I guess it depends upon your definition of rights. What I refer to is that which is granted by the Constitution. Rights are absolutes granted to a person.

Past that, it can be interpreted that individuals are granted privledges via laws. They are not rights, because they can be taken away if the law changes via legilstion or popular vote. An example of this would be laws that grant driver’s licenses.

For a non-living entity (such as a corporation) it is impossible for them to have rights of any kind. You can not afford them rights, just as you can not afford any othe non-living thing (like a rock, or a car) rights.

And Kennedy’s legislation does nothing to change the fact that Wal-mart will still require the employee to call in an hour before their shift, to a 1-800 number and then call the code into the store.

This isn’t at question at all. This is actually a policy improvement a the employee has a record of calling in. However, if an employee’s child is sick, that is not an acceptable excuse and one can be fired for doing so.

His legislation will do nothing to stop a company from terminating an employee for breaking company policy.

Did I read incorrectly? I beleive it would change it, making sick children a valid interminable reason.

as for the state law..what code is it?

First I wanted to address this statement:

“Employers have rights too.”

No they do not. They have laws that set up parameters in which they are allowed to operate. A right is something possesed by indivudual that can not be taken away by government via legislature or majority vote. It is inalienable. Let’s not confuse that. Thus laws can be changed to set parameters in regards to what employers and employees can and can not do.

Ethically inappropriate? How so?

That being said, how is Kennedy legislating more time off going to rectify the restructuring that your wife’s job went though?

I gave an example of Wal-mart’s position- if our child is ill it is not an acceptable excuse for her to call off. Kennedy’s legislation would change that. As this is an employment law I agree with it.

The state law says an employer can not reduce an employees wages uinless 1) the employee requests a demotion in position or 2) the employee other wise approves it. This is a work around to that law.

Illegal? No. Backhanded? Definately.

Are you telling me Peejz that if your company dissolved your position and then gave you the option of either being layed off or taking a similar position that was newly created for much less money you wouldn’t think that wasn’t backhanded? Of course you would.

I am not saying that they aren’t within their legal rights- of course they are. I am saying that these actions are ethically inappropriate. She is also within her legal rights to execute at will employment and self terminiate her position for another immediately.

I am not sure why you are saying that the policy is being mis-represented.

Because after three tardies an employee can be terminated- this has happened.

I am an independent contractor for a courier company and own a website selling custom camping equipment for medieval reenactors. If the courier company wants me to do more work, they know that they are going to have to pay me to do it. If I want to make more money, I go down to Home Depot, pick up some lumber, build something and put it on Ebay. I import tents from India and sell them as well. That’s called taking a little initiative. I don’t get rich from my various endeavors, but I make more than I did working 60+ hours a week managing retail stores for various companies even though I have an assortment of sales gain awards from every company that I worked for. I also don’t get home at 10 pm every night, I only work weekends when I want to, I’m doing something I enjoy and get to have a social life.

So if you’re tired of punching a time clock, and think you’re not getting paid what you’re worth, QUIT and start your own company. Then you can be the one who has to worry how the company is going to make it’s quarterly tax payments.

I am not sure why you are saying that the policy is being mis-represented. Wakeupwalmart.com obtained the documents and presented them to the press..The press received verification from Wal-Mart that they were indeed true..

did they take it too far, or was it the workers that pushed them to it?

What do you think Peejz? I told you of the back handed tactics they’ve used to reduce employee wages. Did my wife push them, after 16 years of loyalty to the company, to have her salary reduced?

Now if your wife’s store is not following the policy, she needs to contact corporate..Corporate set a policy and the stores must follow it.

The attendence policy is being misrepresented to the press. That said, it was the district manager who presented this, so it isn’t just her store.

As far as contacting corporate, there was a time when that was a viable option because Wal_mart truly had an open door policy, but folks nowadays just won’t do it for fear of retribution of targeted reduction. Unless a law is being broken (which this does not qualify) then no way will they contact corporate.

re 22:

Tedd hasn’t provided anything that says the company is breaking the law:

I never said they were breaking the law at all. I said that what they are doing isn’t good employment practices. As a result, my wife is utilizing at will employment in Ohio to seek another.

But this isn’t about breaking laws Peejz. Before the fourty hour work week and child labor laws, employers weren’t breaking laws either. That isn’t relevant. This is about (to us) what Wal-mart was verses what they are now as an employer and how that is effecting their sales (and deservedly so).

To link: copy url to your browser. highlight a word in a sentece you typed; ie..link here…click the link button and paste the url. hit enter. click close tags and you linked the website you wanted…