then go back to her maintenance job afterward."

So she went to her manager. Which was the right thing to do. If her manager suspected she was lying about her condition he could have easily asked for a doctors note. It was his responsibility at that point to follow the law.

#80 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-07 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Most Europeans would read this story and conclude that yes, Americans are stupid. The very minimal accomodations we allow pregnant women in this country would be considered ridiculous in civilized nations.

#81 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-07 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Donner her manager should have requested it but the article doesn't say if he did and she failed to provide it, or if he just said no he wouldn't accommodate.

I love to hate on walmart as much as the next guy but without knowing more I just can't do it here. It is entirely possible that the manager is at fault and he certainly has some blame but if she didn't follow through on an easy request then she is at blame as well.

#82 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-08-07 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#81 | Posted by danni

It has become increasingly clear that the United States is no longer a civilized nation. I can remember when we used to be. It's sad.

#83 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-08-07 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It has become increasingly clear that the United States is no longer a civilized nation. I can remember when we used to be. It's sad.

Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-08-07 11:19 PM | Reply

Total and completely tragic.

#84 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-07 11:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Shouldn't the headline read "Wal-Mart fires worker for excessive absences without filling out FMLA forms"?

#85 | Posted by soheifox at 2014-08-08 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

When I go to Walmart, I do note that employees are always walking around, no one is doing any real work, just busy work. And they are always walking away from you, never toward you to answer a question.

#6 | Posted by boaz

WHen you pay substandard wages, you get substandard performance.

Costo destroys wal mart in pay and customer service.

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-08 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

When I go to Walmart, I say to myself "WTF am I doing in a Walmart?"

#87 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-08 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Costo destroys wal mart in pay and customer service.

#86 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

True. But they are not direct competitors. If I'm packing a small cooler for a tailgate and I want to purchase a small 8-oz bottle of ketchup I can do that at Walmart. At Costco I have to purchase 3 large-bottles of ketchup.

My point being, a more accurate comparison would be between pay/wages vs service at Costco vs. Sam's Club.

For the record: I am a big fan of Costco.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-08 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

"WHen you pay substandard wages, you get substandard performance."

do you mean that if we paid the same people more, they'd perform better? Read my question....the same people.

"Costo destroys wal mart in pay and customer service."

exactly. But......Costco isn't hiring the same folks. Because they pay better, they can screen for better help.

I love Costco's business model much much better. I wish we had one around here. But Walmart hires folks that probably have nowhere else to work

#89 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-08 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

When I go to Walmart, I say to myself "WTF am I doing in a Walmart?"

exactly. I HATE that place.

#90 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-08 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Walmart ever only served one purpose and it was a pathetic nerdy one from my college days: they were open 24 hours so I could buy new DVDs at midnight instead of having to wait until the following day. That was it.

#91 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-08 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Miami is a Target town. Gainesville was a Walmart town, but the Walmarts in Gainesville were quite nice. K-Marts suck everywhere.

#92 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-08 11:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Costo destroys wal mart in pay and customer service.

And didn't require government intervention. I guess the free market does work. /sarcasm off

#93 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-08-08 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Shouldn't the headline read "Wal-Mart fires worker for excessive absences without filling out FMLA forms"?"

Well yes but then there is no victim. If there is no victim it is harder to hate. If it's too hard to hate than half the people on here would have nothing to say.

#94 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-08-08 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

do you mean that if we paid the same people more, they'd perform better?

Sometimes Eb. I have had crappy jobs where I felt underpaid where I did the bare minimum. I could have worked harder or better but I didn't care about the job enough to bother. I imagine if I was working for crap wages at walmart I wouldn't give my best either. So yes even with the same people higher wages can mean better workers. Also if you feel lucky to make as much as you do chances are you will work your butt off to avoid losing the best job you can get.

However higher wages also allows them to hire better people so it becomes a double whammy they get better people and the people will work harder.

#95 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-08-08 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

But Walmart hires folks that probably have nowhere else to work

#89 | POSTED BY EBERLY

AND...They probably have no other place to work BECAUSE of Walmart.

Because Walmart destroys local business when you let them into your community.

Costco, on the other hand, pays its employees a living wage (salary and benefits) AND encourages MORE local entrepeneurs. Which in turn brings them more business. Making an area thrive instead of sucking the life out of a community.

#96 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-08 02:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort