Apple Cheats Tech Workers On Overtime Pay, Lawsuit Claims

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Apple Cheats Tech Workers On Overtime Pay, Lawsuit Claims (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080806140757)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[swingerofbirch]

Starbucks got nailed under the same law. Apple is not on my good list at the moment.

[clevin]

I don't think even M$ did so. Did it?

There is nothing good to learn from walmart, apple, other than low price... :D

[bigjnyc]

you would think with all the money apple is making and all the surplus cash they are accumulating, they wouldn't engage in these practices. Greed is a horrible thing and it doesnt skip over anybody. I'm sure upper management is devicing all kinds of cost-saving schemes to fatten up their year end bonuses.

[clevin]

you would think with all the money apple is making and all the surplus cash they are accumulating, they wouldn't engage in these practices. Greed is a horrible thing and it doesnt skip over anybody. I'm sure upper management is devicing all kinds of cost-saving schemes to fatten up their year end bonuses.
Apple was sued previously by some inde artists for using their stuff on TV ads w/o pay. I think.

[gauchogolfer]

I read through the article briefly and it looks like all the affected employees were exempt and salaried, not hourly. Doesn't that kind of negate their claim?

Also, the guy profiled in the article worked there under these horrible conditions for 13 years? Was it really that bad?

[BlackMax]

I don't know about everyone else, but I can't count the amount of overtime and on-call hours I've worked with no compensation. It has simply become part of the IT profession.

Perhaps I've just gotten used to it, but I worry if you go mucking with the system by bringing a lawsuit some executive might just decide to send your job overseas where he/she can hire four workers for the price of one without having to pay benefits. Never mind they usually only get 1/4 the productivity from each worker, but the initial cost savings looks really good on a balance sheet and overseas outsourced workers never sue.

Look what happen in the IBM case a few years back. IBM was nailed for not compensating their tech workers for overtime, but in the end all the employees involved got rewarded by IBM lowering their salary ~15% to make up for the overtime they would now have to pay them.

One thing that confuses me with this case is that the plaintiff in this suit, David Walsh, worked as a network engineer at Apple from 1995 until last year. If he was so upset with Apple over having to work overtime and be on-call without compensation, why did he continue to work for Apple for 13 years?

If Apple loses this suit it will just hurt all the folks currently working for Apple. At the end of the day the corporation is going to do their best to keep their profit margin in place.

[clevin]

If Apple loses this suit it will just hurt all the folks currently working for Apple. At the end of the day the corporation is going to do their best to keep their profit margin in place.
isn't it sad.....

[whooleytoo]

If Apple loses this suit it will just hurt all the folks currently working for Apple. At the end of the day the corporation is going to do their best to keep their profit margin in place.

Just how much money is Apple sitting on again? It's not as if they're struggling to survive.

Apple is thriving on the work of their employees, those employees should receive (at least) their legal entitlement.

[nagromme]

Go get 'em! And whoever implemented or willfully allowed such practices should be reprimanded or removed.

(Re the indie group and the TV ad: I think you may be remembering the first Intel-in-a-Mac ad. It wasn't Apple's fault: the group that created Apple's video also had created a music video for a band--and unbeknownst to Apple, they re-hashed a lot of the earlier concept. They didn't actually use the video itself again though, and it was between the creator of the video and the band. I don't think Apple was ever sued. Now, I do recall some MAJOR artist backing out of an iPod ad in years past, and suing when it ran anyway. I don't recall who.)

[Rodimus Prime]

I read through the article briefly and it looks like all the affected employees were exempt and salaried, not hourly. Doesn't that kind of negate their claim?

Also, the guy profiled in the article worked there under these horrible conditions for 13 years? Was it really that bad?

I doute they where supposed to be salaried exempt. I willing to be they where salary non exempt. (translations they do get salary pay but they also get over time pay)

There are quite a few requirements to get the exempt status.

[mklos]

Where I used to work I had to work overtime all the time and never got compensated for it. At my current position I'll be working lots of overtime to get things around before the start of the next school year. Will be some really late nights too (10PM) and I won't be getting compensated.

[alphaod]

Now I know why Lenovo/IBM was so relunctant to send someone to my home for on-site repairs.

[rbc2008]

Some interesting reviews from apple employees are available at glassdoor.com website.

[RinCa]

Just how much money is Apple sitting on again? It's not as if they're struggling to survive.

Apple is thriving on the work of their employees, those employees should receive (at least) their legal entitlement.

They had $5.5 billion in September 2004 (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q404fin_statements.pdf).
Today (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q308fin_statements.pdf) they have $20.7 BILLION. A 376% increase (20.7/5.5=3.76) Has your bank account increased the same rate?

Apple also needs to be investigated for improperly classifying employees as independent contractors. These employees are kept on the job for years at a time and are not converted to regular employees. No health benefits, no bonus's & no recognition even though they do the EXACT same work as regular employees. They have contributed to Apple's record breaking profits but do not get squat in return.
Regular employees aren't treated any better either.
While Apple's net profit in Q4 2004 was $276 mil., today, Q3 2008, it's $3698 mil. That comes out to 1339% increase(3698/276=13.39). And there's still 1 more Q to go. Employee wages have not kept up anywhere near the same pace. While directors and up get thousands and thousands in bonus's and options, we got 2% raise last year and 0 the year before.

[Stella]

Where I used to work I had to work overtime all the time and never got compensated for it. At my current position I'll be working lots of overtime to get things around before the start of the next school year. Will be some really late nights too (10PM) and I won't be getting compensated.

Sounds like a great company you work for...

:-\

--

People wonder why Unions are still around? Apple, in this instance, are a perfect example. If companies didn't screw their employees over, there would be no need.

[mcmarks]

To some extent employee compensation is based on their job performance. But, in the much bigger picture, compensation (wages, benefits, etc.) packages are based on retaining employees that would otherwise cost more to replace. In other words, the compensation package is set by the marketplace as well as the individual's job performance. How much will the next employer pay my guy and how much do I want to keep him for myself? This system actually works pretty good. Until, that is, the government and the unions get involved. If Apple's compensation is so out of line, then why does anyone work there? If the industry's compensation is so out of line, why is there anyone still in industry? The answer is that enough of them are being compensated well enough to keep them from moving on to somewhere or something else. At the end of the day when the government or union gets involved, all I end up with is a situation where I can't reward/punish good/bad performance. Oh, and by the way, I am a military officer managing civil service employees, so don't whine to me about uncompensated overtime.

[Stella]

That should be the ideal situation, but that doesn't work in reality.

Employment laws came about people employers were exploiting their workers, with no protection.

There are plenty of companies who treat their employees badly with high turnovers... do they care? No - employees are just expendable resources that can be replaced.


In other words, the compensation package is set by the marketplace as well as the individual's job performance. How much will the next employer pay my guy and how much do I want to keep him for myself? This system actually works pretty good. Until, that is, the government and the unions get involved.

[cwt1nospam]

If Apple loses this suit it will just hurt all the folks currently working for Apple. At the end of the day the corporation is going to do their best to keep their profit margin in place.
Such wonderfully twisted logic! If we force the company to pay a fair wage to its employees, that will be bad for the employees? Maybe we should force the employees to work for free. That would be great for them, wouldn't it?

[cwt1nospam]

This system actually works pretty good.
It sounds like you don't see much of the picture at all. A free market works when all individuals are independent and unable to collude. A corporation is an organization of people put together for the express purpose of collusion. When applied to production, this works well. The problem is that it doesn't work well when applied to the "markeplace," which is actually comprised of many markets. Large companies collude to keep an unfair advantage over workers in many ways: playing a cheap labor market (due to poor environmental/child labor laws) against a more qualified labor pool in a different market, scrupulously avoiding the publication of pay rates when advertising jobs, requiring salary history from prospective employees, etc. Overtime is just the tip of the iceberg.

[supmango]

I don't know about everyone else, but I can't count the amount of overtime and on-call hours I've worked with no compensation. It has simply become part of the IT profession.

Perhaps I've just gotten used to it, but I worry if you go mucking with the system by bringing a lawsuit some executive might just decide to send your job overseas where he/she can hire four workers for the price of one without having to pay benefits. Never mind they usually only get 1/4 the productivity from each worker, but the initial cost savings looks really good on a balance sheet and overseas outsourced workers never sue.

Look what happen in the IBM case a few years back. IBM was nailed for not compensating their tech workers for overtime, but in the end all the employees involved got rewarded by IBM lowering their salary ~15% to make up for the overtime they would now have to pay them.

One thing that confuses me with this case is that the plaintiff in this suit, David Walsh, worked as a network engineer at Apple from 1995 until last year. If he was so upset with Apple over having to work overtime and be on-call without compensation, why did he continue to work for Apple for 13 years?

If Apple loses this suit it will just hurt all the folks currently working for Apple. At the end of the day the corporation is going to do their best to keep their profit margin in place.

I agree. This is probably a loyal employee who got canned for some reason, and now he is out to get even for what he now feels was unjustified loyalty. Nothing new here, no matter what the people with Apple's IT department can almost count on a salary reduction of some sort. It will be the same when minimum wage increases next year, many salaried people will be reduced in their salary, and many minimum wage people will be fired. Businesses will adjust around the cost to make the same bottom line.

[supmango]

It sounds like you don't see much of the picture at all. A free market works when all individuals are independent and unable to collude. A corporation is an organization of people put together for the express purpose of collusion. When applied to production, this works well. The problem is that it doesn't work well when applied to the "markeplace," which is actually comprised of many markets. Large companies collude to keep an unfair advantage over workers in many ways: playing a cheap labor market (due to poor environmental/child labor laws) against a more qualified labor pool in a different market, scrupulously avoiding the publication of pay rates when advertising jobs, requiring salary history from prospective employees, etc. Overtime is just the tip of the iceberg.

I am not exactly sure what your point is here. Collusion has a negative connotation, and while I agree that corporations tend to be corrupt and sometimes end up doing more damage than good, I really don't believe that is the purpose of their formation. The original quote (that you took out of context) intends to point out that the workforce is generally a self-sustaining "market" in and of itself. Kind of like a democracy, people vote (work) for whoever they like. There are no "schemes" explicitly designed to force employees to stay in their current position with anyone. If the conditions are bad enough, people will not work there. Bottom line, if you are in a position that you hate or that is not compensating you adequately, it is your own fault. Probably the biggest weakness our country (the US, for those of you overseas) is facing right now is the attitude that no one ever wants to take responsibility for their own actions. There are many reasons for this but ultimately, someone has to take responsibility whether we like it or not (maybe it should always be the governments fault). :D

[supmango]

If Apple loses this suit it will just hurt all the folks currently working for Apple. At the end of the day the corporation is going to do their best to keep their profit margin in place.

Such wonderfully twisted logic! If we force the company to pay a fair wage to its employees, that will be bad for the employees? Maybe we should force the employees to work for free. That would be great for them, wouldn't it?

Again, think about it. Regardless of whether we like it or not, a business will adjust around the cost. No amount of legislation will ever change that fact. This is not about the employees, it is about control. The company pays its employess a salary that it has set and then offered to the employee. It is not the other way around. The workforce does not have control, nor will it ever have control in the current economic system. The best we can achieve is the illusion of control. Unions are one example of this. They look great on paper, but generally speaking, they only end up costing the workforce more in the end. The logic is not twisted, it is fact.

[BlackMax]

Such wonderfully twisted logic! If we force the company to pay a fair wage to its employees, that will be bad for the employees? Maybe we should force the employees to work for free. That would be great for them, wouldn't it?

Just stating a fact of what has happened in the past with other companies in this same situation.

Since you brought it up, what is a fair wage? For each person this will be a different amount and should be based on their abilities, performance and seniority with a company.

Last time I checked this was still a free country and you're are not forced to work anywhere. If you're not happy where you work, go get another job. Apple is a company that attracts and retains high performing employees. I'm willing to bet that Apple's high performing employees are compensated accordingly and are willing to work overtime and on-call hours uncompensated. If they weren't willing, they wouldn't be there.

As someone who has worked many hours of overtime and on-call uncompensated, why do I stay at my job? Because I love what I do and I am otherwise well enough compensated that I don't mind. If this weren't the case I would be somewhere else and in the tech industry there are plenty of jobs to be had out there. So whereas I understand wanting to be compensated for overtime and on-call hours, I don't have a lot of sympathy for one person who stays in a job for 13 years and then decides to file suit after moving on to a new job.

Also keep in mind that not everyone works at the same speed. Some employees can get eight hours of work done in six whereas other employees take 10 or 12 hours to get the same amount accomplished. I see this happen all the time. Should the slower employees get rewarded for taking longer? If the government comes in and forces you to pay for any overtime worked, then where is the incentive to work harder and faster? You'll actually get rewarded for working slower and the morale of your high performing employees just went into the toilet. Productivity goes down and costs go up because your taking longer and paying more to accomplish and produce the same amount.

The concept of overtime pay works really well when you are on an assembly line producing widgets (everyone is working at the same pace and performance level within a specific job category), but it doesn’t always lend itself very well to the tech industry where the pace and performance level from employee to employee is varied.

I'm definitely of the belief that as long as there is no discrimination, all employees are being treated equally (but compensated according to their ability and performance) and nobody is chained in the basement as a slave, it is better that the government stay out of the way and not play big brother. We all know how efficient and how well the government works.

So I stand by my original belief, that if Mr. Walsh wins this suit it will more than likely just hurt the folks currently working at Apple. But then... Apple's current employees don't have to work for Apple either.

Sorry for the long post...

[CalBoy]

I read through the article briefly and it looks like all the affected employees were exempt and salaried, not hourly. Doesn't that kind of negate their claim?

I think another poster mentioned this, but being a salaried employee does not guarantee exempt status. There are other legal burdens on the employer before they can claim someone as exempt.

Also, the guy profiled in the article worked there under these horrible conditions for 13 years? Was it really that bad?

Sometimes the cycle's monstrosity doesn't hit you until you've managed to escape. Think about those who worked in coal mines before safety regulations. Surely they had it bad as well. My thought is he didn't realize his rights until it was too late, and then his only recourse was to find a lawyer.

My thoughts on this are that Apple should be ashamed. It has more than enough money and revenue to treat employees well (or at least not this badly). Apple deserves to have a large judgement levied against it, and I'm sure that will happen via settlement, but we'll never know the real number.

[mklos]

Sounds like a great company you work for...

:-\

--

People wonder why Unions are still around? Apple, in this instance, are a perfect example. If companies didn't screw their employees over, there would be no need.

My point is, this is pretty common in the IT industry. Its a perk of a job I guess. And, I do work for a great company. They gave me my own cell phone to use, my own notebook, any Microsoft software that I need, I can get (they have a multi-user license agreement w/MS), milage for going places, decent salary, full state pension, full benefits, etc.

If you don't like it, there are other places to work.

[CalBoy]

If you don't like it, there are other places to work.

Perhaps for you, but you don't know the personal circumstances of the individual in this case, and you shouldn't have to to know that Apple's practices (and every other company that follows said practices) are wrong.

[PowerFullMac]

As I said on the thread I created before I knew this one existed...

Apple have pulled a Wal-Mart!!!! :eek:

I always thought Apple was a good company (although they do over-charge for their products), I never thought they would do something like this!

I am never working for Apple then... Oh well, I will work for Microsoft instead!

As I have a ton of Apple products I might as well head of to Asda (Wal-Mart) now, see ya! :(

[ohforfckssake!]

What's wrong with Wal-Mart? It seems like demonizing them is hugely fashionable nowadays.

[PowerFullMac]

What's wrong with Wal-Mart? It seems like demonizing them is hugely fashionable nowadays.

This. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YcANjYPYv4M)

[Sun Baked]

Walsh v. Apple, Inc.pdf (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3:2008cv01410/276150/1/0.pdf) 40 pages

Network Engineer suing under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Seems they even got screwed out of meal and rest breaks.

[ohforfckssake!]

So? Nobody's forcing you to buy from or work for Asda/Walmart. They're hugely successful at what they do because they're economically viable, pursuing a business model that works for them -- and apparently -- consumers.

[PowerFullMac]

So? Nobody's forcing you to buy from or work for Asda/Walmart. They're hugely successful at what they do because they're economically viable, pursuing a business model that works for them -- and apparently -- consumers.

When a Wal-Mart opens all other businesses around the area are closed so the only place they can really work is Wal-Mart, which treats them like crap.

[ohforfckssake!]

All? Unlikely. Walmart is not the only employer in town. You can always choose to work in another industry even if Walmart happens to have a local monopoly in retailing. Or you can choose to move, or even start your own business not competing with Walmart. Yet people choose to work for Walmart anyway, which suggests that working for Walmart is not all that grim, or that Walmart is to be preferred even to the alternatives (which would be all there is if Walmart weren't there to begin with).

I don't see the problem here.

[PowerFullMac]

All? Unlikely. Walmart is not the only employer in town. You can always choose to work in another industry even if Walmart happens to have a local monopoly in retailing. Or you can choose to move, or even start your own business not competing with Walmart. Yet people choose to work for Walmart anyway, which suggests that working for Walmart is not all that grim, or that Walmart is to be preferred even to the alternatives (which would be all there is if Walmart weren't there to begin with).

I don't see the problem here.

Watch this documentary. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3836296181471292925&ei=C2KhSPe1GYeUjQLMzN3ZBA&q=walmart+high+cost+of+low+prices)

As you will se at the beginning, someone had a business that had been running for over 40 years and when Wal-Mart came they got closed down.

So say I start a business and Wal-Mart comes along to wherever it is I am, I would then get closed down because Wal-Mart does everything cheaper.

Also, as you see in that film, Wal-Mart will then just move on.

You should also see what the store mangers have to say in that documentary, it proves the point about them being evil to employees.

[ohforfckssake!]

That documentary doesn't prove anything. You've been running a business for 40 years -- so what? Does it mean you have a right not to compete with Wal-mart? Wal-mart didn't close them down. They closed themselves down because they found themselves uncompetitive, and unable to attract customers.

Whose fault is that?

You can always start another business that doesn't compete with Wal-mart -- say, something else other than retailing. No one's forcing you to stay in one industry either.

It's easy to blame "evil corporations" for their business model, but there is often little to no substance to these complaints. No one is being forced to buy from or work for Wal-mart. If they were that bad, people wouldn't be working for them, buying from them, and keeping them in business on their own free will.

Read this (http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf), this (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rogoff15), or this (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/04/why-economists-love-wal-mart.html) from proper economists instead of watching misleading, emotionally-manipulative videos on the subject. A taste:

'Altogether, Wal-Mart's prices, according to a study by M.I.T. economist Jerry Hausman and USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag, are saving U.S. consumers more than $50 billion a year, money that's spent elsewhere, boosting volume at other businesses and creating new enterprises, including mom-'n-pops.

'The net impact? The director of economic policy for the 2004 Kerry-Edwards campaign, New York University economist Jason Furman, contends that Wal-Mart is "a progressive success story." With Wal-Mart's prices ranging from 8 percent to 40 percent lower than people would pay elsewhere, states Furman, the increase in buying power that Wal-Mart delivers, disproportionately to lower-income families, more than offsets any impact that the company has allegedly produced in the earnings of retail workers.'

[PowerFullMac]

People continue to buy from Wal-Mart because, as someone said in that documentary, most people dont care about the treatment of the stores employees and its effect on a community.

I think you are missing the point, Wal-Mart is able to compete and offer low prices because of the unethical and unfair practices they use.

[ohforfckssake!]

If they were so unethical and unfair, people wouldn't work for them, they would choose to work elsewhere, thereby shortening the supply of labour, which in turn pushes up the price of labour, meaning pay would go up in order to attract workers, which would compensate for whatever 'unfairness' you think Wal-mart practises in its business model. Since people choose to work for Wal-mart anyway, it just means that Wal-mart's alleged lack of ethics doesn't bother them either -- the compensation more than makes up for it, according to their own rational calculations.

Attacks on Wal-mart tend to miss the point more often than not. They usually boil down to something along the lines of "I don't like huge corporations."

[PowerFullMac]

If they were so unethical and unfair, people wouldn't work for them, they would choose to work elsewhere, thereby shortening the supply of labour, which in turn pushes up the price of labour, meaning pay would go up in order to attract workers, which would compensate for whatever 'unfairness' you think Wal-mart practises in its business model. Since people choose to work for Wal-mart anyway, it just means that Wal-mart's alleged lack of ethics doesn't bother them either -- the compensation more than makes up for it, according to their own rational calculations.

Attacks on Wal-mart tend to miss the point more often than not. They usually boil down to something along the lines of "I don't like huge corporations."

I have said this already, people work there coz if all other shops around the area are out of business and people have no qualifications for much else, and they need to support their families, they need to work at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart also purposely understaff their stores and get people who work their to do extra hours... And not pay them for it!

It not about hating all big corporations, its about the corporations keeping to the law and being ethical.

[ohforfckssake!]

I have said this already, people work there coz if all other shops around the area are out of business and people have no qualifications for much else, and they need to support their families, they need to work at Wal-Mart.

And you have been refuted already: there are industries other than retailing where the lowly-qualified can work. Wal-mart is not the only game in town, however much you insist it is. Even in a hyperlocal economy, Wal-mart doesn't encompass every possible industry.

Wal-Mart also purposely understaff their stores and get people who work their to do extra hours... And not pay them for it!

It not about hating all big corporations, its about the corporations keeping to the law and being ethical.

Understaffing is against the law? And you don't actually know if their stores are understaffed. Usually, it's the business itself that knows how much staff it needs. Who are you to tell them what personnel levels they need to maintain? They know their business. You don't.

If employees are not being paid overtime, then Wal-mart would have been violating the law or the terms of their employment agreements with employees. That would be something to shout about. And even then, employees can always choose to leave and work elsewhere. (Please don't make the improbable claim that Wal-mart is the sole employer in every industry in town.) So, short of doing something against the law, Wal-mart is pretty much par for the course. Most, if not all, of your criticisms are unwarranted.

[PowerFullMac]

Understaffing is against the law? And you don't actually know if their stores are understaffed. Usually, it's the business itself that knows how much staff it needs. Who are you to tell them what personnel levels they need to maintain? They know their business. You don't.


I never said understaffing was against the law.

They had to get current employees to to extra hours because there was no one else to do it, and if you watch the documentary you will se store managers saying they where told to understaff stores. Then to make it worse, they didnt pay the employees for their extra hours which they where tricked into doing (because they where told the store couldnt get the staff it needed when they had a pile of applications).

If employees are not being paid overtime

Which they arnt

then Wal-mart would have been violating the law or the terms of their employment agreements with employees. That would be something to shout about.

Which they are, and it is.

EDIT: Also, look at this study:

"A recent study by researchers at UC Berkeley's Labor Center has quantified what happened to retail wages when Wal-Mart set up shop, drawing on 15 years of data on actual store openings. The study found that Wal-Mart drives down wages in urban areas, with an annual loss of at least $3 billion dollars in earnings for retail workers."

UPDATE: Since the completion of our film, the study has been finalized and published, and the published findings produced a different number for the annual loss in retail earnings than the preliminary figure we used in the film. The published study ultimately found that Wal-Mart actually reduced the take-home pay of retail workers by $4.7 BILLION dollars annually. Unfortunately for the retail workers this statistic concerns, Wal-Mart's effect on retail wages turns out to be worse than we had anticipated.

Source: Arindrajit Dube, "Impact of Wal-Mart Growth on Earnings throughout the Retail Sector in Urban and Rural Counties" [PDF File], UC Berkeley Labor Center, November 2005.

[ohforfckssake!]

Which they are, and it is.

And everything else about understaffing, closing down businesses, and low prices is besides the point, and without basis. Apart from some pay disputes, Wal-mart has been, in general, good for consumers, employees, and the economy.

It is no worse than Apple, which has its own share of indiscretions, as most large corporations inadvertently do.

Also, look at this study

Your study has already been addressed in the three studies I linked to above. Wal-mart may depress earnings according to some (one?) studies, but the overall benefits to low and moderate income families -- from cost savings and job creation -- more than outweighs the alleged drop in earnings for retail workers. In short, Wal-mart does more good than harm. Maybe you should read what was posted before posting something that has already been taken on, and refuted.

[PowerFullMac]

And everything else about understaffing, closing down businesses, and low prices is besides the point, and without basis. Apart from some pay disputes, Wal-mart has been, in general, good for consumers, employees, and the economy.

It is no worse than Apple, which has its own share of indiscretions, as most large corporations inadvertently do.

Wal-Mart is one of the most unethical/evilest corporations known, they generally have some sort of lawsuit against them EVERYDAY! Just look at how many results you get from typing "Wal-Mart lawsuit" in Google! (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=wal-mart+lawsuit&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) "about 3,790,000 for wal-mart lawsuit." according to Google!

[ohforfckssake!]

In fact, the study you "posted just now" was cited in the first study I posted and shown to be misleading.

Once again, how about reading what others have posted first before posting a point that has already been anticipated and refuted?

[PowerFullMac]

Yeah, Yeah....

As for your comments on the study, there is a LOT more where that came from, just look!!! (http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php)

And Wal-Mart does not help the economy, look at this:

Several studies, including those presented at Wal-Mart's own recent economic conference, affirm that Wal-Mart does not create new economic activity, but merely captures existing sales from businesses in the town and the surrounding areas.

[ohforfckssake!]

Wal-Mart is one of the most unethical/evilest corporations known, they generally have some sort of lawsuit against them EVERYDAY! Just look at how many results you get from typing "Wal-Mart lawsuit" in Google! (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=wal-mart+lawsuit&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) "about 3,790,000 for wal-mart lawsuit." according to Google!

EDIT: As for your comments on the study, there is a LOT more where that came from, just look!!! (http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php)

And Wal-Mart does not help the economy, look at this:

1. "Walmart movie" is not exactly where I head to for information. Try a respectable economist or two.

2. Porn also gets a lot of hits on Google. Almost the same as "economy". It doesn't mean that the porn industry is as big as the world's economy. Coverage of Wal-mart's lawsuits are similarly overblown only because they are a large corporation. Citing Google page counts is an amateurishly poor argument.

3. Your quote is sourced from Greg LeRoy, a crank who makes his living writing books based on alarmist scaremongering. No wonder you haven't provided a source for it? He is neither an economist, reputable academic, nor are his books published by a peer-reviewed academic press. As against the nonsense you cite, at least three reputable economists have found that Wal-mart helps the economy (and lower to moderate income householders) more than it harms.

You have very little going for your point of view -- a crank and some Google page counts. Unconvincing, in a word.

[PowerFullMac]

1. "Walmart movie" is not exactly where I head to for information. Try a respectable economist or two.

2. Porn also gets a lot of hits on Google. Almost the same as "economy". It doesn't mean that the porn industry is as big as the world's economy. Coverage of Wal-mart's lawsuits are similarly overblown only because they are a large corporation. Citing Google page counts is an amateurishly poor argument.

3. Your quote is sourced from Greg LeRoy, a crank who makes his living writing books based on alarmist scaremongering. No wonder you haven't provided a source for it? He is neither an economist, reputable academic, nor are his books published by a peer-reviewed academic press. As against the nonsense you cite, at least three reputable economists have found that Wal-mart helps the economy (and lower to moderate income householders) more than it harms.

You have very little going for your point of view -- a crank and some Google page counts. Unconvincing, in a word.

The site I linked to has many studies from many people that prove you wrong.

I think its you who has very little to back your argument, I have a whole page of studies and you have one... Hmm... :rolleyes:

You may also want to look at this (http://walmartwatch.com/)

[ohforfckssake!]

The site I linked to has many studies from many people that prove you wrong.

I think its you who has very little to back your argument, I have a whole page of studies and you have one... Hmm... :rolleyes:

The movie site (lol?) you linked to has many irrelevant studies that have nothing to do with whether Wal-mart helps the economy or not. Of those, you managed to cite only two so far: the first one, by Dube et al. from UC Berkeley, has already been shown to be misleading by the first study I cited in #36.

The second one, by Greg LeRoy, is a nutjob who isn't an economist, and has never published in a peer-reviewed journal. So both your cites have been effectively dealt with.

In #36, I cited three economists. Two from Harvard, one from NYU. You have yet to address anything from them. As I said, you have very little from actual economists going for you.

Cranks and a movie website don't cut the mustard.

Edit: more fringe-advocacy internet websites? Sorry, lame waste of time until you come up with something credible.

[PowerFullMac]

The movie site (lol?) you linked to has many irrelevant studies that have nothing to do with whether Wal-mart helps the economy or not. Of those, you managed to cite only two so far: the first one, by Dube et al. from UC Berkeley, has already been shown to be misleading by the first study I cited in #36.

The second one, by Greg LeRoy, is a nutjob who isn't an economist, and has never published in a peer-reviewed journal. So both your cites have been effectively dealt with.

In #36, I cited three economists. Two from Harvard, one from NYU. You have yet to address anything from them. As I said, you have very little from actual economists going for you.

Cranks and a movie website don't cut the mustard.

Look at this, then. (http://walmartwatch.com/research)

You cant dismiss information because it is on the internet.

[ohforfckssake!]

That's the same thing you linked to before, containing the same irrelevant or refuted sources I addressed above. You seem to think that linking to the same movie website again and again buttresses your position. It doesn't.

Since you seem unable to cite a reputable source, economist, thinktank, academic, or analyst on the issue, the three academically credible economists I cited ought to be more than enough to clinch the argument.

[PowerFullMac]

That's the same thing you linked to before, containing the same irrelevant or refuted sources I addressed above. You seem to think that linking to the same movie website again and again buttresses your position. It doesn't.

Since you seem unable to cite a reputable source, economist, thinktank, academic, or analyst on the issue, the three academically credible economists I cited ought to be more than enough to clinch the argument.

You dont seem to have the capacity to click the link and see its a different site completely.

Its time to end this argument anyway, you have just saying the crap over and over, and claiming that my sources are crap because they are from "internet websites" as you put it... As opposed to the websites located in the sea? :rolleyes:

[ohforfckssake!]

No. Your sources are non-credible because you've linked to a crank (LeRoy, mentioned above) and you refuse to point to a single study or piece of research from a reputable economist that actually claims "Wal-mart does not help the economy."

And it's the same site you linked to before. You linked to it in #47.

So, three Harvard/NYU economists vs. a movie website and a fringe-advocacy website.

I know who to believe.

[PowerFullMac]

No. Your sources are non-credible because you've linked to a crank (LeRoy, mentioned above) and you refuse to point to a single study or piece of research from a reputable economist that actually claims "Wal-mart does not help the economy."

And it's the same site you linked to before. You linked to it in #47.

So, three Harvard/NYU economists vs. a fringe-advocacy website.

I know who to believe.

You just dismissed the Wal-Mart Watch site because it was a "internet site", yo never even commented on the information it offered or weather the sources where reliable, you just said it was a "internet site" therefore it was not good info according to you.

Look, you have 3 studies, I have 2 websites FULL OF STUDIES. Also, that study showing Wal-Mart didn't help the economy that you said was written by a crank was actually also proven by Wal-Marts OWN STUDIES, as the quote I posted said.

I think its time to end the argument either way, this is not getting anyone anywhere.

[ohforfckssake!]

And yet you don't actually link to any of these studies.

You've linked to a crank who claims what he claims about Wal-mart's studies. You believe him, apparently. I'd prefer not to take his word for it.

And no, I did not "just" say that it was an internet site. I said that it was a fringe-advocacy site without any studies from reputable economists making the claim you are making -- namely, that Wal-mart does not help the economy.

You seem unable to produce the exact study or article to support your claim. Why is that? Instead, you just link generally to the website, and try to hoodwink others into doing your research for you. You just say "it's full of studies" but never actually produce one, nor do you provide an exact quote that supports your claim. And not just that -- you are unable to even point to a specific study to prove your claim!

So I think it's fair to say that you have very little going for your position. It's smokeblowing, and nothing more.

[PowerFullMac]

And yet you don't actually link to any of these studies.

You just link to a crank who claims what he claims about Wal-mart's studies. You believe him, apparently. I'd prefer not to take his word for it.

And no, I did not "just" say that it was an internet site. I said that it was a fringe-advocacy site without any studies from reputable economists making the claim you are making -- namely, that Wal-mart does not help the economy.

You seem unable to produce the exact study or article to support your claim. Why is that? Instead, you just link generally to the website, and try to hoodwink others into doing your research for you. You just say "it's full of studies" but never actually produce one, you do not provide an exact quote that supports your claim. And not just that -- you are unable to even point to a specific study to prove your claim!

So I think it's fair you have very little going for your position. It's smokeblowing, and nothing more.

I linked to a site with loads of studies all listed, but you found a excuse as to why it was not credible, I quoted something to prove my point and you claim it written by someone who has to be a crank because you cant find info on the universities they went to.

Also, you are missing the point, its not just about them damaging the economy, they are doing many many things wrong, I have linked you to a whole movie that explains what all of those are. I could also link you to a South Park episode, too, if you wish! Would that be more credible? :rolleyes:

[ohforfckssake!]

Hilarious. LeRoy is a crank simply because he's not an economist publishing peer-reviewed work. Full stop.

I doubt you've actually read the book from which the quote came from -- just as you haven't actually read anything from the sites you linked to. That's probably why you have difficulty even citing an exact passage, or an exact study to prove your claim.

Saying "loads of studies" over and over again means nothing until you point to the study that supports the claim you're making. Give a quote. The reason you can't do it is because almost NONE of them support the claim you are making. Of the two that did, one is a crank, the other has been shown to be misleading and corrected by a later study published by Furman (the NYU economist).

Also, you are missing the point, its not just about them damaging the economy

Yes. After arguing over that point (that you have no support for your claim; whereas several economists contradict your claim) for the past several messages apparently the point is being missed now. No wonder you want to change the subject.

As I doubt you will cite any studies or economists in your next post, I don't think it's worth carrying on this discussion. Goodbye.

[PowerFullMac]

As I said before, this is getting no one anywhere.

Yeah, shut up... And I hope your Wal-Mart computer breaks, or will you use your employee discount to get another one for $1?