The Supreme Court decided today that WalMart would not be held liable for a mass of women claiming discriminatory practices by the corporation. Statisticians have been able to show that women make less money than men and earn fewer promotions than men, even when compared to competitors. So, 1.6 million women were suing the company for a cease of said behavior and back pay. The Supreme Court basically decided that they were asking too much, that Walmart would run out of money or time or something if it had to process all claims made against it. The question buzzing around the media now is, "Can a corporation be too big to discriminate?"
The case itself is complicated. I am sure that WalMart does not have an official Keep Women Down policy, so it's unclear how liable WalMart Corporate really is. One could reasonably assume that many of WalMart's locations are in places where women are not valued in the work place, and therefore managers may not be so apt to promote women. A good case can also be made that women tend to not push as hard for promotions and raises as men. So maybe WalMart isn't causing the problem. I'm not really angry with the supreme court for ruing the way it did.
What isn't sitting well with me is that everyone is recognizing there is a problem, and rather than coming up with creative ways to promote the value of female managers, WalMart is simply throwing lawyers at the complaint and using its vast power to make it go away. The discussion we should be having is not "Is it WalMart's Fault?", but rather, "How can WalMart fix this problem?", and no one, not even the plaintiffs, is asking that question.
It also reflects a disturbing trend in Supreme Court rulings that is decidedly pro big business, such as the Citizens United case, which allows unlimited political funding from special interest groups. Basically the constitution is being interpreted in a way right now that allows money to be a form of free speech, making the tiny percentage of people or organizations with a lot of money the only voices with microphones. This pro WalMart ruling suggests an even further, darker freedom: mulitnational corporations are too big to oversee widespread unethical practices, so they might as well not bother.
All this behavior is fueled by the American consumer's love of cheap and convenience. Low cost business models mean employees are under trained and under valued, and easily replaced. Paul Roberts cites in his book The End of Food that Walmart is likely responsible for significant reduction in food costs, but also the decline of middle class wages.
In conclusion, I'd like to thank the supreme court for giving me yet another reason not to shop at WalMart. I'd rather be able to trace liability when evidence of discrimination is clear.
The case itself is complicated. I am sure that WalMart does not have an official Keep Women Down policy, so it's unclear how liable WalMart Corporate really is. One could reasonably assume that many of WalMart's locations are in places where women are not valued in the work place, and therefore managers may not be so apt to promote women. A good case can also be made that women tend to not push as hard for promotions and raises as men. So maybe WalMart isn't causing the problem. I'm not really angry with the supreme court for ruing the way it did.
What isn't sitting well with me is that everyone is recognizing there is a problem, and rather than coming up with creative ways to promote the value of female managers, WalMart is simply throwing lawyers at the complaint and using its vast power to make it go away. The discussion we should be having is not "Is it WalMart's Fault?", but rather, "How can WalMart fix this problem?", and no one, not even the plaintiffs, is asking that question.
It also reflects a disturbing trend in Supreme Court rulings that is decidedly pro big business, such as the Citizens United case, which allows unlimited political funding from special interest groups. Basically the constitution is being interpreted in a way right now that allows money to be a form of free speech, making the tiny percentage of people or organizations with a lot of money the only voices with microphones. This pro WalMart ruling suggests an even further, darker freedom: mulitnational corporations are too big to oversee widespread unethical practices, so they might as well not bother.
All this behavior is fueled by the American consumer's love of cheap and convenience. Low cost business models mean employees are under trained and under valued, and easily replaced. Paul Roberts cites in his book The End of Food that Walmart is likely responsible for significant reduction in food costs, but also the decline of middle class wages.
In conclusion, I'd like to thank the supreme court for giving me yet another reason not to shop at WalMart. I'd rather be able to trace liability when evidence of discrimination is clear.
"All this behavior is fueled by the American consumer's love of cheap and convenience. Low cost business models mean employees are under trained and under valued, and easily replaced." Me thinks this is the crux of it.
ReplyDelete