You have your answer now, in case there was any doubt.
When the U.S. Supreme Court votes in late June to decertify the class of low-income women who are suing Wal-Mart for sex discrimination, here is what the public will conclude from the media headlines:
After the first day of oral arguments, the media concluded that Wal-Mart had won. NPR, for example, said the Justices had created a "wall of doubt" about the plaintiffs' claims of discrimination, and that the Dukes plaintiffs had been "bombarded" with tough questions by the justices. According to one Forbes op-ed piece, the plaintiffs' lawyer was "roasted."
In a press release last month, the plaintiffs argued that Wal-Mart had "a corporate culture that is rife with gender stereotypes," with "highly subjective policies enforced on a daily basis by its Home Office to ensure consistency in results." This tension between subjectivity and consistency seemed to trouble the Supreme Court. "Well, which is it?" Judge Antonin Scalia asked the plaintiffs. Either individual managers are on their own, "or else a strong corporate culture tells them what to do." The United Food & Commercial Workers have urged Scalia to step down, since his son works for a prominent Wal-Mart law firm that deals with employment issues.
Justice Samuel Alito seemed to suggest that Wal-Mart's employment profile was "absolutely typical of the entire American workforce," so if Wal-Mart was in violation of gender discrimination laws, then so was the entire retail industry. Even if that were true, does that mean that the workers at Wal-Mart have lost their right to litigate for gender equity? If every employer is wrong, does that make discrimination in this case right?
Analysts in the media are suggesting that this large class of women does not have enough legal glue to be bound together as a class. They are suggesting that even though the lower courts found enough "commonality" in these women's situations to certify them as a class, that the Supreme Court will not, and Wal-Mart will be able to walk away from their "associates" claiming that it was local renegade managers who wronged them, not the company. Wal-Mart wants the public to believe that managers 'do their own thing' and that this multi-billion corporation is run like a large unruly family where Father Knows Nothing. We used to call such a portrayal corporate deniability.
Some observers will no doubt want to wait a couple of months to see how the Bush-dominated court rules in this case. But based on what I've seen from the justices already, the writing is on the Wal.
This is perhaps the strongest argument why Wal-Mart needs to have a union. With collective bargaining in place, these 1.5 million 'associates' would have been able to tell their local managers that the sexual pay and promotion discrimination had to end. It's the only way to balance out the enormous power managers clearly have over the workers who were forced to sue them to get their attention.
Al Norman is the author of The Case Against Wal-Mart, and is the founder of Sprawl-Busters.
Alexander Mikulich, Ph.D.: Remembering MLK: Honor the Dignity of Workers
Martha Burk: Wal-Mart's Woman Troubles -- Too Big to Be Sued?
That would only be logical, if, our legal system was based on "reasonableness", justice, and any fair scale to proportion. But don't expect my arguments to be presented to the SCOTUS Conservative Catholic Five any time soon.
It's reached the point where the only thing that will bring the "Beast of Bentonville" (WALMART) to it's knees (other than Ninja Anarchists), is another bigger beast that is even more rapacious, cruel, unfair, hypocritical, and inhuman.
I’ve just about given up on any recourse or relief from all three branches of our government “Of, By, For the Peopleâ€.
but wal-mart was genius in their price plan to make sure they eliminate all competitive business' around them...so sad...talk about woman's rights....where are they now in this court which is supposed to be supreme, what a joke
Seems to me Obama has already made some appointtments to the Supreme Court too. But according to this "newsworthy?" source, it's a George Bush dominated court.
Will the dems ever take responsibility? haven't they figured out this is the kind of nonsense that got them trounced in the 2010 elections?
You're right though, the effects of some policies do linger, like the Democratic House and Senate dominated policies from their 2006 victory which, even though swiftly corrected 4 years later, is still resulting in an anit-business environment. Crippled the economy in 2008 and is still crippling job creation.
At least Obama is using US taxpayer money to create oil drilling jobs in Brazil - so we can then pay to import that oil into the US.
Attila Honey
Host: The Attila the Honey Comedy Hour
Contributor: PRonloinenews.com
http://www.attilathehoney.com
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/14/us-walmart-environment-idUSN1324792520080314
The solution begins in our own backyard. In short, being an example of good ethics, morals and principles to our children and others.That is a solution. The divorce rate in this country is 60%. What does that say about us as a nation?
Look at the low level of television shows and my point is made. All of the above are driven by man's insatiable desire for more for less and of course, sex and vulgarity without paying the price. We also set poor examples for our children by breaking our marriage vows and engage the kids in the parent's bitterness. How to be a part of the solution? Be a good human being. We are defined by the promises we keep.
What tension? The policies are subjective and therefore consistently yield discriminatory results, as would be borne out in proof of discrimination. WalMart certainly isn't going to write discrimination into it's policies, so it makes them subjective so they can be interpreted ad hoc by managers et al; and are thereby creating a means to allow discrimination. While it would do a lot to help the plaintiffs case if someone like an executive came forward and said: "Yeah, we all talked about how people who have a pair big enough to discriminate get promoted," the plaintiffs representatives don't have any duty to prove that much, just that a pattern of discrimination exists and they were merely presenting how this could take place.
Put another way- The policies allowed for various interpretations and when the discriminatory result that WalMart wanted came from certain interpretations those were the ones that were rewarded.
Judge Antonin Scalia is using semantics to bully the underdog, whom it would be reasonable to assume the lawyers representing the plaintiffs would be, WalMart being the mega-corporation that it is.