|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 1, 2004 12:53:40 GMT -5
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. I guess they only care about the appearance of impropriety, rather than the real thing. I'll bet anytime there is any mainstream controversy over an artist, they pull em from the shelves. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jul 1, 2004 12:54:14 GMT -5
While it is true that being good in your field does not automatically make one a good manager, most of us in the workforce have seen(probably more than once) someone hired to a management position that was less qualified than others seeking the position. To assume that hiring practices always reflect good business decisions is naive.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 1, 2004 13:01:51 GMT -5
While it is true that being good in your field does not automatically make one a good manager, most of us in the workforce have seen(probably more than once) someone hired to a management position that was less qualified than others seeking the position. To assume that hiring practices always reflect good business decisions is naive. That's true. I've seen it happen. I think they think it is a good choice at the time. Some people - like me - are just really good at interviews. That being said, I think automatically assuming a gender bias in a bad management decision is equally niave. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 1, 2004 13:20:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jul 1, 2004 14:15:43 GMT -5
This still doesn't explain the women in low level jobs, many of whom return to work after childbirth early d/t financial concerns, making less money. I'm all for women making decisions to stay home longer with their babies if they can afford to. I think it's best for all, however not all women have that choice. Not all women have MBA's or even a nursing license for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 1, 2004 14:37:29 GMT -5
This still doesn't explain the women in low level jobs, many of whom return to work after childbirth early d/t financial concerns, making less money. I'm all for women making decisions to stay home longer with their babies if they can afford to. I think it's best for all, however not all women have that choice. Not all women have MBA's or even a nursing license for that matter. I don't know for sure, but I will bet that every person who starts at Wal Mart in those low-level jobs probably make exactly the same wage. It's the law, after all. If a woman goes away for a while to be with her children and then comes back, the people who stayed - men and women - will have been getting raises during that time. Of course, that is only fair, while not advantageous for the mother. But she made her choice, and knew the consequences of leaving work for awhile. That is, until some fatcat lawyer sees some raw numbers and decides to make his fortune off her. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jul 1, 2004 15:00:49 GMT -5
I don't know for sure, but I will bet that every person who starts at Wal Mart in those low-level jobs probably make exactly the same wage. It's the law, after all. If a woman goes away for a while to be with her children and then comes back, the people who stayed - men and women - will have been getting raises during that time. Of course, that is only fair, while not advantageous for the mother. But she made her choice, and knew the consequences of leaving work for awhile. That is, until some fatcat lawyer sees some raw numbers and decides to make his fortune off her. - Rick I don't know if that's true or not. According to this original article there are discrepancies even at low level jobs. We'll see. They either have a case or they don't. I don't know what the law says. At the hospital, there is a range based on experience but the management can still choose to hire someone and pay from the upper end of the range while choosing to pay someone else from the lower end. I have never accepted their original offer and have learned how to work the system. As far as the younger women just starting out, they don't have the experience to negotiate much. It is with the new grads that I see men seemingly advance beyond their experience or education. This is a problem bigger than walmart. Women frequently give men more respect than they do other women. It is a problem of society. It has to start with self respect. Then we need to make ourselves heard. Personally, I am boycotting Wal mart. Never did like them so it's not a hard decision for me. If it turns out that there was not sufficient grounds for a case, well the loss of my monthly $13.00 for dogfood prolly won't hurt them. If there is, I prefer not to do business with them. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 1, 2004 19:24:37 GMT -5
I don't know if that's true or not. According to this original article there are discrepancies even at low level jobs. We'll see. They either have a case or they don't. I don't know what the law says. At the hospital, there is a range based on experience but the management can still choose to hire someone and pay from the upper end of the range while choosing to pay someone else from the lower end. I have never accepted their original offer and have learned how to work the system. As far as the younger women just starting out, they don't have the experience to negotiate much. It is with the new grads that I see men seemingly advance beyond their experience or education. This is a problem bigger than walmart. Women frequently give men more respect than they do other women. It is a problem of society. It has to start with self respect. Then we need to make ourselves heard. I was watching something about this on...er...yes...Doctor Phil the other day. Apparently, on average, women are less willing to haggle than men. He had this guy on who was teaching women how to haggle the price of jewelry, cars, and salary. I wonder if this tendency, as you illustrated, might have something to do with it, as well? They should teach this stuff in college, for men and women. I'll bet most people aren't making what they could have gotten. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by outgirl on Jul 2, 2004 0:12:21 GMT -5
I was watching something about this on...er...yes...Doctor Phil the other day. Apparently, on average, women are less willing to haggle than men. He had this guy on who was teaching women how to haggle the price of jewelry, cars, and salary. I wonder if this tendency, as you illustrated, might have something to do with it, as well? They should teach this stuff in college, for men and women. I'll bet most people aren't making what they could have gotten. - Rick Dude, you watch Dr. Phil? You need to get out more. |
|
|
|
Post by maylily on Jul 2, 2004 7:04:14 GMT -5
The incidents I have read about make it pretty clear that there is a sexist bias at Walmart. And not only the ones I've read about - the ones I've heard first hand from people that lived it.
Sexism is alive and well in business. There is no doubt of it. A woman I know applied for a job at a Dollar General store. She was offered only part time even though full time positions were opened. When she said she needed full time, she was told that the full time positions were for men because they had families. Her husband worked so she didn't need to work full time.
That whole thing about women looking for jobs they can leave to take time off, etc is a crock of bullshit and an excuse. It is sexist and not even worth the time it took to read it. Women are just like men when it comes to working. If a woman needs flex time, that's because she either a) doesn't have a husband or b) doesn't have a husband who will substantively help with the children. It's not a choice, it's a necessity. I used to get so mad when I was playing in a pool league and the bartender at our home bar would ask where my husband was. He would say, "Is he home babysitting the kids?" Uh, no! You don't babysit your own kids. Duh!!!!
Walmart's business practices leave a great deal to be desired. This isn't a perfect world and not all business decisions are solely due to the bottom line. To believe so is to be a tad naive. Entrenched attitudes also play a part. There have been cases of Walmart employees being discriminated against for being in an interracial relationship, for being differently abled, for being female, for being pregnant, for being unmarried and pregnant. They don't look at the best person for the job.
From what I've heard, Walmart has changed since old Sam died. It's a different company than it was then. Walmart historically placed their stores in areas that had few shopping options. They then priced their competitors out of business. After the competitors went out of business, the prices went back up again (that can be seen today right here in St Louis - pet supplies are substantially cheaper at Walmarts near a pet store than they are at a Walmart not near a pet store, for example). After other stores were driven out of business, then Walmart had a virtual monopoly on the shoppers. (Of course, I'm speaking of those near smaller towns) In addition to having a monopoly on the shoppers, Walmart had a monopoly as an employer - since the other businesses were closed, the people employed there or who might have been employed there were forced to turn to Walmart for work.
While there are those who say that "they have a choice to work there", I maintain that that is incorrect. There are often times that there is no choice...that Walmart is the only viable option for employment. And that does not give Walmart the right to treat their employees like shit. Employers have a responsibility to their employees, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Jul 2, 2004 7:52:08 GMT -5
As much as I like to laud the personal responsibility and choice angles, I think there may be something to be inferred from the fact that they've (WalMart) been sued by the EEOC almost 50 times for discriminatory practices.
I'm completely opposed to class-action lawsuits which reward the attorneys and not the victims. I'm almost in favor of capping attorney's fees in a class-action suit to a lower percentage of a financial judgement. I don't know how their fees are worked out now, but there has to be a better way.
I understand what Rick's saying, and I think he makes some valid points, but according the article, many of the pay discrepencies happen between men and women in the same job with the same seniority. I think the defense that they couldn't do that because it's illegal might be a little naive. After all, I just got busted for doing something illegal. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean no one does it, just that they try like Hell to not get caught.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 2, 2004 9:46:37 GMT -5
Dude, you watch Dr. Phil? You need to get out more. Ya think?  - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 2, 2004 9:49:24 GMT -5
As much as I like to laud the personal responsibility and choice angles, I think there may be something to be inferred from the fact that they've (WalMart) been sued by the EEOC almost 50 times for discriminatory practices. I'm completely opposed to class-action lawsuits which reward the attorneys and not the victims. I'm almost in favor of capping attorney's fees in a class-action suit to a lower percentage of a financial judgement. I don't know how their fees are worked out now, but there has to be a better way. I understand what Rick's saying, and I think he makes some valid points, but according the article, many of the pay discrepencies happen between men and women in the same job with the same seniority. I think the defense that they couldn't do that because it's illegal might be a little naive. After all, I just got busted for doing something illegal. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean no one does it, just that they try like Hell to not get caught. Well, if they have been discriminatory on a company-wide basis, that should be easy to prove. I've kind of found myself in a defend Wal Mart mode, when really I am just trying to say that the raw numbers tell us nothing. The attorneys better have more proof than that. But then again, in this day and age, they don't really need more proof than that... - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Jul 2, 2004 9:58:22 GMT -5
That whole thing about women looking for jobs they can leave to take time off, etc is a crock of bullshit and an excuse. It is sexist and not even worth the time it took to read it. Women are just like men when it comes to working. If a woman needs flex time, that's because she either a) doesn't have a husband or b) doesn't have a husband who will substantively help with the children. It's not a choice, it's a necessity. I used to get so mad when I was playing in a pool league and the bartender at our home bar would ask where my husband was. He would say, "Is he home babysitting the kids?" Uh, no! You don't babysit your own kids. Duh!!!! I would say it is sexist if the companies assumed that is what they wanted and made the choice for them, but the numbers seem to indicate there is a great deal of truth to the idea that many women who want families specifically limit their work availability. As it said in the article, roughly 33% of women with MBAs were not working full time, as opposed to men at 5%. This is not to say Wal Mart may not be discriminating, and if so, they do it at a cost to themselves. I'd just like to see more proof than some anecdotes and misleading numbers. From what I've heard, Walmart has changed since old Sam died. It's a different company than it was then. Walmart historically placed their stores in areas that had few shopping options. They then priced their competitors out of business. After the competitors went out of business, the prices went back up again (that can be seen today right here in St Louis - pet supplies are substantially cheaper at Walmarts near a pet store than they are at a Walmart not near a pet store, for example). After other stores were driven out of business, then Walmart had a virtual monopoly on the shoppers. (Of course, I'm speaking of those near smaller towns) In addition to having a monopoly on the shoppers, Walmart had a monopoly as an employer - since the other businesses were closed, the people employed there or who might have been employed there were forced to turn to Walmart for work. While there are those who say that "they have a choice to work there", I maintain that that is incorrect. There are often times that there is no choice...that Walmart is the only viable option for employment. And that does not give Walmart the right to treat their employees like shit. Employers have a responsibility to their employees, too. A Wal Mart next to a pet store would be stupid to try not to compete with it. But I say, to what end? Even if they did have a monopoly, which is impossible without government help, they are still bound by the market. If they raise their prices too high, people will ration their consumption, and Wal Mart would lose money. Also, if Wal Mart is the only place in town to shop and find a job, they better pay their people enough to afford their products, or they will run themselves out of business. Thanks for jumping in the fray, everyone! - Rick |
|
Mylaan
Full Member
I can't help it, I just love to be bad.
Posts: 152
|
Post by Mylaan on Oct 2, 2006 11:34:44 GMT -5
Another WalMart beauty: This is a cut & paste job of a thread on another board: SNIP  And she didn't start raising holy hell in that tacky ass joint??? Pussy. |
|
