12 total posts
Now they've gone the opposite direction
Now, if you don't take your lunch within certain time parameters or work too many hours without taking two lunches, you can get fired. Two people were fired recently at Sam's Club for this.
Of course, too many call-ins can cause termination as well even if you have doctor's notes. We've had this as well.
Both can be re-hired after 90 days.
hired back as unemployment benefits expire?
Why would a company be that generous?
Unemployment benefits run out?
Come back to work for us.
Did you enjoy your paid(unemployment benefits) vacation?
Who do you think they are? Santa Claus?
Betting because after 90 days
they're new hires, not returnees, under Wall Mart benefit rules.
Which means whatever benefits they had gain for time served, they have to start over accumulating service time. Not only vacation time (whatever may exist) but health benefits too possibly. Not only would they have to carry any insurance as cobra for the 90 days they were out, but if classified as new hires, they still would have to carry it as cobra for another 90 days before the company would pick it up again. And that also might open another can of worms, existing conditions not be covered for a year or more.
That's if Walmart has those type of things.
And probably start at beginnning pay again instead of the pay they left at, if higher.
It's not really the case
If you have worked for Wal-Mart in the past, you get re-hired with your seniority and benefits. I have a friend that is working for Wal-Mart and had worked for them in the past. Her starting salary was what it would have been based on the number of years that she worked before.
Playing devil's advocate, sorry
should have been clear that those things might be factors.
Actually I glad to hear past time does count for something if you're rehired.
But as far as being fired for not taking your lunch breaks, etc., I don't know about in retail, but in industry, usually your lunch break is sometimes set by time or by when someone relieves you. Of course, even in industry some jobs breaks and lunch are whenever the work allows you to grab a few minutes.
Either way, firing someone for missing a break sound like a draconic overreaction to legal complaints about people being pressured to skip breaks.
Breaks aren't that big a deal.
You don't clock out for breaks. You do clock out for lunches. I'm sure that Wal-Mart is rather paranoid about the whole problem. It was usually GMs that required workers to work off the clock but headquarters is paying the price. I have no sympathy for the corporation. It is their push for profits that can cause the problem.
These two employees were warned about lunches and they were able to take their lunches whenever they wanted. They didn't have to be relieved. So they were just not paying attention. I know it seems silly to be fired to be so focused on the job that lunch is forgotten.
Being on the door, I have to be relieved (I can't just walk away) so it's my bosses that get into trouble when I get a late lunch or work overtime. I call when it's time for my lunch or when I have to leave to avoid overtime. The GM knows this because I've told him.
While the person was 'fired"
were they eligible for Unemployment Benefits?
My guess as to the distribution of the $640 million:
Employees, $40 million; lawyers, $600 million.
And so it goes in Legal Lotto, where the house does better than any Vegas casino...