In article ,
 Josh Hill  wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:08:54 GMT, Amy Guskin 
> wrote:
> 
> >Yeah, but haven't we read story after story, report after report, that says 
> >that they keep employees' hours down below 40/week so they don't have to 
> >give 
> >them benefits?  I don't have _anything_ like a citation on this, but it's 
> >all 
> >too easy to see how paying employees more than the minimum wage can still 
> >work out to poverty and no health insurance, just by putting a teeny bit of 
> >thought into it.  And if _I_ can think of it, I'm pretty sure the head 
> >honchos at Wal-Mart can, too.  :-)
> 
> I was wondering why they said Wal-Mart cashiers work only 35 hours a
> week. How sleazy!

        No law that I know of requires anyone to give any kind of 
benefits to anyone just because they work more 35 hours a week. So I am 
not sure why this is such a big deal.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32