Wal-Mart beats janitors' appeal on immigration, lockups

Wal-Mart Stores Inc has defeated an appeal by immigrant janitors who accused the world's largest retailer in a lawsuit of unfair labor practices, encouraging illegal immigration and locking them inside stores at night and on weekends.

A panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld rulings in 2010 and 2011 by a New Jersey federal judge that blocked the workers from suing as a class, and rejected their claims that Wal-Mart acquiesced in illegal work conditions.

Gilberto Garcia, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday's decision.

The plaintiffs in the nearly nine-year-old case, first brought in November 2003, included illegal immigrants who worked for contractors and subcontractors the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer hired to clean its stores.

They accused Wal-Mart of trying to clean its stores "on the cheap" by paying contractors it knew hired illegal immigrants, who might be tolerant of lower pay and unfair work conditions. They added they were coerced to work by threats to report their immigration status to authorities.

Imagine...Wal Mart contracts with a company to provide a service cheaper than is possible with Wal Mart employees.

Oh, the scandal (/sarc)

And then Wal Mart is guilty because the contractor threatened to report the illegal alien employees of that contractor. Right. (That makes no sense anyway, the penalty for employing illegals is much worse than the penalty for being here illegally...but that's besides the point)

Many companies play the game this way. “I didn’t hire the illegals...the contractor did it!” Once busted, these “temp” agencies just reform (like acorn) using a different name. These Mexicans bust their ass for $7.50-$8 an hour with no raises even after years of service and if they complain about anything they get replaced by the thousands desperate for work. Low educated black and white citizens, who used to get these type of jobs, are the ones who suffer for it.

Many companies play the game this way. “I didn’t hire the illegals...the contractor did it!”

Close.

But not quite right.

Many companies (and government agencies) contract out for services. And they take the low bidder.

And many of these companies (agencies) don't write these little details in the terms and conditions of the contract. Why? The more terms, the more expensive, as you say.

Low educated black and white citizens, who used to get these type of jobs, are the ones who suffer for it.

Again, close, but not quite right.

In my state (the people's democratic republic of Maryland), I can get paid $473 per week for sitting on my a$$. That doesn't include food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the other perks (I found out about this during my brief period of unemployment when I was laid off of my last job -- no, I never drew any of it). BY ITSELF, that $473 a week works out to $11.82 per hour. A lot more than minimum wage.

So why should I go out to a back-breaking job when I can make more money sitting on my a$$.

That welfare state is what is hurting the lower-educated blacks and whites that would historically take this kind of job.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.