Legislation overview
The federal labor regulations generally cover relationships between an employer and employee; the pay regulations usually take care of relationships between an organization and its workers. However, the labor acts are applied interchangeably, which are more regularly utilized.
The labor acts are difficult to implement in the area of workplace environments and remunerations. The Fair Labor Standards Act, adopted in the year 1938, standardizes minimum salaries and overtime remuneration for some workers who work over 40 hours per week.
The federal act sets up overtime compensation and lowest salaries for most employees in the public and private areas; regional and national acts may offer more liberal rights, likewise, the federal act offers minimum industry safety standards, but permits the states to assume such roles and offer more strict measures. Both regional and national acts protect employees from any pay prejudices. Most laws prevent bias on the basis of sex, faith, age, race and country of origin (Milkovich et al., 2010).
On the other hand, the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act were enacted as a way of reacting to a number of the United States Court’s rulings, undermining the rights of workers who had petitioned their employers for prejudice.
The two acts provide the right to trial by panel of judges on prejudice issues and introduce the likelihood of emotional agony injuries, whereas restricting the amount that a panel of judges could award. The two laws, which were adopted with a 40 year gap, dealt with employment inequity quite differently. Section 1981 barred inequity based only on skin color, whereas Title VII barred inequity based on gender, faith and country of origin (Danner, 2012).
This report discuses the impact of the legislation on one component of the Wal-Mart’s approach to compensation, clearly demonstrating the connection to the components of the compensation system. It also describes how the provisions of the legislation might challenge the alignment of the compensation model.
Wal-Mart’s compensation system
Wal-Mart manages its employees’ compensation framework via Claims Management Inc., an entirely owned branch of Wal-Mart Retailers.
In order to become and remain self-insured, the workers have to meet a number of requirements. In California, workers should apply to and be certified by the California Employees’ Compensation Agency’s Department of Insurance. They have to go via a submission procedure, and pay a security amount to be utilized in case the employers default on their obligation to offer employees’ compensation benefits to their workers.
The deposit is derived from the compensation system, and it is updated every 12 months for sufficiency based on compensation adjustments and the company’s sustained liabilities. Likewise, New York requires workers to be approved by the state Office of Industrial Relations in order to submit a security amount (amended yearly to cater for losses sustained) and forward to insurance scheme audits (Mark, 2001).
Impact of the legislation
The capability, with which the compensation framework is expected to work, is what the employees’ reward model relies on. The no-fault framework has been designed with a view of ensuring that employees get sufficient healthcare care, and the necessary reparation, whereas shielding the company from individual claims.
A well organized connection between a company and a worker, a doctor and an insurance agency provides a quicker recovery for workers. The employees who suffered at their workplaces and who do not get judicious benefits or even battle the employer through every phase of the court case, end up ensnared in a fiscal liability in most instances. The workers are then forced to refer to public assistance for treatment (Milkovich et al., 2010).
Legislation vs. compensation system
Wal-Mart is weakening the compensation framework by unduly holding up payment of legal benefits, and by derailing even evidently genuine employees’ compensation issues.
For example, In Dukes v. Wal-Mart Company, the petitioner claimed that female workers over the last 10 years have been remunerated less than their male counterparts in similar levels and that Wal-Mart intentionally ignored women workers when promoting some of its workers to management.
The gender discrimination was even more outstanding when compensation levels are further disintegrated whereas the enormous majority of the company’s cashiers are ladies, only a few are line supervisors (Milkovich et al., 2010).
Under the state laws of Civil Process, parties applying class certification have to demonstrate, among other concerns, that “(1) the class is such that inclusion of other people is not practicable, (2) there is question of law common to the class, (3) the issues of the agent parties are characteristic of the issues of the class, and (4) the agent parties will justly and sufficiently defend the interests of the group” (Brooke & Joyce, 2004).
There may be inadequate information on how many workers, men and ladies, applied for the management jobs. But if such a case prevails, whether at trial or by settlement, considerable financial compensation may be awarded to petitioners under Fair Labor Standards Act and Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
References
Brooke, A. & Joyce, A. (2004). Costco is the latest class-action target: Lawyers’ interest increases in potentially lucrative discrimination suits. Washington Post, p. 13.
Danner, P. (2012). Floresville woman added to suit. San Antonio Express-News, p. 2C.
Mark, D. (2001). Attention Wal-Mart workers: Please do not report injuries,” Seattle Weekly, p. 8.
Milkovich, G., Newman, J., & Gerhart, B. (2010). Compensation (10th ed.). Buckingham, England: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.