A new class action is generating steam about chairs. Some employees get that benefit, others dont. Subjectively, and illegally. Its unfair business practices.
Signatures are being gathered. This is a no-brainer. Lowes is violating rights hand over fist and its time we put an end to this mess.
Some employees cannot have chairs, while others do not. Thats a violation.
Wish they would do CALEXIT as they were trying to do. Sad state that's for sure..
California???????? Shocking... That explains everything. Wish that state would have just sank under water with the last earthquake. Taking all those cry babies with it.
The California Supreme Court ruled in 2016 companies need a legitimate business reason to make employees stand rather than sit while working. Specifically, the court questioned why retail cashiers and bank tellers had to stand during most of their shifts while performing their work tasks. The court ruled that employees should be allowed to use chairs/stools if they could perform their tasks sitting rather than standing. The court found no good business reason why retail cashiers could not have chairs at the register. The court also ruled that customers complaining about employees sitting in a chair was not a legitimate business reason to make employees stand rather than sit.
I was in our store yesterday and noticed there were chairs galore still behind the pro desk. Evidently some stores at least have not gotten the memo.
A class action lawsuit only makes money for the lawyers.
The day has come where a lazy liberal is actually posting about suing a company for not letting them sit in a chair all day. Lmao 2020
maybe its being tested in certain stores before they determine which direction they want to go with this? they do do that quite often. honestly, if they want to get rid of you....they'll find a more efficient way of doing it then taking away your chair.
some stores have different operating hours because their sales are so much lower than other stores...in the same district (rural vs city stores)! chair removal could be based on lower volume stores and less business being conducted in those stores? should a class action be started because one low volume store in the district opens later and closes earlier every day than higher volume stores?? gotta be because of unfair business practices right?! why should associates in the high volume stores stay later or come in earlier!!!!! while were at it maybe start another class action because associates in high volume stores on average are paid a little more and are more likely to bonus! class action the hell out of the fact that bonuses arent redistributed to poorly performing stores!
heck, maybe chair removal is a quiet form of coaching YOU! maybe stores that removed them was because the people in those stores sat on the rears too much and theyre trying to get you to get up and go find the customers!
maybe all stores in your district just haven't gotten around to it for one reason or another or got an extension to do it after the season. this can tend to be the case for alot of things -- resets, inventory, the LED lighting project, store remodels etc.
maybe you should find out the reason before popping off that this is tantamount to "unfair business practices".
lowes is guilty of alot of things...but like i said..if they were targeting YOU.....they wouldnt take the chairs away in your store...theyd find a more efficient way of getting the job done.
you still havent convinced me....and likely wont convince a court.
how do you all justify "some" employees in the same exact dept in other stores in the same markets having chairs, and others do not.
explain THAT to me!
I’m gonna get a long legged milking stool. (Look that up)
I don’t believe there are any rules against it in any handbook.
They should take away all of the chairs with the exception of the kitchen cabinet specialists but they need more supervision, they should not have their rear ends planted all day in a chair either. Retail isn't a desk job.
Menards, from what i hear, does chinese overtime. looked into what that was when i heard that awhile back. seems incredibly dangerous for any company to try and implement that...seems ripe for abuse and errors.
This is probably pretty lame. California probably started it. Most fo you don't remember the Chinese OT that Lowe's was doing. Making Specialists and Department managers working 48+ hours a week and paying them half rate for the hours 40+. I came in at the end of it and got a tiny settlement. How Lowe's got away with that for years is beyond me.
the way i understand it, its specific departments that have had their stations changed. if, company-wide, a specific station has lost its chair, thats not, then, specific individuals that have been targeted, but rather a decision made by a company thats within their per-view to do.
wherein i think its stupid that they have taken away desk and chairs that were used by customers as well, i dont currently see where the lawsuit is. the chairs and desk were part of department work stations and not accommodations for specific individuals. again this was company-wide not a store specific decision to target specific individuals.
if you made a sedgewick request for accommodation that a chair was needed due to a health issue and they were directed by lowes to deny all such request, you might have grounds to start a lawsuit.
theres no need to down rank me, and no i dont work for corporate. i just personally dont see the lawsuit here, but would like to know where youre coming from. so convince me, like youll have to do other associates and eventually a court.