Walmart (WMT) found itself on the defending end of a massive employee class action suit in California when a California judge certified a class of 10,000 employees who though Walmart broke the law when it refused to provide suitable seating for its cashiers who requested it. Publicly, Walmart is not denying that it has consciously chosen to deny seating to its cashiers. Reportedly Walmart's argument against providing seating is that cashiers need to be able to move around to look inside carts, stock shelves, and greet customers. To follow that argument through to the end, Walmart believes that if its cashiers are given an opportunity to sit down at any time during their work shift, that the cashiers will then lose their ability to ever stand up again. As if the cashiers are going to say, "No, I won't go stock those shelves or greet those customers because since I have a stool, my job is now sit on my stool for my entire shift." BASED ON THE SITUATION, EXPLAIN. 1) WHY CASHIERS IN THE WALMART FELT NOT HAPPY AND PROTESTED WHEN WALMART DID NOT PROVIDE CHAIRS FOR THEM TO SIT? 2) SUGGEST 2 (TWO) WAYS FOR BOTH PARTIES SO THAT THEY CAN PRACTICE ETHICAL STANDARDS.