or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Wal-Mart Values
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wal-Mart Values

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
What do you think about when you shop at Wal-Mart? Do you see low prices and capitalize on buying as much as you can? Do you consider that they're the Dell of the retail industry thus avoiding it like the plague?

Well consider these
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021216&s=featherstone&c=1" target="_blank">Wal-Mart Values</a>. Agree or disagree that unionization could alleviate those problems- it doesn't matter. Discuss.
post #2 of 26
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>What do you think about when you shop at Wal-Mart? Do you see low prices and capitalize on buying as much as you can? Do you consider that they're the Dell of the retail industry thus avoiding it like the plague?

Well consider these
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021216&s=featherstone&c=1" target="_blank">Wal-Mart Values</a>. Agree or disagree that unionization could alleviate those problems- it doesn't matter. Discuss.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You brought up a good issue here SPJ and I give you a lot of credit for this issue.

First off I will say that I believe Wal-Mart has practices that are anti-employee. I believe Wal-Mart has policies that strain workers and managers to perform in ways that are both against the law and are again anti-employee. I believe Wal-Mart in their goal to run a lean machine has indeed met that goal but at too high a cost. The cost does not go away in a vacuum. The workers are forced to face steep penalty such as losing their job if their performance does not live up to the demands Wal-Mart expects. In most Business this is not such a bad or strange thing however with Wal-Mart it is a very serious problem. Bad choices are made out of fear of penalty by various manager levels of Wal-Mart employees. This is so that the quota is met in order that their job is not lost. This results in outrageous abuse for all Wal-Mart employees.

I for one will not step foot in a Wal-Mart store. I take my business to other places of business Target is one place I turn to. I have two different friends of mine that back in the day when around age 16-17 one worked at Wal-Mart and one worked for Target and I can tell you there is a VAST difference in structure and employee respect and management.

Will a union help with the Wal-Mart situation? It could help the employees. I do think there are other much more dominent proplems that lead to what we find with Wal-Mart however. The stated goal of being a discount price leader from the get go presents Wal-Mart with a tall order to fill. This order is filled by abuse of employees and Supplier strong arming. Wal-Mart puts tremendous pressure on the Suppliers as well to sell to Wal-Mart at a low low price with threat of cancelation if the lower prices are not agreed to. This pressure all adds up to why Wal-Mart is a low cost provider of goods. As I see how this works with them I never and I mean I never step foot in their stores. Back to will Unions help. As I said earlier sure they could but what we are really facing is a segment of the public in the marketplace who are Wal-Mart customers who want the bottom line price. These customers don't go to Wal-Mart for the service I can tell you that. These customers do not go there for the feel of a fancy department store shopping experience. These shoppers shop there for the bottom line price on goods. This was a good stategy for Wal-Mart to bet on as far as knowing what the consumer wants.

I believe the solution to this problem falls into several components. First of all bad press on what Wal-Mart does with its poor treatment is all game. Let it be seen on the media how Wal-Mart treats employees. This I would hope would change the minds of some would be Wal-Mart shoppers. Secondly we must as a society prefer to be an educated society. More people need a college / University education. With more education as a priority we will invent and service higher paying jobs all together. In such a situation of higher levels of education less people would be willing to entertain the idea of working at a place like Wal-Mart for such low wages or salary. Education is key for this. We will never fix this situation until people realize that education opens doors. Unions are sometimes needed for basic humane issues. I do think however that it would be the wrong choice to always rely on a union to protect low skill jobs in order to get ahead. The true way to get ahead is by way of Education, Training, Talent and Problem Solving Skills. Where Wal-Mart is concerned in this case however I would have no problem with a union penetrating their oppressive system and putting pressure to change it for the better.

Fellowship

[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #3 of 26
Thread Starter 
Hmm. I agree with your conclusion, but you missed a big part of that article: Sexual Discrimination.
post #4 of 26
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>Hmm. I agree with your conclusion, but you missed a big part of that article: Sexual Discrimination.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry I only read page one of the link...

I had my views of Wal-Mart for some time now.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #5 of 26
[quote]Do you consider that they're the Dell of the retail industry thus avoiding it like the plague?<hr></blockquote>

What's wrong with Dell?? As far as Peecees go I think they're acceptable.
You cannot conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish
the Irish passion for freedom. If our deed has not
been sufficient to win freedom, then our children
will win it by a better deed.
Pádraig Pearse

...
Reply
You cannot conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish
the Irish passion for freedom. If our deed has not
been sufficient to win freedom, then our children
will win it by a better deed.
Pádraig Pearse

...
Reply
post #6 of 26
Just to follow up:

There may be some Gender abuse with Wal-Mart but how I see it Wal-Mart is abuse all the way around.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #7 of 26
[quote]just to follow up: There may be some Gender abuse with Wal-Mart but how I see it Wal-Mart is abuse all the way around.
Fellowship<hr></blockquote>

Strange...but isn't Walmart the model of American big business capitalism 2000 style? After all, aren't they the the world's largest and most successful/profitable retailer and they open new store in new territories with the whole organization getting bigger and bigger each year?? They keep their stockholders very very happy; maximum profits is the *only* real consideration, happy employees, fair practises, etc etc are minor issues to be addressed grudgingly; a trade union for walmart workers (eeeek!!...*communism!!!!*) is the arch enemy!

Wal-Mart? read Mall Wart.

Yuk!
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #8 of 26
I know that our local Super-market chains are buying up land like crazy to prevent Walmart from infiltrating and dominating the area. Especially with WM pushing their super center stores.
post #9 of 26
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>I know that our local Super-market chains are buying up land like crazy to prevent Walmart from infiltrating and dominating the area. Especially with WM pushing their super center stores.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is simple... Do what I do.

Don't shop there.

They can push and push but it takes a "sell out your values to save a dime" kind of consumer to shop there.


Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #10 of 26
oops

[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #11 of 26
I have to stop reading stuff like this when I hit the second or third claim that is highly suspect and presented with no supporting evidence.

40% of women go to wall mart once a week?

wall mart health insurance is so costly 3/5 don't buy it?

I'm sure those two are either untrue or unproven.
post #12 of 26
Thread Starter 
Right. I equally abhor arguments without backing or support such as "this statistic is untrue..... because..... um.......... because I KNOW IT IS ."




Your attacks on statistics here tell everyone here just how much you disagree with the article. Tell us, Scott, how sexual discrimination so doesn't happen at Wal-Mart.



[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #13 of 26
Well I can't speak to the gender specific issues with regard to those particular cases, but I can say as a whole retail is not the greatest "career" to be in. I believe the number of women in it does not so much reflect discrimination by men so much as women looking for a job that can allow flexible hours, pay a reasonable wage, not be too demanding, and of course not require any legitimate education or advanced training.

In addressing the article I will say that I noticed the universalness of traits with regard to the plaintiffs. For example almost universally they were cited as being single moms with children. This to me says that when push comes to shove, the company gets shoved.

I work in a female dominated field (Elemantary school teachers are 95% female) and whenever a child is sick or just even when someone wants to go on a field trip, I can tell you that the mom's be they teachers, aides, yard duties, you name it, simply bail on their job responsibilities.

Some other aspects of the article that are not addressed of course is that women are under represented in the jobs they desire. (Management) However something often not mentioned is that women often want jobs with the traits I mentioned above, a lack of physicality, flexible hours, no serious career demands, etc.

However obviously there are jobs at Walmart that women do not desire and I would be very interested to see the representation of women there. For example if the warehouse workers were 97% men while clerical duties were 97% women, that would be very interesting. It would be quite interesting to see what percentage of women are not interested in stocking heavy items, or working with or processing hazardous materials.

The article for example cites the plight of the women who have to sew the clothes for Walmart. However what about the men who drill the oil for the plastics? When the job injuries and deaths on these jobs are 97% men, in fairness where is NOW screaming for their gender equity?

Finally as always the article does notice that despite all these terrible things going on all of this goes on to benefit... women. Women shop, women like the prices, women do the buying. Women have the power to make Walmart change.

The article makes a claim of sexism toward Walmart saying that a man was promoted over a woman because... he has a WIFE an family to support. In otherwords if the man receives a benefit, so does his WIFE who happens to be a woman.

Finally the article mentions that 72% of Walmart's sales work force are women. (Again the sale work force, when you get to the less desirable jobs, I have no doubt who holds them.) Where is the equity here? Walmart should be charged with gender discrinimation, they shouldn't be allowed to hire another woman until 50% of their sale work force are men. Likewise the same should be applied to all their competitors who obviously keep similar numbers of women. (or so the article claims with regard to workforce vs. management)

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 26
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>Well I can't speak to the gender specific issues with regard to those particular cases, but I can say as a whole retail is not the greatest "career" to be in. I believe the number of women in it does not so much reflect discrimination by men so much as women looking for a job that can allow flexible hours, pay a reasonable wage, not be too demanding, and of course not require any legitimate education or advanced training.

In addressing the article I will say that I noticed the universalness of traits with regard to the plaintiffs. For example almost universally they were cited as being single moms with children. This to me says that when push comes to shove, the company gets shoved.

I work in a female dominated field (Elemantary school teachers are 95% female) and whenever a child is sick or just even when someone wants to go on a field trip, I can tell you that the mom's be they teachers, aides, yard duties, you name it, simply bail on their job responsibilities.

Some other aspects of the article that are not addressed of course is that women are under represented in the jobs they desire. (Management) However something often not mentioned is that women often want jobs with the traits I mentioned above, a lack of physicality, flexible hours, no serious career demands, etc.

However obviously there are jobs at Walmart that women do not desire and I would be very interested to see the representation of women there. For example if the warehouse workers were 97% men while clerical duties were 97% women, that would be very interesting. It would be quite interesting to see what percentage of women are not interested in stocking heavy items, or working with or processing hazardous materials.

The article for example cites the plight of the women who have to sew the clothes for Walmart. However what about the men who drill the oil for the plastics? When the job injuries and deaths on these jobs are 97% men, in fairness where is NOW screaming for their gender equity?

Finally as always the article does notice that despite all these terrible things going on all of this goes on to benefit... women. Women shop, women like the prices, women do the buying. Women have the power to make Walmart change.

The article makes a claim of sexism toward Walmart saying that a man was promoted over a woman because... he has a WIFE an family to support. In otherwords if the man receives a benefit, so does his WIFE who happens to be a woman.

Finally the article mentions that 72% of Walmart's sales work force are women. (Again the sale work force, when you get to the less desirable jobs, I have no doubt who holds them.) Where is the equity here? Walmart should be charged with gender discrinimation, they shouldn't be allowed to hire another woman until 50% of their sale work force are men. Likewise the same should be applied to all their competitors who obviously keep similar numbers of women. (or so the article claims with regard to workforce vs. management)

Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree with you completely but IT HAS TO BE A SEXUAL THING!!! IT HAS TO!!! (little joke)

Trust me I am no fan of Wal-Mart but it is not because I have nothing to do and want to find deep pockets to sue. I think Wal-Mart is a little on the rough side all the way around so I simply do not shop there. If the Jobs are so bad I would not work there. Not so complicated.

The kind of rhetoric you see these days from the "Labor" Voice is often times a joke in a disguise of trying to come across as legit.

Some of the stuff is just beyond any reason what so ever.

Fellowship

[ 11-28-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #15 of 26
actually, i think Wal-Mart has this coming to them. i've heard rumblings from different business school professors about the subject.

looks like the subject has been ripening for a while, and Wal-Mart is going to take this one hard.

the problem Wal-Mart is going to run into will not really come from just them, but rather where they stack up next to their competitors, and from what i've heard it's not good. (which is, in part, why they're kicking ass)

but then again, shortcuts don't often pay off long-term.

as for examples of businesses doing it right, companies like 3M and Target come to mind. a company doesn't have to be evil and treat their employees like shit to be successful, they just happen to get more press when they have.
post #16 of 26
Dammit, I saw "Wal-Mart values..." and clicked here thinking I'd get a list of some cool stuff on sale for my Holiday shopping needs...

Ah've been hornswaggled!
post #17 of 26
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>Dammit, I saw "Wal-Mart values..." and clicked here thinking I'd get a list of some cool stuff on sale for my Holiday shopping needs...

Ah've been hornswaggled!</strong><hr></blockquote>

LOL <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I love that word!!!!
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #18 of 26
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>Dammit, I saw "Wal-Mart values..." and clicked here thinking I'd get a list of some cool stuff on sale for my Holiday shopping needs...

Ah've been hornswaggled!</strong><hr></blockquote>

What can I say. I've been a Target shopper since the store opened a few weeks ago in my area. Can't argue with iPods on display!
post #19 of 26
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>

In addressing the article I will say that I noticed the universalness of traits with regard to the plaintiffs. For example almost universally they were cited as being single moms with children. This to me says that when push comes to shove, the company gets shoved.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, yes, that is the aim of the lawsuit to shove the company.

[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Some other aspects of the article that are not addressed of course is that women are under represented in the jobs they desire. (Management) However something often not mentioned is that women often want jobs with the traits I mentioned above, a lack of physicality, flexible hours, no serious career demands, etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Your contention ignores the arguments by the women in the lawsuit.

[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>

However obviously there are jobs at Walmart that women do not desire and I would be very interested to see the representation of women there. For example if the warehouse workers were 97% men while clerical duties were 97% women, that would be very interesting. It would be quite interesting to see what percentage of women are not interested in stocking heavy items, or working with or processing hazardous materials.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

So? They don't want those jobs. The case is about women not getting jobs that they both want and are qualified for.

[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>

The article for example cites the plight of the women who have to sew the clothes for Walmart. However what about the men who drill the oil for the plastics? When the job injuries and deaths on these jobs are 97% men, in fairness where is NOW screaming for their gender equity?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

NOW= National Organization for WOMEN. They are not interested in the plight of men who drill the oil for plastics.

[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Finally as always the article does notice that despite all these terrible things going on all of this goes on to benefit... women. Women shop, women like the prices, women do the buying. Women have the power to make Walmart change.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not that easy to look past the lowest prices, Trumpman.

[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
The article makes a claim of sexism toward Walmart saying that a man was promoted over a woman because... he has a WIFE an family to support. In otherwords if the man receives a benefit, so does his WIFE who happens to be a woman.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Your logic is laughable at best. Why should women work at all? Afterall, the man bringing home the paycheck benefits his WIFE... Seriously your comments ignore the fact that gender discrimination exists at Wal-Mart

[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>
Finally the article mentions that 72% of Walmart's sales work force are women. (Again the sale work force, when you get to the less desirable jobs, I have no doubt who holds them.) Where is the equity here? Walmart should be charged with gender discrinimation, they shouldn't be allowed to hire another woman until 50% of their sale work force are men. Likewise the same should be applied to all their competitors who obviously keep similar numbers of women. (or so the article claims with regard to workforce vs. management)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sure 72% of the applicants for Wal-Mart jobs are only women. Minimum wage jobs are no to low-skilled- they take just about anyone who applies. The issues is about gender discrimination in job duties and in advancement.

So I disagree with you on several fronts here. Basically, you're saying that gender discrimination exists and it's a good thing...?
post #20 of 26
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>Right. I equally abhor arguments without backing or support such as "this statistic is untrue..... because..... um.......... because I KNOW IT IS ."




Your attacks on statistics here tell everyone here just how much you disagree with the article. Tell us, Scott, how sexual discrimination so doesn't happen at Wal-Mart.



</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh. I'm just saying that the facts that the author present smell of bullshit. 40% of women go to wal mart once a week? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Workers don't get the health insurance because it cost to much. Prove it.

It make for a real tear jerker huh?
post #21 of 26
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>
Your attacks on statistics here tell everyone here just how much you disagree with the article. Tell us, Scott, how sexual discrimination so doesn't happen at Wal-Mart.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's not the real issue here. It's that the article mentions a lawsuit which means it must be bad.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #22 of 26
Actually, I too am all about Target. Have been for YEARS. Cool stuff, good prices, CLEAN stores, etc.

Wal-Mart is just a larger, busier version of Kmart: messy, overcrowded, packed-to-the-gills, narrow aisles, etc.

Although, I'll pick Wal-Mart over Kmart any day. The past 2 or 3 times I've stopped by a Kmart (convenience, on the way, etc.), I was shocked at how crappy and low-rent it has become. That's in SoCal as well as in the South. Something about them just reek of "we don't have our act together...sorry...".



In summary: Target. Always.

No Target around? Wal-Mart. But I don't enjoy it like I do Target. I get in, get out.

Target, I can browse the lamp or furniture section, as well as they kitchen and gadget department for a LONG time because they have pretty cool-looking stuff!
post #23 of 26
I'm a confirmed Target shopper too. Typical weekend shopping trip for me is Target for everything they have that I need and then to Cub Foods for everything left on the list.
post #24 of 26
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>

I'm sure 72% of the applicants for Wal-Mart jobs are only women. Minimum wage jobs are no to low-skilled- they take just about anyone who applies. The issues is about gender discrimination in job duties and in advancement.

So I disagree with you on several fronts here. Basically, you're saying that gender discrimination exists and it's a good thing...?</strong><hr></blockquote>

However the lawsuit is about jobs that aren't necessarily low skilled and where they take just anyone. It is about mamangement jobs. In those jobs women still make up 33% of the recipients yet somehow that is "discrimination." I mentioned several factors that could lead to this that are not controllable by the company.

I am saying that the inequity does not have to be caused by a company or men.

For example I cited where someone "claimed" that a man was given a promotion over a woman because "he has a wife and children to support." In otherwords the claim is sexist and worst case. I'm not saying I support it, I am saying look at who benefits and who contributes to the intentions in this supposed worst case scenario. If a man doesn't take sick days or works excessively hard it is likely because his wife helps and enables him to do that. It is literally two working against one. The enabler here is not a company, but a woman.

I assure you that if that same couple were to divorce, that same woman would make claims of the hardships she endured in order for her husband to advance when she made claims of alimony. So it isn't that men or the company are necessarily keeping a woman down. It is that you have two people working to advance in one job working againstly likely a .75 person.

I assign the woman a .75 role because if she is a single mom supporting and raising children with no support, then she is likely to work fewer hours and little overtime. She likely wants more flexible scheduling and is more likely to take leave or sick days. The fact this happens in not caused by a man or a company.

Women as a whole typically won't even move into a job until they are a protected class. The fact that a man or a company will not "protect" them does not mean that is discrimination. For example you could argue that while women complain of a "glass ceiling" men are trapped in a "glass cellar" because the ten jobs where you are most likely to die or get hurt are staffed exclusively by men. Women don't want them because there are no protections.

You mention that NOW wouldn't be interested in oil rig jobs. However the jobs are high paying and likely staffed exclusively by men. (I would bet they are 99% men) Obviously that is a serious gender inequity which NOW should seek to redress. The reason they don't is because women simply don't want those dangerous jobs. So NOW isn't really about gender equity?? In reality they are about finding favorable jobs with protections and assigning those jobs disportionately to women.

So when women are 33% of the managers that is "discrimination" because they want those jobs. When they are 1% of oil rig workers, that isn't "discrimination" because.....well they don't want those jobs.

As you said, sometimes things just turn out that way... it isn't necessarily evil or bad intentions. However in instances where it "just happens to turn out that way" and it benefits men then the motives and the methods are questioned. Perhaps the 72% of women who apply there know this information because of an "old girls network" or other discriminatory factors.

The point is to think about it, not just quickly point fingers and assign blame.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #25 of 26
[quote]Originally posted by trumptman:
<strong>

The point is to think about it, not just quickly point fingers and assign blame.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The oil rig jobs and the elementary jobs are a great analogy. In neither case is it discrimination because women aren't looking for oil rig jobs and men aren't looking for elementary school jobs.

The discrimination SPJ is talking about is "in job duties and in advancement." If 72% of the sales force is female, but only 33% can advance to management, that looks suspicious. That's not a problem of 17% possibly getting the proverbial screw, but roughly 39%. If WalMart hires from within then the 72-28% breakdown should be roughly equal in management. Apparently it's not.

It's hard to deny that there is some serious discrimination against women in the workplace, even if things are improving. Nurse salaries are increasing as more men become nurses, while vet salaries are decreasing as more women become vets. Trends like this exist and it's real, even if thigns are getting better.

Hell, I remember a story from a year or so ago about a study done that showed how taller men were more likely to have larger, ahem, salaries, than shorter men. Should short people sue? Or should the discrimination continue?

People are weird. They'd rather hire a tall white guy as a manager even if he's a dunce.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #26 of 26
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

The oil rig jobs and the elementary jobs are a great analogy. In neither case is it discrimination because women aren't looking for oil rig jobs and men aren't looking for elementary school jobs.

The discrimination SPJ is talking about is "in job duties and in advancement." If 72% of the sales force is female, but only 33% can advance to management, that looks suspicious. That's not a problem of 17% possibly getting the proverbial screw, but roughly 39%. If WalMart hires from within then the 72-28% breakdown should be roughly equal in management. Apparently it's not.

It's hard to deny that there is some serious discrimination against women in the workplace, even if things are improving. Nurse salaries are increasing as more men become nurses, while vet salaries are decreasing as more women become vets. Trends like this exist and it's real, even if thigns are getting better.

Hell, I remember a story from a year or so ago about a study done that showed how taller men were more likely to have larger, ahem, salaries, than shorter men. Should short people sue? Or should the discrimination continue?

People are weird. They'd rather hire a tall white guy as a manager even if he's a dunce.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It might look suspicious until you look at the plaintiffs and the likely reasons they might not have advanced.

It is important to note that it is not just that women or men don't look for a certain type of job but why they don't. When women typically didn't become firefighters, it didn't matter that it was a lot of men who lived in a firehouse together, it was a societal obligation to insure equity. (or so we are told)

Likewise when you look at an elementary school and see that 95% of the teachers are women. Then you look at behavior referrals, special education referrals, drop out rates and even college enrollment rates and you see that men suffer there at every turn. College enrollment rates are 55% women and 45% men. Special ed and discipline referrals are 10 to 1 in favor or men. (Means they are failing)

If there were a field that was 95% male and all the women were referred for problems and failing, I assure you we would be asked to look into it.

If the only factor to consider in managment hiring was, are they currently working here, then you are right that the numbers look odd. However if it has anything to do with committment to job, overtime worked, willingness to work weekends, odd hours, go on business trips, etc. Then those factors should be considered as well.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Wal-Mart Values