|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 24, 2004 0:31:21 GMT -5
Wal-Mart Bias Case Moves Forward
1.6 Million Women May Join Class-Action Suit
By Amy Joyce
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 23, 2004; Page A01
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled yesterday that a sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could proceed to trial as a class action because of evidence the nation's largest employer paid female workers less and gave them fewer promotions than men.
The suit could include as many as 1.6 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees, in what would be the largest private employer civil rights case in U.S. history.
U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins found that attorneys for the six named women who filed suit in 2001 "present largely uncontested descriptive statistics which show that women working in Wal-Mart stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay disparities exist in most job categories, that the salary gap widens over time even for men and women hired into the same jobs at the same time, that women take longer to enter into management positions, and that the higher one looks in the organization, the lower the percentage of women."
The judge said his decision to certify the case as a class action "should not be construed in any manner as a ruling on the merits or the probable outcome of the case." He noted the case falls near the 50th anniversary of the landmark racial discrimination case Brown v. Board of Education. The anniversary, he wrote in an 84-page ruling, "serves as a reminder of the importance of the courts in addressing the denial of equal treatment under the law wherever and by whomever it occurs."
Wal-Mart said it would appeal. "Let's keep in mind that today's ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case. Judge Jenkins is simply saying he thinks it meets the legal requirements necessary to move forward as a class action. We strongly disagree with his decision and will seek an appeal," the company said in a statement.
Wal-Mart officials declined interviews. Its lawyers had argued to the judge that the statistical differences were due to differing job aspirations and interests between men and women that exist in the general labor force and thus can't be blamed on the company. They also argued that the case shouldn't be a class action because managers in the company's more than 3,000 stores, which include Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores, had considerable autonomy.
Legal experts said that because of the appeal, it will likely be a year or more before the case comes to trial.
Yesterday's decision comes at a time when Wal-Mart has been on the defensive on several fronts. A federal grand jury is investigating the company after federal raids found illegal immigrants being used on cleaning crews in 61 stores in 21 states. It also is being sued for allegedly faking timecards of employees so they would not be paid overtime. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said it has sued Wal-Mart 48 times since 1990, mostly for discriminatory hiring practices, winning $8.6 million and changes in policy and training.
Unions have been trying to organize Wal-Mart workers, citing their low pay and poor benefits. In recent months, the company has run television ads depicting happy workers extolling its benefit plans to counter the unions and surveys that found consumers mistrusted Wal-Mart's labor practices and its impact on local communities.
Wal-Mart has recently taken steps to change its employment practices. At its annual shareholder meeting earlier this month, chief executive H. Lee Scott Jr. said he would cut executive bonuses if the company fails to meet diversity goals. The company will reduce executive bonuses by up to 7.5 percent this year and 15 percent next year if the chain fails to promote women and minorities in proportion to the number applying for management positions.
CONTINUED
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 24, 2004 0:33:33 GMT -5
Wal-Mart Bias Case Moves Forward Experts in employment law said the case is significant beyond its potential effect on Wal-Mart. "The magnitude of the class is more [notable] than anything else. The issues of the individuals are not particularly novel," said Thomas J. Flaherty, an employment lawyer in McLean who represents employers. He said cases "of this magnitude and scope are pretty unique and are precedent-setting." Joseph M. Sellers, a District attorney who is co-counsel for the women in the case, said the class-action certification is significant because "it's going to open the courthouse doors for 1.6 million women, most of whom would never bring their case to court, many of whom have suffered in silence and probably given up on any chance to make things better." Carolyn P. Short, a lawyer in Philadelphia representing companies, called the Wal-Mart suit "a landmark case" that will be felt throughout corporate America. "I do think there's going to be an internal corporate focus within the boardroom where programs are going to be tightened and improved. . . . I do think there are going to be concentrated corporate efforts to make sure they're in compliance with the law and be female-friendly." In his ruling yesterday, Jenkins cited statistical evidence that lawyers for the women found in Wal-Mart files. Richard Drogin, a statistician at California State University at Hayward, found that it took women an average of 4.38 years from the date of hire to be promoted to assistant manager, while it took men 2.86 years. It took 10.12 years, on average, for women to reach store manager, compared with 8.64 years for men. He also found that female managers made an average salary of $89,280 a year, while men in the same position earned an average of $105,682 a year. The results for hourly workers show that women were paid 6.7 percent less than men in comparable positions. Attorneys for the women also cited an analysis by labor economist Marc Bendick Jr., who compared hiring practices at Wal-Mart and 20 other retailers. He found that 56.5 percent of the in-store managers at the competitors' stores were female, compared with 34.5 percent at Wal-Mart. In anecdotal evidence cited in the ruling, a male Wal-Mart manager was quoted as telling an employee, "Men are here to make a career and women aren't. Retail is for housewives who just need to earn extra money." Most large discrimination cases are settled out of court. Home Depot Inc. settled a sex-discrimination class-action suit in 1997 for $104 million. In 1996, Texaco Inc. shelled out a $176.1 million settlement on behalf of black employees who sued for racial discrimination. And Coca-Cola Co. paid $192.5 million in 2000 to employees who sued for discrimination. Publix Super Markets paid $81.5 million in 1997 for discriminating against female workers. Randel Johnson, U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president of labor, said, "I think that's more incentive to file lawsuits because damages are exponentially larger than they ever were. And there's an enormous amount of potential damages at the end of the rainbow here should Wal-Mart be proven guilty. That drives litigation in this area, and much of it is frivolous." Wall Street analysts yesterday said the history of settlements in large corporate discrimination cases could mean Wal-Mart faces paying billions of dollars. Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. told clients the company has almost $4 billion in cash. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company reported profit of $9 billion on sales of $256 billion for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31. The company's stock closed yesterday at $54.06, down 87 cents. Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report. © 2004 The Washington Post Company 64.4.46.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=30475cbb69e0a14f59f9dae2b61cdc37&lat=1088052324&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fletters%2ewashingtonpost%2ecom%2fW5RH05AE5C751485669523FEF17320 |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 24, 2004 21:50:05 GMT -5
Hey. Doesn't anybody care that wal mart blatantly discriminates against women? Just cuz your Libs doesn't mean ya can't show a little outrage ya know.
|
|
|
|
Post by n2nsites on Jun 25, 2004 16:54:34 GMT -5
I actually think this goes under feminism....  Oh nm Average Earnings Higher-Level Jobs Total % Average Earnings $ Job EEs Women Men Women Regional VP 39 10.3 419435. 279772. District Mgr 508 9.8 239519. 177149. Manager 3241 14.3 105682. 89280. Co-Mgr 2336 23.0 59535. 56317. Asst Mgr 18731 35.7 39790. 37322. Mgmt Trainee 1203 41.3 23175. 22371. Now for my comment. What are you going to do? I personally despise class action suits. The lawyers reap all the benefits. Do you really believe any of these women are going to get enough? No. Will Wal-Mart change policy? Maybe. Are consumers mad enough to force the issue? No. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jun 26, 2004 3:42:22 GMT -5
I think in order to get a corporation like walmart to change, you have to hit em where it counts...their bottom line. Whether that is done with a class action suit or consumer boycotts, well whatever works. While boycotts do work, I'm not sure how likely walmart would really be affected. Their urban clients can go elsewhere but competition is limited for those in rural areas. Now if we passed employment non discrimination legislation, what walmart is doing would be illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jun 30, 2004 18:34:25 GMT -5
Stop the Attack on Wal-Mart by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
[Posted June 25, 2001]
Wal-Mart is the latest victim of the discrimination police. Now most people, of course, rather like Wal-Mart (which also operates Sam’s Club). It makes inexpensive goods available to a great many Americans. It also employs nearly one million people, three-fourths of them women.
But, you see, not enough of these women are in executive positions, according to a new class-action lawsuit against the department store chain, and spokesmen for the suit are sure they know just how many female executives Wal-Mart should have.
The suit, filed in San Francisco’s U.S. District Court, claims to represent as many as 500,000 former and current female workers at the chain. The precise amount of damages to be sought has not yet been determined. Although I’m no Ayn Rand sycophant, this kind of incredibly destructive war on the productive makes me yearn for the businessmen’s general strike described in Atlas Shrugged.
The prima facie case against Wal-Mart does not seem especially strong. As of now, 37 percent of Wal-Mart’s 55,000 management positions are held by women, and since Wal-Mart does not count store department managers as management, the relevant figure is likely higher still.
The plaintiffs would have us believe that executives at Wal-Mart, a store which operates in an environment of intense competition, would rather indulge an irrational loathing for women than enjoy the added profits that hiring and promoting qualified women would bring. No one ever bothers to explain why an employer would behave like this.
There is a sense in which it is not altogether easy for a conservative or libertarian to side with Wal-Mart these days. Not long ago, Wal-Mart made a dramatic announcement that it was pulling Maurice Bessinger’s famous barbecue sauce from its shelves because the poor man was politically incorrect—he loved the Confederacy and flew its flag. This was a cowardly and despicable act by Wal-Mart, to be sure, and one that destroyed much of a good man’s business.
Still, the war on Wal-Mart provides an opportunity to review the destruction wrought by antidiscrimination law. Under such law, statistical disparities are routinely cited as evidence of "discrimination," and it is all but impossible for a business to defend itself against such accusations—especially when a hostile media is unlikely to report any mitigating factors.
Thus, for example, the discrimination hustlers have set their sights on lending institutions: Banks, they contend, must be discriminating against blacks because blacks do not receive loans in proportion to their representation in the general population. Never mentioned in any of these reports is that blacks, on average, have poorer credit ratings than whites, or that default rates for whites and blacks are identical. If blacks were really being held to a higher, discriminatory standard, their default rates should be lower, but they are not.
Nevertheless, federal agents have sent spies into banks around the country, testing to see whether loans would be offered to people of various races. To protect themselves from ruinous charges of discrimination, banks have effectively established quota systems in lending, passing over qualified whites in favor of minorities whose credit ratings do not justify such loans. Using Jesse Jackson-like tactics, left-wing agitators have engaged in shakedowns worth hundreds of millions of dollars at bank after bank.
There can be no question that quota systems in hiring, which businesses have generally established in order to protect themselves from charges of discrimination that are nearly impossible to disprove, result in the hiring of (often dramatically) less qualified applicants. Several years ago, Forbes senior editor Peter Brimelow estimated the cost of quotas to the American economy as $300 billion. No mainstream media outlet ever troubles to mention this figure.
In order to justify itself, the state routinely poses as the fountainhead of all prosperity, justice, and achievement. Without antidiscrimination law, say the state’s minions, blacks and women would be intolerably oppressed.
Never mentioned is the fact that the black middle class was well established long before anyone had even suggested affirmative action andthat it was not accelerated by either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or by preferential policies; nor is the fact every mentioned that women’s workforce participation and rising prosperity long predated the women’s movement. None of that fits in with the cartoon version of American history that liberals consistently peddle.
Thomas Sowell should have demolished these tired claims once and for all in his indispensable book, Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? He writes: "In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s—when there was little or no civil rights policy—than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday."
And, Sowell continues:
The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were professional and technical workers rose less in the five years following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years preceding it. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964—and in 1960. Nor did the institution of "goals and timetables" at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators."
Likewise, the Japanese in America were discriminated against so badly that 120,000 of them were interned in relocation camps during World War II; yet by 1959, Japanese-American households had equaled those of whites in income, and by 1969, they were earning one-third more. None of this fits in with the standard story of discrimination, either.
"The history of Asians and Hispanics," Sowell writes, "likewise shows long-term upward trends that began years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and were not noticeably accelerated by the Act or by later ‘affirmative action’ policies. The income of Mexican Americans rose relative to that of non-Hispanic whites between 1959 and 1969 (after the Civil Rights Act), but no more so than from 1949 to 1959 (before the Act). Chinese and Japanese-Americans overtook other Americans in income by 1959—five years before the Civil Rights Act."
The only people who benefit from all of this immensely costly and destructive antidiscrimination legislation are the lawyers who grow rich from it and the politicians who use it to court certain preferred groups. The rest of us are made immeasurably poorer by decreased productivity, the gross inefficiencies of the quota system, and the astronomical legal costs involved—to say nothing of the invasions of privacy and atmosphere of suspicion that now pervade the workplace.
Don't let anyone tell you that these suits are actually good for business because they make the employee base more diverse. Shoney's and Denny's, two other companies beloved by regular people, were seriously injured by these suits. They constitute a grave danger to profits and future investment. That is why a growing number of companies have begun to resort to private arbitration agencies, requiring prospective employees to agree to settle discrimination or harassment claims that way rather than in the kangaroo courts of the government, where arbitrariness and ludicrously high settlements terrorize productive businessmen.
In a free society, the right to hire, fire, and promote belongs to the property owner. If he behaves irrationally, he will be swiftly punished in the market by competitors who base their decisions exclusively on merit. Arbitrary hiring and firing has its costs—in bad public relations (which in turn make it more difficult to find prospective employees), in the destruction of workplace morale, and in profits foregone when superior individuals are passed over to satisfy the prejudices of the employer. Such behavior is not free, and when practiced irrationally makes no business sense at all.
This market mechanism is the only form of business regulation, as it were, that respects the just claims of property owners and does not lead to general impoverishment or the corruption of the legal system. The present system of ceaseless litigation, on the other hand, only encourages the proliferation of discrimination hucksters like Jesse Jackson and, now, the insufferable anti-Wal-Mart cabal.
This common-sense approach is routinely dismissed out of hand—if it is raised at all—as "extreme," yet it is the only path to civil peace and prosperity.
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jul 1, 2004 0:52:21 GMT -5
While this states that 37% of management positions are held by women, it doesn't address the huge salary discrepancies for those women or the fact that those discrepancies affect all women at all levels of employment even when the woman has more experience. They're a sexist company dude. Even if you feel it's their right to operate their business in this manner (which I'm sure you do) doesn't change the fact that they pay their female employees much less than the men for doing the same job. I think that's wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 1, 2004 6:48:53 GMT -5
While this states that 37% of management positions are held by women, it doesn't address the huge salary discrepancies for those women or the fact that those discrepancies affect all women at all levels of employment even when the woman has more experience. They're a sexist company dude. Even if you feel it's their right to operate their business in this manner (which I'm sure you do) doesn't change the fact that they pay their female employees much less than the men for doing the same job. I think that's wrong. The problem is, we have no way of knowing anything other than the raw numbers on this. We cannot know what they mean. We don't know why they came out as they did. We don't know what amount of those numbers are caused by the choices of the individuals, or whether is is just entrenched, institutional sexism. It could even be a coincidence. Raw statistics are pretty useless. For example, I can prove to you statistically that crime is higher in areas with more churches. This is true, because there is a higher density of churches in urban areas, but it does not prove a causal link. Likewise, we know that women at Wal Mart make less than men. But we have no idea why that is. There is no causal link - just the same type of raw statistics that can be used to prove crime is higher where there are more churches. I'd like to see a memo that shows an institutional bias toward men. You can't organize such large scale discrimination throughout a worldwide company without a paper trail. Absent a smoking gun like that, we must give Wal Mart the benefit of the doubt. The truth is, no business ever became as big and successful as Wal Mart by passing up qualified applicants in favor of arbitrary discrimination. As the gentleman in the article asks, why would "Wal-Mart, a store which operates in an environment of intense competition, would rather indulge an irrational loathing for women than enjoy the added profits that hiring and promoting qualified women would bring?" It would be self-destructive, to be sure, and would keep Wal Mart from realizing its true potential, which they seem to have done. Again, as Mr. Woods said, "Arbitrary hiring and firing has its costs—in bad public relations (which in turn make it more difficult to find prospective employees), in the destruction of workplace morale, and in profits foregone when superior individuals are passed over to satisfy the prejudices of the employer. Such behavior is not free, and when practiced irrationally makes no business sense at all." Indeed. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jul 1, 2004 11:34:50 GMT -5
Oh Rick. You act like we're just talking about wal mart here. As a woman I can tell you that this goes on in many companies in many fields. In Nursing I have seen more qualified experienced women passed up for management positions in favor of younger less experienced men many times. These practices are just a reflection of society and how it values it's women. You can defend walmart's right to be an asshole company but I hope you're not trying to say that you believe that women are treated equally in the marketplace.
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jul 1, 2004 11:46:49 GMT -5
This is the company that refuses to sell Eminem cd's and dvd's. 8 mile, one of the top grossing dvd's could not be found. Was that a wise business decision? No. It was done because of their personal belief system. By the way, I could be wrong but I believe that they have stated their Christian beliefs publicly which would also explain the rational that men as breadwinners deserve more money. I could be wrong, but I thought that I had read that along with the reasons not to sell and promote Eminem. Clearly money does not guide their every move.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 1, 2004 12:17:43 GMT -5
This is the company that refuses to sell Eminem cd's and dvd's. 8 mile, one of the top grossing dvd's could not be found. Was that a wise business decision? No. It was done because of their personal belief system. By the way, I could be wrong but I believe that they have stated their Christian beliefs publicly which would also explain the rational that men as breadwinners deserve more money. I could be wrong, but I thought that I had read that along with the reasons not to sell and promote Eminem. Clearly money does not guide their every move. I'm not sure about the religious thing, but look at Wal Mart's biggest market - conservative small town America. I think perhaps - while I don't agree - it may have been a wise choice for them to not carry some of the more racy stuff. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 1, 2004 12:32:10 GMT -5
Oh Rick. You act like we're just talking about wal mart here. As a woman I can tell you that this goes on in many companies in many fields. In Nursing I have seen more qualified experienced women passed up for management positions in favor of younger less experienced men many times. These practices are just a reflection of society and how it values it's women. You can defend walmart's right to be an asshole company but I hope you're not trying to say that you believe that women are treated equally in the marketplace. I think they are treated, on the whole, as fairly as anyone else. I think, again, Mister Woods put it best:
The endlessly repeated claim, which has helped give rise to all this legislation, is that women are paid 72 cents for every dollar paid to men. Now it obviously cannot be the case that women are paid 72 percent of what men are for doing the same work, not only because that violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963, but also because in that case any employer in his right mind would simply fire all his male employees and hire women at the lower wage rate.
There is no need to assume anything sinister is at work in the fact that women's incomes are lower than those of men.
Many women who enter the labor force are aware that at some point they will have to interrupt their careers, probably for a matter of years, to take care of their children. Naturally, then, women are more likely than men to seek jobs with slow obsolescence rates that allow them to take time off without finding that their skill or knowledge has become outdated by the time they resume their careers. Married women tend to seek flexible working hours to accommodate their schedules. Many work only part time. Many would like to work near their homes. And so on.
These requirements place some restraints on what women are likely to earn vis-à-vis men. For one thing, such highly paid occupations as law and medicine are extremely difficult to leave and re-enter after a multi-year absence. Second, since many women seek the job criteria listed above, the result is a great many women competing for the narrow range of jobs that fit these criteria. Somewhat lower wages in these jobs are merely a reflection of supply and demand--the only rational way of allocating labor efficiently.
It turns out, incidentally, that single, never-married women of comparable education and experience and who work full time have the same incomes as their male counterparts. The so-called wage gap completely disappears once we stop comparing apples and oranges. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, President Bush's chief of staff for his Council of Economic Advisors, makes this point in Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America. So have many, many other economists who have bothered to study the data (and use common sense).These same factors come into play when deciding who to promote. For instance, just because someone is a kickass nurse does not mean they will be a kickass nurse manager. There is probably more at play than meets the eye in the majority of things you've seen. That is not to say that certain individuals won't be discriminatory in their hiring practices, but economic sexism is no longer an entrenched, institutionalized problem - merely a waning mindset held by a small minority. I guess that is what I am getting at. The reasons for hiring, firing, and promoting people are so numbered and varied, simple statistics cannot possibly determine unfair practices. If it is truly institutionalized sexism, I trust they will find more than just raw numbers to back up their claim. If they cannot find anything else, they do not meet the burden of proof. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jul 1, 2004 12:36:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure about the religious thing, but look at Wal Mart's biggest market - conservative small town America. I think perhaps - while I don't agree - it may have been a wise choice for them to not carry some of the more racy stuff. - Rick There's no consistancy. It seems to be just who pisses them off. They won't sell Shady or Sheryl Crow lol, but they do sell 50 cent and pretty much any other rapper from Snoop to JaRule. 50 cent is about as bad as it gets with regards to violence and misogynistic (sp?) lyrics. |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jul 1, 2004 12:45:13 GMT -5
It is this kind of thinking that downplays a womans place in the workforce. Not all women want, have or intend to have children. A good many of the nurse's that I know are the main supporter of their families. Sometimes the husband's work is seasonal. Sometimes they don't work. Sometimes the men are at home taking care of the kids while the woman is at work. Society has changed and the traditional ways of thinking about family needs to change as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 1, 2004 12:51:33 GMT -5
"Many women who enter the labor force are aware that at some point they will have to interrupt their careers, probably for a matter of years, to take care of their children. Naturally, then, women are more likely than men to seek jobs with slow obsolescence rates that allow them to take time off without finding that their skill or knowledge has become outdated by the time they resume their careers. Married women tend to seek flexible working hours to accommodate their schedules. Many work only part time. Many would like to work near their homes. And so on."It is this kind of thinking that downplays a womans place in the workforce. Not all women want, have or intend to have children. A good many of the nurse's that I know are the main supporter of their families. Sometimes the husband's work is seasonal. Sometimes they don't work. Sometimes the men are at home taking care of the kids while the woman is at work. Society has changed and the traditional ways of thinking about family needs to change as well. It's just realistic thinking. As it is, the vast majority of people who stay home with the children (my house excepting) are women. But still, the author goes on to say, "It turns out, incidentally, that single, never-married women of comparable education and experience and who work full time have the same incomes as their male counterparts." This leads me to believe anyone who is so specific in their working conditions are going to make less money - men or women. People that are single, consistently available, and can dedicate themselves completely to their jobs are going to make more. - Rick |
|
