Supercenter is super-sexistThe debate is tried and true alright. This is right out the tired old liberal/feminist playbook.
The Wal-Mart controversy is tried and true.
Everyone has been sounding off about the Wal-Mart plans in Pullman. There are so many different arguments for and against the corporation and with the recent denied appeals to keep Wal-Mart out, there really is only one more chance to put Wal-Mart in its place and its place is not in Pullman.
Wal-Mart has a history with practices that discriminate based on gender. Even though Title IX, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlaws this type of discrimination it is still apparent in the working world. Fair policy is always an integral first step but it does not always guarantee that appropriate action will be taken.
According to the Wal-Mart Web site, in June 2004 the U.S. District court for the Northern District of California state certified a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart. This lawsuit is being brought against Wal-Mart because of its discriminatory practices against more than 1.6 million female employees, past and present.
According to statistics from the class-action case, Wal-Mart’s female employees receive about $5,200 less than the male employees. Wal-Mart hires women but then limits their opportunities for growth within the corporation by denying them high-paying positions and management titles.
More than two-thirds of Wal-Mart’s employees are women, however, men hold 85 percent of the managerial positions. Wal-Mart is the largest private employer nationwide and their practices are deliberately holding women back in training, hiring and promotions.
Wal-Mart is denying their employees equality because of their gender. It is ironic that the No. 1 company on the Fortune 500 list is also the most sued retailer in the nation. Currently, Wal-Mart is appealing the class action certification because the corporation believes that it does not represent all of the women employee perspectives.
The roots of the Wal-Mart mega-empire are in family values and small-town retail. CDs sold at Wal-Mart are edited to fit these values, limiting the artists' right of free speech. The founder, Sam Walton, was a good Christian man that wanted to provide for his community with a new kind of convenience store, according to the Wal-Mart Web site.
The good intention is there, but like the popular idiom, the road to hell is sometimes paved with these. However, religious and good the corporation began, this does not condone discriminatory practices.
A popular viewpoint on the Wal-Mart in Pullman issue seems to be that it will provide an opportunity for economic growth. But at what cost?
Wal-Mart, as an employer, is killing the American Dream because no one is allowed, especially women, to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Wal-Mart does the minimum to provide benefits and by keeping their employees working limited amounts of hours for the lowest amount of pay.
We already have a Wal-Mart on our paradise called the Palouse, a place where we can buy our government-issued togs and continue working for the man. There is no need for another Supercenter. The only development that this corporation will bring to Pullman is the an up-hill battle for equality in the workplace.
Of course, Ms. Schaeffer's knowledge of Wal-Mart is limited to what she has been told in her Women's Studies classes and read on the Wal-Mart Watch web site. I'm sure she never deigned to work there.
The bottom line is that if Wal-Mart were such a horrible place to work, either for men or women, why did 25,000 people recently line up to apply for employment at one outside of Chicago? Brielle and her socialist mentors won't be able to explain that one, as they have no conception of the free market.
Finally, how dare a temporary resident of this town, a guest, who will no doubt move on to some liberal Shangri-La one day, tell us what we need and don't need. "We already have a Wal-Mart on our paradise called the Palouse"? You need a remedial course in Economics 101, Ms. Schaeffer. It is MOSCOW that already has a Wal-Mart. Our little corner of paradise gets no tax benefits whatsoever when you buy your "government-issued togs". How do you propose to fund the infrastructure you enjoy while you are in Pullman filling your head with Politically Correct mush?
UPDATE: Ms. Schaeffer's column reminds me of Steven Spielberg's Minority Report. In that movie, Tom Cruise played a member of a futuristic police force that arrests people BEFORE they commit a crime. Ground hasn't even been broken yet on a Pullman Supercenter, yet she presciently looks at an empty wheatfield and sees an "up-hill battle for equality" going on there (the up-hill part is right anyway). For that matter, she has already acted as judge and jury and found Wal-Mart guilty in the California class-action lawsuit before the case has even been heard. Ah, to be young and know it all again.
Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart
No comments:
Post a Comment