Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) will settle an employee class-action lawsuit for $54 million over allegations of off-the-clock work and slicing break time for employees. Over 100,000 current and former hourly Wal-Mart employees are included in the suit, which covers a 10-year period from September 1998 to November 2008.

The Minnesota judge who ruled in the case indicated that labor laws were violated by the retailer over two million times as it allowed breaks to be shortened and not taking actions against managers who forced employees to work off the clock, thereby condoning their actions.

Wal-Mart spokesperson David Tovar said that the company is committed to paying workers for all time worked, and that managers who violate its policies were subject to punishment up to and including firing. Wal-Mart's argument was that employees had missed breaks voluntarily, but Judge Robert King Jr. ruled that Wal-Mart knew about the off-the-clock work and did not take any action against it.

Wal-Mart's settlement with Minnesota comes after a similar suit in Pennsylvania, where a $78.5 million verdict was awarded in 2006, and in California's 2005 $172 million verdict claiming Wal-Mart denied lunch breaks. The retailer is appealing both cases. It did, however, settle a Colorado suit for $50 million over unpaid wages.

Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) will be facing a class action lawsuit from more than 2 million former and current female employees over discrimination and bias after all.

Earlier this week, an appeals court declined a request from world's largest employer to reconsider its decision to certify the case as a class action.
While this isn't a death sentence for Wal-Mart by any means, it's the start of what should be one of the largest class-action discrimination lawsuits in U.S. business history.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2001 by six women, accuses the world's largest retailer of paying female employees less than male counterparts as well as passing over qualified female employees for promotions. It requested back pay and punitive damages as well as changes in Wal-Mart's employee practices. Wal-Mart responded by saying that it should be allowed to address each discrimination charge at each store on an individual basis.

This is one of the most despicable, inhumane stories I've seen about Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) in awhile, courtesy of (subscription required) the Wall Street Journal.

Basically, a woman was left with permanent brain damage at the age of 45 after an accident with a semi-trailer truck. She was recently awarded a $700,000 settlement but then her employer, Wal-Mart, sued her for the money to reimburse itself for the money it spent on her medical costs.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know about the legality here, but think about this: this poor lady's husband has to work two jobs now, and she is left alone in a nursing home far more than he would like her to be. And it's all because Wal-Mart needed $700,000 to recoup what it spent on an employee's medical care. Wal-Mart made $11,284,000,000 in fiscal year 2007. This lady is spending time alone in a nursing home so the company could recoup $700,000.

At the very least, this is more horrible PR for Wal-Mart, and we shouldn't let them get away with it. Wal-Mart needs to learn that treating people badly is no way to boost the stock price.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) looks to be cutting positions in China according to this source. Based on what Huang Jianling -- PR manager for Wal-Mart China -- says, the cuts are needed to reduce the level of redundancy from Wal-Mart's various Chinese operations, and will include purchasing positions up to senior management staff.

Although these "cost redundancies" were not detailed out by Jianling, the cost estimated to cut these various positions was estimated at right over $120,000. In other words, a pinch in the bucket compared to the relatively low salaries many Wal-Mart China employees receive.

Purchasing departments look to be centralized as locations in Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Turkey will be closed. Wal-Mart's adjustments in these areas are due to a realignment of its global purchasing strategy, according to the company. That's admirable, but all things considered, it should have never reached this state. The splintering of so many purchasing departments across what could be seen as redundant coverage areas was most likely the result of not managing global growth appropriately on Wal-Mart's part.

But then again, the new "Employment Contract Law" that will take effect in China next year may be making Wal-Mart officials skittish when it comes to employee headcount in the region. The retailer has battled the formation of unions everywhere in the world, so the position reduction agenda here may fall in that territory.

Welcome to the 23rd installment of The Wal-Mart Weekly, a column dedicated to bringing you insight, wit, facts, results, opinions and just a bit of everything else when it comes down to a very hot topic these days: Wal-Mart.

A little over a week ago, I discussed how Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) has such a tight supplier relationship with China that it is exposing itself to possible consumer backlash in the wake of growing concern over the quality of Chinese goods from just about every conceivable angle. From tainted dog food to industrial chemical-infected toothpaste, China's imports, and indeed the entire country, is under the quality microscope as never before.

So this week, we'll return to a familiar theme when it comes to the world's largest retailer: the paying of wages and the hiring of young employees against not only labor laws, but against the backdrop of being a good and decent global employer. Wal-Mart's employment practices have been under fire in the U.S., and now Mexico may be joining that club. Read on.

Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) just can't seem to wake up from its public relations nightmare, as a jury has awarded a former pharmacist $2 million for being discriminated against because of her gender. Cynthia Haddad, who was a female pharmacist in a Wal-Mart location, complained about being paid less than male counterparts and ended up being fired. Were these two incidents connected? A jury thought so.

Ms. Haddad was awarded $2 million for future lost wages as a result after a jury deliberated for over eight hours before coming back with the verdict. One of Haddad's attorneys replied to the verdict by saying "It sends a message that you can't treat people poorly because of who they are." In other words, the large verdict was meant to punish the retailer as well as compensate Haddad for the treatment she received.

Wal-Mart's defense in the firing of Haddad centered around an accusation that she left the pharmacy unattended and gave her computer access code to a technician so that prescriptions could be given out in her absence. Prescriptions for Plavix were filled in her absence, and once Wal-Mart discovered this, Haddad was let go. After Haddad complained about the wage inequality she received, she was given the bonus her male pharmacy counterparts had received -- and then was fired two weeks later. Was the Wal-Mart dismissal defense accurate or a trumped-up charge? The jury said it was a trumped-up charge, and Wal-Mart attorneys left the courtroom silent and with another black eye.

After wearing blue vests with the emblazoned "How may I help you?" for as long as I can remember, Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) associates may be collectively dumping those tired and boring work smocks for the more hip polo-khaki combo that many retailers are opting for recently. A more casual dress for employees has been the rage at several retailers in the last decade from my experience (like Circuit City and Best Buy, for example), and it's great to see the world's largest retailer getting in on the act. Frankly, it's long overdue.

Wal-Mart even says that the new employee (oops, associates) dress code will help customers locate employees more easily. While I am not sure that is true (just looking for blue vests now will work), the idea of more customer engagement from employees who are wearing a less threatening polo-khaki getup is sure to be swell for Wal-Mart's bottom line. As the retailer digs in deeper into the consumer electronics arena and other higher-margin businesses (compared to low-margin groceries), this change could not have come at a better time. In fact, although it would have been good a year ago, the timing is better now as Wal-Mart tries to reinvent stores and become more than an "everyday low price" retailer.

Will Wal-Mart employees feel more like professional associates instead of grocery store baggers now that the dress code is being changed? Most likely, yes. Wearing a polo shirt with nicer slacks (instead of the cutoff jeans I've seen some associates wear) will present a much more professional appearance and will give associates that feeling of being more than "a Wal-Mart employee." Well, maybe. While a change in dress code for 1.3 million employees won't be a magic bullet to pump up sales and get customers back into Wal-Mart, over time it may just be part of the foundation that does just that.

Welcome to the 13th installment of The Wal-Mart Weekly, a weekly column dedicated to bringing you insight, wit, facts, results, opinions and just a bit of everything else when it comes down to a very hot topic these days: Wal-Mart.

Last week I looked at Wal-Mart Stores' (NYSE: WMT) security forces and how quite a few recent public blunders has pinned certain negativity onto the retailer itself. Wal-Mart's firing of security employee Bruce Gabbard over corporate spying and it's recent slip over possibly infiltrating the privacy of certain shareholders due to come to next week's shareholders meeting have cast a bright light on the retailer lately.

How about it's employees? How does Wal-Mart treat its employees and are the folks who work on the front lines of the world's largest retailer happy, sad or indifferent? I only had the chance to speak with a few this past week, but received some differing opinions on this one. Keep reading...

According to watchdog group WakeUpWalmart.com, the number of Wal-Mart employees who were insured by programs from the global retailer actually shrank in 2006, contradicting statement by the world's largest retail that employee registrations to the company's provided health care plan actually increased by 8%.

The watchdog group also states that regardless of whether absolute numbers or percentages are used, the number of insured Wal-Mart workers in 2006 shrank in volume by about 2,000 workers. Wal-Mart reportedly said that 638,000 of its U.S. workers were insured in 2006, but then reported at the end of the year that only 636,391 workers were insured.

A representative from WakeupWalMart went on to say that "incredibly, Wal-Mart's own health care numbers prove that the Wal-Mart health care crisis has worsened. The sad truth is that despite making $11 billion in annual profit, Wal-Mart still fails to provide company health care to over half of its employees. Given the enormous cost American taxpayers must pay to subsidize Wal-Mart's health care crisis, we call on Wal-Mart to stop misleading the American people and our elected leaders who expect, if nothing else, that America's largest private employer will live up to it's health care responsibilities."

What is your take? Are these figures hard to refute or easy or impossible? If you're a Wal-Mart employee, do these numbers sound about right to you, and what's your take on Wal-Mart's provided health care coverage? Too expensive? Not enough coverage? Just enough?