U.S. Supreme Court bars mass sex bias case vs Wal-Mart

America is increasingly owned, run, operated and presided over by corporations and the minons looking after their interests. The people have become nothing. Walmart is one of the most evil of the corporates. I boycott their stores in the US as well as their subsidiaries here in Japan. They are one of the worst in terms of employer behaviors and should be treated as an enemy of working people.

Vote with your wallets. Boycott Walmart and anything related to Walmart.

Vote with your wallets. Boycott Walmart and anything related to Walmart.

I am pleased to patronize Wal-mart and enjoy their low prices. Most people I know feel the same way. Loons on the other hand seem to think Wal-Mart is evil, and yet oddly have no problem with the worlds largest employer... The US government. How odd is that?

Good on the Supreme Court for dismissing this ridiculous case. The idea that 1.6 million people are entitled to compensation because of a few isolated incidents is completely ridiculous. There is no evidence whatsoever of any company wide discriminatory policy.

@tkoind2

I'll make sure to shop at Walmart even more.

Molenir. The desire for low prices is a big part of many problems we have. Denial of this fact and your comprehension of people who acknowledge this fact as "loons" illustrates the point that people are willing to suffer injustices to others so they can save a few bucks. Good for you to illustrate this for me.

The facts are simple. Walmart has a long history of anti-union behavior, extremely low wages for employees, harsh working restrictions, inequities for women and other behaviors that have called them into broad question with labor and rights organizations.

All so that you Deplore and Molenir can have cheap stuff. Happy? I am sure you don't have to work there so why should you care about conditions there. Not your family or friends and not you. Right?

American desire for cheap goods has sanctioned so many negative things that I cannot even list them here. For a start you can consider the following.

Systemic Pesticides that are killing off bees and causing increased incidents of autism in humans. Support of forced labor, child labor and virtual slave labor in clothing and goods producers. Substantial negative impact to the environment by masse farms both in the US and abroad. Support of regimes that provide cheap labor but abuse human rights. Government looking the other way when large companies abuse the rights of workers.

So go ahead and enjoy your cheap goods and the morally bankrupt attitude that nothing matters but your desire to shop cheaply. Thankfully there is growing support world wide against such firms as Walmart and considerable movement now against many of the evils produced by the unrealistic and unreasonable desire for cheap products by the American consumer.

Molenir. What gives you the right to paint people who are against Walmart as being somehow ok with the US government. I think I pretty clearly noted in my first post that I feel the US government serves corporations and not people. So what imaginary data led you to think I am pro US government, or that anyone out there calling attention to corporate abuses is entirely "ok" with government. Don't put words in people's mouths mate.

tkoind2, the question that the court decided was very specific. It was about whether or not a class-action lawsuit could be filed. The Supreme Court said no. Individuals are free to file their own claims.

Blasting Wal-Mart overall does nothing to prove anything for these women, which is the topic at hand. If your position is "I'm always going to be against Wal-Mart on everything because of all of this other unrelated evidence" then there's really no point in listening to you.

Superlib. The ruling will indeed make it harder for women in various positions in a large enterprise to bring law suits. It is a sad fact that the current supreme court rules most often in favor of industry and corporations over the interests of people.

The lower courts clearly found both precident and rationale to forward the case on. But the Supreme Court who are favoring corporate interests, along with much of the rest of the government, overturned their rulings and have now established a difficult precident.

I am not "always" against anything. I am against those things that do not properly serve community, people and principles that protect people.

And I couldn't care less who you listen to or not.

One more thing. If a corporation's practices and history of practices are negative towards the interests of working people, then yes I am against them. Thus the boycott by many people against Walmart.

If they change and become better citizens and more concerned about labor, then I would welcome the change and support them as a company.

I don't know why that seems so hard for people to grasp. Perhaps denial because we want cheap goods. Perhaps just being naive about the motivations of companies. Or perhaps just selfishness because the problem belongs to other people and not you. People very often fail to see that the challenges of one labor issue often translates broadly to other workers in many disperate industries. Thus this decision creates challenges for groups of women who may well have the same situation and even stronger cause to litigate.

One more thing. If a corporation's practices and history of practices are negative towards the interests of working people, then yes I am against them. Thus the boycott by many people against Walmart.

If they change and become better citizens and more concerned about labor, then I would welcome the change and support them as a company.

I don't know why that seems so hard for people to grasp. Perhaps denial because we want cheap goods. Perhaps just being naive about the motivations of companies. Or perhaps just selfishness because the problem belongs to other people and not you. People very often fail to see that the challenges of one labor issue often translates broadly to other workers in many disperate industries. Thus this decision creates challenges for groups of women who may well have the same situation and even stronger cause to litigate.

Not only is the "Supreme Court" (who are they, God they are "Supreme"?) run by extreme right wing ideologues, it would still be an undemocratic institution even if all members wee clones of Ralph Nader (not that I want him there, just using an example).

First of all, these people are chosen by the President & then Senate. There is no open process; it's as simple as they appoint whomever they fell will vote their way. Then the public have no say. All we hear about are ridiculous arguments over abortion/gays/immigrants etc. These are all right wing ideologies and that's not where the meat of the issues lies. What really matters is how they vote on free speech, presidential power, law suits like this one etc. Needless to say, most people do not agree with this or the nonsense they pulled by giving corporations even more rights than people.

And how does this nut Bush placed in office get to run the court without ever even serving on it? Surely one of the associates on it was better prepared . Now it's back to the days of Taney & Holmes and tolitarians of like mind. More importantly, the US is not democratic. A president can't serve for life, but the supreme court do? That is a ripe load of rubbish. Even some "middle eastern" and other so-called "backwards" or "barbarians" (as some Americans call them on tv like here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaKIh7vaOFY&feature=related ) are trying to address these problems. They're not succeeding as much as they'd like, but they're trying.

But the US has made 0 progress in 200 years on its undemocratic, dictatorial "judges" who get to serve for life. Might as well be Saddam Hussein, after all, he was supposed to serve for life too. Even Castro relinquished power! But what do you expect from the US? No more than the Germanic tribes expected from Rome.

Anything in the news about Walmart always brings out the fruitcakes. Envy is so central to the "progressive" mindset.

Lierman2012. Really Lieberman? Who are you calling a fruitcake?

@tkoind2

I have not patronized Wal-Mart for many years now, for many of the good reasons you have brought up. The documentary, The High Cost of Low Prices, clearly illustrates how communities and individuals work against their own best interests when giving their business to a Wal-Mart store.

This narrow 5-4 decision reflects the deep polarization of the US on matters of this kind, and represents another victory -- and quite likely a pyrrhic one -- for the conservatives and the Union of Corporate Management over the rights of people to assemble and seek a just solution to grievances. Each setback will eventually be set right.

Since the court has ruled in favor of Wal-Mart, can Wal-Mart be compensated for the lawyer fees they've had to pay thus far?

The case as it is was stupid. There were too many people from too many income levels to put forward a viable case. If infractions occurred they should be handled o a case by case basis anyway.

Wal-mart is a wonderful distribution and supply chain management model. I frequent their stores because they deliver exactly what they guarantee and are generally a benefit to the community at large despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

The facts are simple. Walmart has a long history of anti-union behavior,

Good for them. I don't blame them, however while you may say its anti-union behavior, they haven't broken any laws. If their employees truly wanted to unionize, Wal-Mart couldn't stop them.

extremely low wages for employees,

If you don't like your wage, look for another job.

harsh working restrictions

Huh? I worked for Wal-Mart when I was a kid. Was a good job, I never noticed anything bad about the work conditions.

inequities for women and other behaviors that have called them into broad question with labor and rights organizations.

This is nonsense. While there have been a few examples, those have been aggressively dealt with by Wal-Mart. The company is in the business of making money, not discriminating against people for some reason. People who feel discriminated against aren't returning customers.

Really Lieberman? Who are you calling a fruitcake?

If the shoe fits...

tkoind2: Superlib. The ruling will indeed make it harder for women in various positions in a large enterprise to bring law suits. It is a sad fact that the current suwpreme court rules most often in favor of industry and corporations over the interests of people.

No. What they're saying is that proof of discrimination against some women doesn't mean that entire group is entitled to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all women whether they were actually discriminated or not. There is a difference between isolated decisions and systemic policies. The court ruled that just because there is proof of discrimination against individuals it doesn't mean they have the right to include all women with the assumption that since it happened to a few it means it must have happened to all of them. Those specific women have the option of bring their own cases to court. The Supreme Court is saying that they can't apply the specifics of their case to a million women with no proof that all of them were discriminated against. It would be like a black man being fired for the wrong reasons and saying that since he was fired for being black he's going to file a class action suit on behalf of all black people just because of his situation.

But the Supreme Court who are favoring corporate interests, along with much of the rest of the government, overturned their rulings and have now established a difficult precident.

You're simply saying that since these women can only file individual lawsuits and not class-action lawsuits then by definition the Supreme Court if in favor of corporation. You're ignoring the specific situation at hand and the actual legal decisions they were making based on the evidence.

What they're saying is that proof of discrimination against some women doesn't mean that entire group is entitled to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all women whether they were actually discriminated or not.

What the five conservative justices have said, essentially, is that there is no such thing as pervasive discrimination in the corporate workplace. In oral arguments held in March and April, Boutros pointed to "official policies" while doing nothing to counter the statistical evidence of thousands upon thousands of women being passed over for promotion, and the fact that women employees of Wal-Mart make $1.25 per hour less than their male counterparts, on average.

A "class action" suit doesn't mean that ALL women who work for Wal-Mart face discrimination, but a very high percentage of them certainly do. Those who genuinely believe that they have been discriminated should have the right to determine if the company's actions against them were isolated or part of a wider pattern. If the latter is indicated, the class action suit is certainly the way to proceed -- rather than filing tens of thousands of separate individual cases. A US district court, four Justices, and hundreds of prior class action cases over the decades seem to indicate that five conservatives Justices are terribly wrong on this one.

A womans place is in the home. Don't put all these fancy ideas in their heads. how can they work at a high level when they are busy looking in the mirror mucking about with their hair etc and what about the "time of the month " business. The woman ha splenty of responsibilties in using her housekeeping in a frugal manner and ensuring the family is cared for at all times. How can a woman perform her natural homekeeping duties if she works full time in a job that should be for a man. I suppose they need regular training to understand the work they are employed for. It is ridiculous.

An important job in a business is a lot different than making tasty cakes. Men are natural thinkers and constructive, women are more creative and daydreamy.

yabitsJun. 22, 2011 - 04:52AM JST. the fact that women employees of Wal-Mart make $1.25 per hour less than their male counterparts, on average.

This is so misleading since many of the jobs that are paid better requires substantial manual labor. This means you have to lift heavy weights of 70 pounds (35 kilos) or more on regular basis. The Walmart do a phenomenal volume of business, requiring intensive manual labor to stay stocked. However, most women could do no lifting over their head. The garden section requires extensive manual labor and/or pallet jack experience. It's a fast- paced environment that some of the work that men do requires strength that few women can do on daily basis. If women wants to be paid the same, let them start lifting heavy inventory.

It's rather amazing that, in going against 1.6 million Americans, four Supreme Court justices, a US Court of Appeals, and hundreds of perfectly valid class action cases, that five conservative justices are writing new law from the bench.

yabitsJun. 22, 2011 - 06:39AM JST. It's rather amazing that, in going against 1.6 million Americans, four Supreme Court justices, a US Court of Appeals, and hundreds of perfectly valid class action cases, that five conservative justices are writing new law from the bench.

Time has changed. For the past 40 years, suit happy lawyers in the U.S. actually stagnated the growth for the industries. Many of the corporations did not take risks and were put in defensive position. They were more concerned with the exaggerated and bogus lawsuits that were costing alot of money and time. It's about time industries can have a upper hand and move the economy with minimal distractions.

the fact that women employees of Wal-Mart make $1.25 per hour less than their male counterparts, on average.

Interesting figure. Not sure how you arrived at it. I can give you another one right back, this one is actually accurate though. If you set aside the management, women make more then men at wal-mart. The reason for this is simply that women tend to make up a bit more then half of the workforce there, and they tend to stay in those jobs for longer periods of time, meaning they get more raises. The primary difference here is that women aren't the managers at wal-mart. Something the company has said it is addressing.

It's a fast- paced environment that some of the work that men do requires strength that few women can do on daily basis. If women wants to be paid the same, let them start lifting heavy inventory.

Believe it or not, thats not really the case. Go in to a local wal-mart, and almost without exception, the majority of employees will be women. Women work the gardening section, they work housewares and electronic. They work everywhere.

It's rather amazing that, in going against 1.6 million Americans

Sorry yabits, but this too is nonsense. 1.6 million is the total number of women working for, or who have worked for wal-mart. Trying to get them all as class action victims, does not mean that all of them were discriminated against. Superlib is right on this.

tkoind:"America is increasingly owned, run, operated and presided over by corporations and the minons looking after their interests. The people have become nothing. Walmart is one of the most evil of the corporates."

Walmart is your only example of these corporations and you cannot even qualify what you write. Do u think anyone really believes you?

Interesting figure. Not sure how you arrived at it.

The figure was presented in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Actually the average was closer to $1.17 and could have been as high as $1.25. Wal-Mart's legal team didn't dispute the claim, even though they have all the numbers at their beck and call.

I can give you another one right back,

You can invent anything you want. Reasonable, intelligent people have to deal with facts.

Sorry yabits, but this too is nonsense. 1.6 million is the total number of women working for, or who have worked for wal-mart.

Read the article. We are dealing with hundreds of thousands of American workers -- potentially as high as 1.6 million.

Time has changed. For the past 40 years, suit happy lawyers in the U.S. actually stagnated the growth for the industries.

It appears that you don't know what you are talking about.

It's about time industries can have a upper hand and move the economy with minimal distractions.

LOL...I believe we've confirmed that.

Walmart's not really won anything here. Now they're going to have to deal with thousands of individual cases instead of the one mass action. And they're not going to win every one of those cases. Hope they're shown up for the scum they so obviously are.

lucabrasi Jun. 22, 2011 - 08:57AM JST. Walmart's not really won anything here. Now they're going to have to deal with thousands of individual cases instead of the one mass action. And they're not going to win every one of those cases.

Good luck. Wondering if you can sue Walmart? This unfortunately is not the case. Walmart has a team of the best lawyers in the country. They will refuse to settle your claim out-of-court and will make it as hard as possible. Winning is almost like a lottery. Almost impossible.

@sfjp

You're right, I guess. The joys of unfettered capitalism....

Yabits: What the five conservative justices have said, essentially, is that there is no such thing as pervasive discrimination in the corporate workplace.

This is actually what one of them said: "Because respondents provide no convincing proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy, we have concluded that they have not established the existence of any common question,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in his majority opinion."

There's a big difference between your comment and Scalia's comment.

Molenir: Interesting figure. Not sure how you arrived at it. I can give you another one right back, this one is actually accurate though. If you set aside the management, women make more then men at wal-mart.

Stats like that seem impossible to really prove. There was the old "women make X% of what men make" but it was determined by averaging all salaries/wages for women and comparing it to men. The meant Michael Jordan's salary went into calculating the average that men made. Other studies have shown that women and men, with the same experience, time on the job, and qualifications, actually ended up being about the same.

In reality you can look at pregnant black employees and Asian employees less then 6 feet tall and you won't get the same exact number because of the reasons you listed....time on the job, experience, etc. Even location plays a factor as well as the time of the hiring. A friend of mine works for a large corporation and he saw that a new employee was making more than he was (as a side point, she was female). He contacted human resources about it and they said offering salaries changed based on the time of the hire. They have to decide what a good salary would be at that particular time to get the employee they need in that location. It's a mathematical calculation. When he was hired, the number was lower. When she was hired, the number was higher. And that was that.

I'm guessing corporate starting salaries are lower now with the high unemployment rate meaning new hires will probably get less. If you hire mostly women, congrats. You've probably just opened yourself up to a lawsuit.

Economics, to most "progressives," is just too much work. Markets are viewed through the jaundiced, absurdist lens of wherever the viewer is on the postmodernist spectrum. If you are a "progressive" woman then Walmart 's success ipso facto comes at your expense.If you have been brainwashed into thinking corporations screw your racial voting bloc you whine about "institutional" racism. I'm glad the SCOTUS smacked these grievance mongers down.

All the Supreme Court did was rule on one particular case based on the evidence of that case. And the vote was 5-4 so it's obvious there was compelling evidence on both sides. I just don't like it when people suddenly tell me that the SC "works for corporations" and yadda yadda yadda just because Wal-Mart didn't lose. I'm also sure that sexism and racism exist. But it doesn't mean women proved what they were supposed to prove.

Here is the growing problem in U.S. and Walmart is not an exception. In 2010, U.S. workers filed nearly 6,800 suits, or some 700 cases more than the year before. Most of these were filed as collective or class actions. If you add this increase to the soaring number of worker discrimination complaints, then it’s clear why employment litigation is devouring the large share of corporate legal resources. Many workers seek to sue when they are caught in extensive layoffs, company closings, and the general job insecurity that accompanies troubled economic times. After all, the workers often have nothing to lose. Now some defense counsel complain that federal agencies are turning what used to be small, resolvable workplace matters into full-scale investigations and class actions. Even Congress has piled onto the companies’ burden. They make it illegal for employers to use genetic or family information in hiring, firing, or promotion decisions.

Stats like that seem impossible to really prove.

Not that hard to prove. Look at the total number of employees, see how many are male, and how many are female. See how many males and females have been employed by wal mart for more then 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years. The further out you go, the more the number skews towards women. Meaning more women are employed by wal-mart, for longer periods of time, indicating that excepting management posistion which are almost entirely dominated by men, most employees are women, and they make more then the men.

Hope they're shown up for the scum they so obviously are.

I actually think Wal-Mart is a pretty good company. They treat their employees right. Contrast this with Amazon for example, theres a company that could use some people scrutinizing their business practices.

I have a problem with the 5-4 decision on the following grounds:

First, in the pledge that many Americans take to their country, with hands placed over hearts, and the ideal that many have of it, is that there is "justice for all." Ideally, this means that the individual is no less or no greater in the eyes of a just court than the largest corporation. In reality, we know this ideal has become nothing but a farce. And this decision provides yet another step in proving the farce.

Secondly, all nine Justices agreed that, in this particular suit, the group of plaintiffs was just too large, and conditions at Wal-Mart stores were far from uniform from store to store, to meet the requirements specified in the federal codes that govern class action suits.

Lastly, the five went way overboard in declaring that no subset of Wal-Mart employees could justify forming a group that would meet their requirements for a class action. That's a very imperious view of the law, and one that essentially denies justice to thousands of Americans in one fell swoop. Everyone knows that very few individuals are going to take on the expense of a lawsuit against a major corporation.

Individual lawsuits are best when a corporation harms relatively few people in a very severe way. Think Pinto gas tanks, thalidomide, Dalkon shields, etc. Class action suits are called for when a large number of people are harmed in a way that may not be very severe to them as individuals, but when the corporation wronging them has benefited greatly by the harm done. Think of a telephone carrier or credit card company that bills thousands of people improperly: It may only represent a few dollars to each person, but means millions to the company.

In the Wal-Mart case, holding back the pay and promotional opportunities for a large percentage of female employees does not constitute life-changing harm to any of them. But those women deserve their day in court. Wal-Mart and these five justices have gamed the system to deny them access to justice. Therefore, I'll repeat that justice in the United States has largely become nothing but a farce.

But it doesn't mean women proved what they were supposed to prove.

You can only "prove" something when you take it to a court of law and present the evidence.

These women were denied the opportunity to present their evidence based upon a technicality that their group was too large to meet the requirements of a class action.

All the Supreme Court did was rule on one particular case based on the evidence of that case.

No, they did not do that. They didn't look at the evidence of the case. They only decided upon the merit of whether this group of women could even have their case heard. It is nearly 100% certain that many thousands of women were wronged by Wal-Mart in their careers due to conditions set within the company's culture -- a culture that left each male store manager free to act upon his own personal prejudices. (Knowing that the company would back him up every step of the way.)

Wal-Mart has a long track record of feigning that they don't know what is going on in their stores. (Refer to the case where they were found guilty of hiring illegal aliens to clean stores at night.)

What the five justices did was far more than just rule on this case: They provided a precedent to be used against other pending cases of this type.

Now they're going to have to deal with thousands of individual cases instead of the one mass action. And they're not going to win every one of those cases. Hope they're shown up for the scum they so obviously are.

No. No one individual is going to have the financial resources required to sue Wal-Mart to gain a dollar-an-hour in lost wages. After all, they're working for Wal-Mart. This is what Wal-Mart counts on when it clips the paychecks of hundreds of thousands of employees -- gaining many millions for themselves in the process.

I do believe there is a great evil afoot here.

yabitsJun. 22, 2011 - 04:52AM JST What the five conservative justices have said, essentially, is that there is no such thing as pervasive discrimination in the corporate workplace.

This was not voted by the men in the bench. The Court has majority of women, three women on the bench so these women understood very well what the class action suit meant in a personal level. In the retail world, being a female is a natural condition for receiving lower wages and fewer opportunities to advance to management. The weakest part of the class argument is the difficulty in translating corporate policies into local incident of discrimination at the store level and, without the opportunity to attack Walmart system wide, the women workers probably did not have a workable case at all.

yabits Jun. 24, 2011 - 01:15AM JST. It is nearly 100% certain that many thousands of women were wronged by Wal-Mart in their careers due to conditions set within the company's culture . Wal-Mart has a long track record of feigning that they don't know what is going on in their stores. (Refer to the case where they were found guilty of hiring illegal aliens to clean stores at night.)

Here you wine about how bad Wal-Mart is. Now I'm not saying that some people don't have serious issues at all here, but I do think that because you have such a huge unified group of people congregated in a single place, its easy for us to exaggerate our issues just for the sympathy and wanting Wal-Mart to acknowledge the problem. When in all honesty the issue probably isn't as bad as some make it out to be. This is what happens when businesses lose sight of their employees and their company policy, and focus on pushing out as many products as possible and pay little money for their employees . Wal-Mart is not a exception but a scape goat. Why don't talk about other 6,799 class action suits that were filed in 2010.

Your argument of Wal-Mart hiring illegal immigrants, but is this an isolated case? Hell no. Your so naive. This happens all the time. So what makes Wal-Mart special to you about illegals? What happens if hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants were not hired in agricultural fields in California, Arizona and Texas? Is there double standards for Feds not going after Agricultural companies? Tell me the difference.

The Court has majority of women, three women on the bench

Three women and six men do not constitute a majority of women. I can't begin to describe the foolishness of that statement, but it's clear in all the thinking -- or rather the lack thereof -- that ensues from it.

In the retail world, being a female is a natural condition for receiving lower wages and fewer opportunities to advance to management.

That is called discrimination based upon gender, and is against the law. Many male decision-makers at Wal-Mart probably agree with you that it's a "natural condition." The reality is that it's a condition that has been brought about by the decisions of men. Just as the condition of African-Americans of past generations was determined by the rulings of white males who felt at the time that discrimination was also the natural order of things.

yabitsJun. 24, 2011 - 06:02AM JST. That is called discrimination based upon gender, and is against the law.

How could you say it's against the law when they are not enforcing it? What are they going to on class action suit? They tossed it out.

Here you wine about how bad Wal-Mart is. Now I'm not saying that some people don't have serious issues at all here, but I do think that because you have such a huge unified group of people congregated in a single place, its easy for us to exaggerate our issues just for the sympathy and wanting Wal-Mart to acknowledge the problem.

There are serious issues here -- some of which Wal-Mart has benefited from to the tune of many millions of dollars. But the real serious issue is denying people seeking to present their case from being able to do so.

Wal-Mart is not a exception but a scape goat. Why don't talk about other 6,799 class action suits that were filed in 2010.

The fact that there were thousands of class action suits filed in 2010 indicates that Wal-Mart was certainly not a scapegoat. The suit against Wal-Mart was filed nearly a decade ago. The time required alone should give pause to anyone who believes that such things are based on frivolous matters. In the United States, we are told that when we feel we have been wronged by another party, we should not take the law into our own hands, but to settle the matter in a court or some other form of arbitration.

What five Supreme Court justices have decided is that Wal-Mart is above any laws related to discrimination when employees attempt to join together to make their claims. If you truly want fewer class action filings, then government should make sure that access to the justice system is certain and penalties severe when companies are found guilty. Only then will management take the steps designed to prevent the conditions that would justify a class action. It really isn't that hard.

Your argument of Wal-Mart hiring illegal immigrants, but is this an isolated case?

The point of the argument was showing Wal-Mart's past penchant for scoffing at laws; it's corporate attitude that it is above such laws. Other companies obviously have the same attitude. That's a major reason why the people who they've wronged have attempted to seek justice. Denying someone their day in court is about as un-American as it gets, in my view.

yabitsJun. 24, 2011 - 06:27AM JSTThere are serious issues here -- some of which Wal-Mart has benefited from to the tune of many millions of dollars. Just as the condition of African-Americans of past generations was determined by the rulings of white males who felt at the time that discrimination was also the natural order of things.

So has the community. Walmart has created a multitude of jobs. When a store opens, there is an immediate need for hundreds of jobs. There are also many more jobs created because of all the businesses that try to locate near the Walmart development. Simply put, thousand jobs being created in a community where Walmart locates itself.

Walmart will always be under attack from progressives that worry that anything that makes a profit must somehow be up to no good at the expense of defenseless humans who know nothing of the con that is being pulled on them. But it appears that the con is completely created by the progressive worrywarts who make up notions of slavery when they have no evidence to back up such claims.

How could you say it's against the law when they are not enforcing it?

Wow, you should never call anyone else naive. Ever.

Just because the authorities didn't enforce laws against murder awhile back, did that mean that African-Americans being lynched weren't actually being murdered?

I can read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on gender, hopefully as well as the next American. That we have a Supreme Court that won't allow cases designed to prove the existence of discrimination that you yourself termed a "natural condition" is an indicator that our American justice system is corrupt all the way to the very top. With underlying contempt for laws like the one above made into practice, no wonder there are companies who feel they have a green light to disregard them.

So has the community. Walmart has created a multitude of jobs.

It can be argued that Wal-Mart has destroyed better jobs than it has created, putting thousands upon thousands of small, independent retailers out of business. Many of these small retailers had relationships with local manufacturers and suppliers, who were also run out of business in favor of the supply chain from China. The dollars that went to the small, local retailers, suppliers and manufacturers stayed local and were pumped back in to the community. Dollars that go to a corporate HQ and Chinese suppliers do nothing for local economies.

But all that is beside the point: Whatever good Wal-Mart may be said to do for a community, it does not justify them violating the law w/regards to workplace discrimination.

But it appears that the con is completely created by the progressive worrywarts who make up notions of slavery when they have no evidence to back up such claims.

I believe that is a wonderful statement to put the icing on the whole, nut-filled cake of remarks you've been making. I personally believe that hundreds of thousands of Wal-Mart female employees are not wrong, and that their claims could be backed up if they were allowed their day in court. Court is the place for evidence from both sides to be presented. Wal-Mart was obviously afraid that the evidence to back up their claims was substantial, and therefore chose to attack the case on the technicalities of the form of the class action -- not on the merits of the case itself.

yabitsJun. 24, 2011 - 07:26AM JST. I personally believe that hundreds of thousands of Wal-Mart female employees are not wrong, and that their claims could be backed up if they were allowed their day in court. Court is the place for evidence from both sides to be presented. Wal-Mart was obviously afraid that the evidence to back up their claims was substantial, and therefore chose to attack the case on the technicalities of the form of the class action -- not on the merits of the case itself.

What is right and wrong? Does it work like that in a court of law thinking you have a solid evidence? Never. You always have too much more gray area that top notch attorney will attack and dissect and wear you down. My point is U.S. goverment has increased protection of large corporations and they are not going to protect regular people the same way. Have a day in the court, but these people will be wasting alot of money and will go through incredible stress fighting the corporations, especially after this ruling.

Yabits: First, in the pledge that many Americans take to their country, with hands placed over hearts, and the ideal that many have of it, is that there is "justice for all." Ideally, this means that the individual is no less or no greater in the eyes of a just court than the largest corporation. In reality, we know this ideal has become nothing but a farce. And this decision provides yet another step in proving the farce.

Seriously, check your emotional baggage at the door. We're here to talk about a court case, not watch you nail yourself to a cross.

Yabits: Secondly, all nine Justices agreed that, in this particular suit, the group of plaintiffs was just too large, and conditions at Wal-Mart stores were far from uniform from store to store, to meet the requirements specified in the federal codes that govern class action suits.

If they say the law is such, then that's what it is. If you want to fight to change the law, then fight to change it. In the end you're just confirming that the law, as it was written, was applied as it should have been. A greater injustice would be for them to throw the law out the window and let the case go ahead.

Yabits: Lastly, the five went way overboard in declaring that no subset of Wal-Mart employees could justify forming a group that would meet their requirements for a class action. That's a very imperious view of the law, and one that essentially denies justice to thousands of Americans in one fell swoop. Everyone knows that very few individuals are going to take on the expense of a lawsuit against a major corporation.

And everyone else knows that if you make it easy enough to make a class action suit with loose definitions that can include large groups of people there will be more than a few who will sign on to get a paycheck. I'm betting there were just as many lawyers waiting for the verdict as corporations.

As it stands now the court is saying there are too many variables to have a unified case. You haven't presented a solution to that problem other than "I'm OK with it because evil Wal-Mart must burn in hell." If you want to craft laws that require large corporations to be tracked in a way that can make cases like this possible, then great. I'll support it.

This is what Wal-Mart counts on when it clips the paychecks of hundreds of thousands of employees -- gaining many millions for themselves in the process.

See here the people shorted would have a case. Every single one of them, and in this instance, they could unite and do a class-action lawsuit. All they would have to show, was that their paychecks were shorted, that they were not compensated for the hours they worked. Maybe you should have presented a different example to make your case.

You haven't presented a solution to that problem other than "I'm OK with it because evil Wal-Mart must burn in hell.

Thats pretty much how I've read yabits take on wal-mart as well. Good post Superlib.

Quite amusing thread here. Yabits and most of the other anti-Walmart crowd defeat their own arguments. The company is accused of discriminating against hundreds of thousands - even millions! - of women. But in markets as competitive as the US retail "discrimination" in the form of reduced wages or even reduced opportunity for advancement is basically money left on the table - walmart's many competitors (the "thousands" Yabits claims they railroaded out of business) could have then quite easily lured these women away from the retail giant.

It is also embarrassing how many of my fellow Democrats subscribe to the now thoroughly debunked, laughably outdated idea of "predatory pricing."

My point is U.S. goverment has increased protection of large corporations and they are not going to protect regular people the same way

Thank you. You have agreed with my earlier point that "equal protection under law" is a farce. As you say, the five justices on the Supreme Court have decided that regular people aren't going to be protected "the same way."

You haven't presented a solution to that problem

LOL! The solution to the problem is rather obvious: Allow class actions to proceed on the basis of smaller, defined subsets like job classifications.

And everyone else knows that if you make it easy enough to make a class action suit with loose definitions that can include large groups of people there will be more than a few who will sign on to get a paycheck.

This is certainly emotional baggage that should be left out at the curb. It is rather pathetic and cowardly to want to penalize a large group of people because of some unsubstantiated, apocryphal actions of a "few." Especially when that penalty means denying tens or hundreds of thousands of American citizens access to the justice system.

Sorry, but I'll keep my emotional "baggage" of the ideals of "liberty and justice for all" to your expedient, low-life ideal of "let's all just roll over and take whatever these five have dished out."

You're just too emotional to talk to right now. Come back when you've cooled down a bit.

A critical aspect of the decision for me is how Justice Scalia has telegraphed to all companies the method by when they can violate anti-discrimination laws with impunity. The key comes in this passage from his final opinion:

"The only corporate policy that the plaintiffs' evidence convincingly establishes is Wal-Mart's "policy" of allowing discretion by local supervisors over employment matters. On its face, of course, that is just the opposite of a uniform employment practice that would provide the commonality needed for a class action; it is a policy against having uniform employment practices."

Therefore, what the conservatives have given the green light to is for companies not to have company-wide, uniform practices w/regards to hiring, pay and promotions. Justice Ginsberg rightly confronted this in her dissent, when she wrote:

"The practice of delegating to supervisors large discretion, uncontrolled by formal standards, has long been known to have the potential to produce disparate effects. Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware. The risk of discrimination is heightened when those managers are predominantly of one sex and are steeped in a corporate culture that perpetuates gender stereotypes."

So even though the reality of the outcome is that hundreds of thousands of women employees have been discriminated against by Wal-Mart, because they were done so by the culture fostered by the company and not by any formal, documented policy, the wronged employees, according to Scalia, can't seek justice as "female employees of Wal-Mart."

One last question to add to my previous post:

Isn't freedom of assembly a basic right of Americans? Don't female employees of Wal-Mart, or any company, have a basic right to join together and be recognized under whatever "banner" they elect to call themselves? (Especially if they have perceived that they have been wronged by the organization they have worked for?)

The interests of Wal-Mart are deserving of protection too. But the action taken by the five conservatives is to protect Wal-Mart's ability to discriminate against many thousands of American women.

Don't female employees of Wal-Mart, or any company, have a basic right to join together and be recognized under whatever "banner" they elect to call themselves? (Especially if they have perceived that they have been wronged by the organization they have worked for?)

Sure, they can call themselves Wal-Girls, and work to get candidates they approve of elected, or change the opinions of their representatives. Theres nothing wrong with that at all. No one said they can't.

In your irrational hatred of Wal-Mart, consider that it employs many thousands of people around the world. While you may despise them for not paying them enough, or imagine somehow theres some evil cabal of leaders whose goal and desire is to punish and penalize their employees, those same employees could work elsewhere. They choose not to. Many of them choose to work for Wal-Mart for years. Not because they can't find a job elsewhere (though with an incompetent like Obama managing the economy that might be a bit tougher now). They choose to stay because they like their jobs, and they receive enough money for their time. Any who feel differently find other jobs. If you asked its employees whether they think Wal-Mart should be punished, and have to lay off a bunch of employees... we both know what their answer would be. So lets not pretend you're doing this for the employees of Wal-Mart

Sure, they can call themselves Wal-Girls, and work to get candidates they approve of elected, or change the opinions of their representatives.

Most importantly, as it relates to this topic, female Wal-Mart employees can discuss their employment and salary experiences and better determine if unfair treatment is isolated or systemic. Scalia actually thinks that because each store is managed within minimum apparent interference from corporate, there's no way that discrimination could be systemic. It's truly sad to have someone so clueless sitting on the high court.

In your irrational hatred of Wal-Mart...

This is another in a long series of your loony projections. There is no doubt that many thousands of women have been wronged by Wal-Mart, and that the company has benefited from the results; that is why Wal-Mart fought tooth and nail to prevent any group of their female employees from bringing a case to a court of law. They know they would have lost if a jury heard the evidence these women would present. When faced with a company doing wrong in this manner, I have a choice to support them by giving them my business -- or not to support them. I freely choose the latter.

With this case, Wal-Mart has only added more weight to the side that it is malevolent entity. Working to deny thousands of American women their day in court is nothing less than reprehensible.

somehow theres some evil cabal of leaders

This is your naivete speaking. The matter is very simple: Wal-Mart is a very powerful corporation. VERY powerful. I believe that power tends to corrupt, and that, the greater the power, the greater and more insidious the corruption and abuse. You apparently believe that Wal-Mart is only or predominantly a force for good. Knowing human nature and its corruptibility by great power, I believe it is wiser to be skeptical.

So lets not pretend you're doing this for the employees of Wal-Mart

All your blather about where employees choose to work is just that. Irrelevant. As American citizens, and my fellow Americans, employees who feel they have been wronged should have the right to assemble and press their case before an unbiased, neutral jury. That is the closest we will ever come to pure justice, and is very close to the core of the American ideal. I realize you and others don't care a bit about that. Just as long as you can save even a fraction of 30 pieces of silver on your food and goodies.

yabitsJun. 25, 2011 - 06:20AM JST. As American citizens, and my fellow Americans, employees who feel they have been wronged should have the right to assemble and press their case before an unbiased, neutral jury. That is the closest we will ever come to pure justice, and is very close to the core of the American ideal.

If Walmart did nothing about it then it is a problem. However, what you fail to mention is about changes Walmart has made and effort to treat women more equitably in the last 10 years since the case was filed. If you see the progress, Walmart undertands the civil rights have always been as much about social justice as individual justice.

If Walmart did nothing about it then it is a problem. However, what you fail to mention is about changes Walmart has made and effort to treat women more equitably in the last 10 years since the case was filed.

I will not deny, you have a valid and excellent point. However, Wal-Mart has to go back to the time prior to when it made the changes and work to make retribution to the women wronged during that period.

The problem is that the Wal-Mart of today has fought to deny the plaintiffs their just cause to present their claims in a court of law.

yabitsJun. 25, 2011 - 08:08AM JST. However, Wal-Mart has to go back to the time prior to when it made the changes and work to make retribution to the women wronged during that period.

If this is the case, going back over ten years, then what is the statute of limitations?

Yabits: The matter is very simple: Wal-Mart is a very powerful corporation. VERY powerful. I believe that power tends to corrupt, and that, the greater the power, the greater and more insidious the corruption and abuse.

So I can either accept the decision made by the Supreme Court based on the law or I can accept your decision based on bumper sticker mentality. Hmm. Tough call.

You sound like a guy who is angry at the "clueless" Supreme Court because they had a golden opportunity to make a large corporation pay and they passed up on it. That's what it comes down to. You throw around statements like the above as if we should take that into consideration during our decision-making process for this one court case. It's absolutely absurd that someone would openly state bias and actually think people should use that as evidence. This appears to be your position: Wal-Mart is big, big things are bad, bad thing must lose, the end.

So go ahead and boycott Wal-Mart all you want. In the end I know you're a hypocrite because in order to escape large corporations you wouldn't have a computer to type on to even write a message. You wouldn't have shoes. Or a friggen fork. At the end of the day you have to pick and choose and find a balance between what you're able to do based on your income and wanting to maintain a standard of living in the area where you live. But to think that you're going to "fight the system" by buying your next fork at Target instead of Wal-Mart is silly. The fact is that you're just going to walk into the doors of a different corporation, so in the end you're not "all that."

If this is the case, going back over ten years, then what is the statute of limitations?

The statute of limitations applies to the point a party files a case. Once the case is filed, the clock stops.

It's another kick in the teeth for the far left side of my party. Like Wisconsin. Time for certain elements to pick their battles a bit more wisely. The anti-capitalist, neo-Luddites in the party are killing us.

So I can either accept the decision made by the Supreme Court based on the law or...

LOL!! Supreme Court decisions are based upon interpretations of the law, not "the law" itself. Any student of history knows the Supreme Court has gotten it wrong all too often. There is a common thread running through a great many of their egregiously wrong decisions, but that would be of no interest to people who like to see the same mistakes repeated rather than learn from them.

You sound like a guy who is angry at the "clueless" Supreme Court because they had a golden opportunity to make a large corporation pay and they passed up on it.

Sad was the word I used, and that is what I feel. And you are wrong again. This case was not about making a corporation pay. Ultimately, a trial by jury would have determined that. This case was all about siding with a large corporation to deny any number of Wal-Mart employees the right to form any "class" whereby they could sue the parent company. That is what the 5-4 decision was about.

This appears to be your position: Wal-Mart is big, big things are bad, bad thing must lose, the end.

More precisely, I am very skeptical of the goodness of extremely powerful entities, and consider it foolish in the extreme for anyone to blindly accept that big automatically equals good. Whether the entity must lose, however, should be determined by a trial where the evidence of both sides is presented before a jury. In this case, Wal-Mart knew it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning on those terms so it took the route of trying to deny the plaintiffs a day in court through a technicality.

In the end I know you're a hypocrite because in order to escape large corporations you wouldn't have a computer to type on to even write a message.

This is yet another in a tedious litany of pathetically foolish thinking that attempts to pass for logic. I never suggested anywhere that people should "escape" every large corporation.

Any student of history knows the Supreme Court has gotten it wrong all too often.

Indeed, Roe v Wade is a very good example of this.

This is another in a long series of your loony projections.

You say I'm being loony when I point out your obvious irrational bias against this company. You then say, in the very same post this...

With this case, Wal-Mart has only added more weight to the side that it is malevolent entity. Working to deny thousands of American women their day in court is nothing less than reprehensible.

Who is being loony here? You are obviously biased. Not for any particular valid reason, but simply because Wal-Mart, big, thus bad. Superlib said it best.

This is yet another in a tedious litany of pathetically foolish thinking that attempts to pass for logic. I never suggested anywhere that people should "escape" every large corporation.

But according to what passes for logic with you, power corrupts, big companies are bad. Evil even. Malevolent was the term you used. If this is in fact the case, then logically it means you should try to escape every corporation.

But according to what passes for logic with you, power corrupts, big companies are bad. Evil even. Malevolent was the term you used.

The evidence for the malevolence represented by Wal-Mart comes from the mouths of conservative Republicans in places like Middleton, Ohio. You should check out "The High Cost of Low Price" on YouTube -- even the first 10 minutes. Educate yourself a little bit. It's clear you have no clue on how Wal-Mart affects communities.

Oh, and the actual words are "power tends to corrupt. But the greater the power, the greater the tendency towards corruption.

then logically it means you should try to escape every corporation.

No, it logically means that I inform myself on whether or not specific corporations are acting like responsible citizens and withhold my business from them if they are not. I'll pay more dollars to support companies and businesses that share my values. To do otherwise is stupid if not evil.

in places like Middleton, Ohio.

That's Middlefield, Ohio.....

I avoid shopping at Ghetto-Mart including Seiyu in Japan. All products seem to be poor and low in quality and they are imported from China.

Ghetto Mart does not respect a right of workers under the name of PROFIT. Their business strategy is completely opposite of Starbucks that is trying to give full medical benefits to all parttime workers in US.and pays a lot for humanity.and environment. If you are old enough, you know what had happend to Kmart and MonkeyWard in the past.. Eventually, Ghetto Mart will pay for it by going bankruptcy in the future.

It's clear you have no clue on how Wal-Mart affects communities.

Actually, I suspect I know more about the subject then you do. I was 15 when a Wal-Mart moved into my hometown. People started shopping there in droves, and yes, I got a job working there a year or so later. My 2nd job. I've seen what happens first hand, and I've seen the results on the communities. And despite what you seem to think, almost all of the benefits were positive. Yes, some stores went under, yes some places were not able to compete with Wal-Mart. But those businesses that are still around, are there because they were able to adapt. To change their business model and become successful despite Wal-Mart. And the town I'm from was thrilled as their revenues increased. Are there downsides. Of course. I suspect the buggy whip manufactures hated automobile manufactures. But the employees working there got jobs elsewhere.

Eventually, Ghetto Mart will pay for it by going bankruptcy in the future.

I seriously doubt if Wal-Mart is going to need to declare bankruptcy any time in the future. But keep dreaming. Maybe if they get some loon as the head of the company, he'll work to make them unprofitable and it will happen. However as long as those in charge care about their shareholders, Wal-Mart will have no problem going forward, despite all the loons and their impotent irrational fury.

Molenir, I agree with you. Ghetto Mart may last for awhile unless some loonies screw things up like TEPCO. We used to believe the TEPCO iwas very sound and solid focusing on shareholders. Well, it was completely wiped out now. Their management team members were all overrated in my opinion. I found out they were simply all loonies in my opinion.

And despite what you seem to think, almost all of the benefits were positive.

It's not a matter of what I think. It's a matter of what has been documented coming from the mouths of many conservatives, Wal-Mart employees, and Wal-Mart managers in records such as The High Cost of Low Price.

I would like you to explain how US taxpayers subsidizing Wal-Mart to the tune of nearly $2 billion every year for public assistance and health benefits -- while their top executives are among the richest people in the world -- is a "positive" thing.

I would like you to explain how US taxpayers subsidizing Wal-Mart to the tune of nearly $2 billion every year for public assistance and health benefits -- while their top executives are among the richest people in the world -- is a "positive" thing.

Wait, are you seriously trying to claim, that Wal-Mart is on the hook for not fully covering its workers health insurance? Really? Not providing medical and dental for all, but rather only their management team? If thats what you're saying, then allow me to simply disagree, and point out once again, that people can find jobs elsewhere if they wish. No one forces them to work for Wal-Mart. And having some portion of those working for Wal-Mart on government assistance is neither the fault, nor responsibility of Wal-Mart, and more then its the responsibility of any other company. You want good benefits, get a job that supplies them. Otherwise, deal with it.

I did look at some of the facts mentioned by the thing you referred to. Specifically the urban costs involved. I can't really speak to that, as the wal-mart I worked at, and for, was in a rural location. (A small town) There effects were nearly all positive as it helped drive the economy in that area. And as I said before. While some businesses went under, others sprang up, or changed their model and survived. And the town got a massive boost in sales tax and property tax revenues, which more then offset the losses in other areas.

Great thread.As with almost any that touches on economics, the far Left / anti-free markets/anti-trade and -globalization cranks ends up defeating their own arguments.

Walmart is too big! And they discriminate against millions of their employees!

But these two assumptions make impossible the claim that the discrimination is "systemic";the company's size is testimony to the size of the market they are in and the share they must fight for. "Discrimination" these days is basically money left on the table. it really doesn't matter how big your biz is.

Wait, are you seriously trying to claim, that Wal-Mart is on the hook for not fully covering its workers health insurance? Really?.... And having some portion of those working for Wal-Mart on government assistance is neither the fault, nor responsibility of Wal-Mart,

Yes, Wal-Mart is telling -- directing its associates to apply for public assistance. Are you seriously trying to suggest that a company's management doesn't make decisions on whether or not to provide health insurance, and the kind to provide? The way Wal-Mart's management figures, as long as there's public programs, then let the taxpayers pick up the tab. And that tab costs US taxpayers nearly two billion a year for thousands upon thousands of Wal-Mart employees alone. One of the wealthiest corporations in the world and they strategize to have their employees rely on public assistance.

You want good benefits, get a job that supplies them. Otherwise, deal with it.

I am more convinced with each passing month that they indeed will be dealt with.

Class action lawsuits are in themselves reprehensible to me. How can anyone get 'their day in court' when the number of plaintiffs is in the millions? Making every woman who has worked or applied to Wal-Mart during a certain time frame as being aggrieved is ludicrous. Each individual that can prove that they have a case should definitely get their day in court. Judge each persons situation individually and if they prove their case, they should be compensated appropriately.

Class action lawsuits are in themselves reprehensible to me.

That is because you are ignorant of why they came about. A company that shorts thousands of people through improper billing, for example, might gain many millions for itself while each of the thousands of individuals suffer negligible losses -- or at least losses of a value that would not justify the time and expense of bringing the company to court.

Where is the justice of letting the company get away scott free? Especially knowing that they can't be disciplined unless they are taken to court.

Making every woman who has worked or applied to Wal-Mart during a certain time frame as being aggrieved is ludicrous.

That is really not how it works. Sure, the class is first identified as a broad subset, but individuals can join in or opt out as they think best.

Each individual that can prove that they have a case should definitely get their day in court.

This is ludicrous. Many thousands of cases against a company the size of Wal-Mart would tie up the legal system for years. Class actions have been proven to work effectively for nearly half a century. Rather than scrap them, create subsets of female Wal-mart employees that would meet a test for certification, based on precedents. After all, this particular class was certified right up the federal appeals court level. It wouldn't be very hard to sub-divide into more uniform, common groups.

Each individual that can prove that they have a case should definitely get their day in court.

A bit more on this rather absurd point:

Discrimination is most often a wrong that is done to a group of people. It is only when individuals get together to compare experiences and gather statistical data can it be determined whether or not a wrongdoing was done to isolated individuals, or if the wrongdoing was more of a systemic nature. If systemic, then it is completely in accord with what America stands for to have the wronged parties assemble together to seek justice.

After all, the management of the perpetrator of the discrimination is not a single individual, and they get to represent themselves as their own class in court. Why would it be unfair for their victims to do so?

It is worth noting that not once in the ten years since the case was filed did Wal-Mart deny the claims that female employees were discriminated against by the company.

Ok Yabits, you win. Wal-Mart is the most evil place ever to have existed. If everyone who ever worked or shopped there was to suddenly drop dead of a heart attack, the world would magically become a wonderland full of joy and happiness. We should all loath and despise Wal-mart and anyone who even thinks about shopping there for their low prices and good service. I mean, theres nothing worse then low prices and good customer service...

Wal-Mart is the most evil place ever to have existed.

Histrionics aside, Wal-Mart is far from being the good employer and corporate citizen it might otherwise. be.

If everyone who ever worked or shopped there was to suddenly drop dead of a heart attack, the world would magically become a wonderland full of joy and happiness

Actually, if any Wal-Mart high-executive were to instantly drop dead upon making any decision that didn't have the best interests of all of its key stakeholders at its core, the world would be much, much better off in very rapid fashion. But they'd have to go through a lot of dead executives before the wisest of them, in best Darwinian fashion, started to catch on.

I mean, theres nothing worse then low prices

There are very high costs associated with the low prices that, for one, am not willing to pay. (As a taxpayer, I've already got to subsidize the employees of one of world's most profitable corporations on their health care. Thousands of Wal-Mart employees here in Georgia are on the public dole.)

Histrionics aside, Wal-Mart is far from being the good employer and corporate citizen it might otherwise. be.

And because it is not the perfect corporate citizen you believe it should be, then it must be targeted and denounced as Evil! I understand. Obviously I think people who feel this way are nuts, but hey everyone has the right to their own opinion, regardless of how misguided or crazy it is.

Actually, if any Wal-Mart high-executive were to instantly drop dead upon making any decision that didn't have the best interests of all of its key stakeholders at its core, the world would be much, much better off in very rapid fashion.

Lets see, making the company more profitable, or making the company less profitable. Which is in the best interests of the core stakeholders? That wasn't all that hard to figure out.

(As a taxpayer, I've already got to subsidize the employees of one of world's most profitable corporations on their health care. Thousands of Wal-Mart employees here in Georgia are on the public dole.)

Ah, so how about this. Wal-Mart fires all of them. They go on unemployment, and you can subsidize them even more. That sounds good right? Hey, maybe they'll go out and get jobs doing landscaping, oh wait except then they'd still be on the public dole. Well, McDonalds is hiring. Of course then still they would be on public assistance. Wait, what jobs are available that would free them from you having to subsidize them?

And because it is not the perfect corporate citizen you believe it should be, then it must be targeted and denounced as Evil! I understand.

At a minimum, if it commits violations of the law -- aka "crimes" -- such as conducting discriminatory practices, it should be brought to justice. The company demonstrated they weren't ethical in the case where it was found that they knowingly hired hundreds of illegals to clean its stores -- even though management claimed they didn't know the immigration status of the workers.

Lets see, making the company more profitable, or making the company less profitable. Which is in the best interests of the core stakeholders?

Profits at the expense of hundreds of thousands of female associates and millions of US taxpayers subsidizing its employees' health care costs is not going to be good for the long-term best interests of the company. Demonstrating to the public that they cheat and lie will cause more and more of us citizens who care about such things to avoid patronizing them. I understand that there will always be some who, like yourself, will overlook wrongdoing and injustice as long as you get to save a few bucks in the process.

Ah, so how about this. Wal-Mart fires all of them

Can Wal-Mart run its stores without employees? I can't speak for landscaping companies but there are plenty of companies far less large and profitable than Wal-Mart who provide employment in a manner so that their employees don't have go on the public dole. The simpler solution is to levy a $2 billion annual tax on Wal-Mart so those of us who don't want to shop there don't have to pick up their tab. Wal-Mart could avoid the tax by providing benefits in a manner so that taxpayers wouldn't have to subsidize them.

The jobs at Wal-Mart are, by rights, among the most simple in the country. Most of the workers are just stocking shelves and all of the coding is done through the stores supply chain computer systems. All these workers do is place the products where they need to be.

I can't speak for landscaping companies but there are plenty of companies far less large and profitable than Wal-Mart who provide employment in a manner so that their employees don't have go on the public dole.

We're talking about simple, unskilled, manual labor. The job pays minimum wage or just above it because the job is simple, so simple that it requires little to no training making employees easily replaceable.

Wal-Mart has a massive supply of potential workers and only so many positions. That means Wal-Mart doesn't need to pay higher wages to it's employees because there will always be 30 applicants lined up to take their place.

The simpler solution is to levy a $2 billion annual tax on Wal-Mart so those of us who don't want to shop there don't have to pick up their tab.

How much value does a stock boy add to the company? I'd guess around 3 or 4 dollars an hour. As such he's already being paid more than he's worth to the company. Why should Wal-Mart pay more money for an employee that can only add a fraction of value for which he is being paid? Unskilled manual labor is, and should be, cheap because anybody can do it.

What you described wouldn't be a tax anyway. Sounds more like a fine. And considering most grocery stores around the country pay their workers about the same as Wal-Mart it would have to apply to them as well. My nephew is getting paid minimum wage at a deli, he certainly wouldn't be able to support a family on that, should the deli have to pay my nephew more? Or should my nephew instead plan his activities and budget according to the limitations of his low paying position? That, of course would mean living either with his parents or in a small apartment, eating cheap food, and either riding a bike or rationing fuel for the old beater car I gave him. By contrast, if he is working at a job with a low wage he should not: Start a family, buy a new car, spurn getting a better education, get a credit card, or take out a loan. Most people seem to struggle with these basic concepts.

Wal-Mart could avoid the tax by providing benefits in a manner so that taxpayers wouldn't have to subsidize them.

What about local grocery stores? How about McDonalds or other chains? I lived off of under-the-table work below minimum wage for 4 years while I attended college and finished without any debt because I understood the limitations of my money. I'm all for cutting back welfare though. I know way to many people that won't even try to find a job because the pay outs from welfare are so good.

I lived in an unheated basement with no car working every odd job I could find. For me, accepting a government handout would be the a failure both to myself and my family. Welfare strips away a person's dignity and their self-respect. That's why I've always viewed it as among the most corrupt parts of society.

How much value does a stock boy add to the company? I'd guess around 3 or 4 dollars an hour. As such he's already being paid more than he's worth to the company.

Your ignorance on the above is quite laughable. Stocking requires the proper handling and display of thousands of dollars of merchandise per hour. If not handled properly, much of the relatively enormous cost that goes into purchasing and transport can't be recouped nearly as quickly. Those are some significant amounts involved.

And considering most grocery stores around the country pay their workers about the same as Wal-Mart it would have to apply to them as well.

Publix and Whole Foods associates are, with extremely few exceptions, not on the public dole. Publix, Target, and Whole Foods don't have a formal "message" encouraging their associates to apply for public assistance to supplement their incomes. They're also not facing class action lawsuits for systemic discrimination against their employees.

My nephew is getting paid minimum wage at a deli, he certainly wouldn't be able to support a family on that, should the deli have to pay my nephew more? Or should my nephew instead plan his activities and budget according to the limitations of his low paying position?

We would have to open the books on the deli to see what everyone is making and how the wealth created by the deli to the community around it is being shared, or not. As a business owner, I understand this all firsthand and very intimately.

Every job, no matter how apparently menial, comes with a much greater component for knowledge, insight and capacity to perform and contribute. When managers devalue work, they help to destroy the worker's capacity to perform, grow, and get dignity from the job. What I view as far more corrupt than welfare is your statement above that the demanding job of stocking -- when truly done "right" -- means that stockers are costing their company more than they contribute to it.

As an employer, I have just as much basic responsibility to ensure that people working for me can contribute in a way that enables them to receive greater value for their efforts to the extent that they don't have to rely on public handouts any more than I do. If that means I take less of a cut out of the business and live more modestly, so be it. At least I wouldn't be a hypocrite preaching about the dignity of work out of one side of my mouth and devaluing it and people out of the other.

The Supreme Court ruling was 5-4, which if nothing else gives you an idea of how difficult to follow the mindset is on the Supreme Court regarding the premise of "potential or unconscious" discrimination, where there is no proof of any law being broken, as being a factor in reaching their conclusion. A couple of things come to mind, one being that 120 women out of 1.5 million is only eight thousandths of one percent. Random hiring practices with no policy in place would produce a higher percentage of discriminatory activities. The other thing is, these money-grabbing lawyers and their pathetically inept clients are too blinded by the possibility of a pay day to realize that these frivolous lawsuits hurt the consumer in the end. Who do you think ends up paying the legal bills? The corporation?

The Supreme Court ruling was 5-4, which if nothing else gives you an idea of how difficult to follow the mindset is on the Supreme Court regarding the premise of "potential or unconscious" discrimination

The 5-4 decision had nothing to do with discrimination or the merits of the case. The decision was about whether the women of Wal-Mart could freely assemble as a class to sue the company. All the Justices agreed that the current class was too broad; five Justices went much farther in writing new law from the bench in saying that there was no subset of Wal-mart employees that could be recognized as a class.

too blinded by the possibility of a pay day to realize that these frivolous lawsuits hurt the consumer in the end. Who do you think ends up paying the legal bills?

If the management of Wal-Mart decides to take out their wrath at losing on their customers and society at large, it would only be par for the course for them.

Here is the problem. If you're an employee or ex-employee of Walmart that feels they were wronged, individually you could challenge your own situation at the store level. but it's very hard to reach policies and procedures that you think are having a greater impact. How about taking legal actions individually against Wal-Mart? Realistically, for majority of these women, they don't have the resources to do that. It takes a lot of courage, of course, and keep your job? You may be afraid of retaliation.

14 million Americans capable of working are without jobs.That is the highest percentage of the work force to be unemployed since the Great Depression. Women have it bad? The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Depression has been far harder on American males than it has women. It beggars belief to see people lamenting that Walmart will not be forced to close stores and or lay off hundreds of thousands of employees to recoup losses incurred in legal plunder by leftists like Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor, sympathetic to wealth- and job-destroying unions that bear little if any similarity to the unions we once had in America.

so The Supreme Court is saying women now your place????

Your ignorance on the above is quite laughable.

I didn't know you had a degree in menial labor appraisal. My apologies. I tend to draw from my years before joining the white collar labor force when I was paid far below the minimum wage at the time and was still able put myself through college. The idea that other's cannot do so with more than I had is what's laughable.

Stocking requires the proper handling and display of thousands of dollars of merchandise per hour. If not handled properly, much of the relatively enormous cost that goes into purchasing and transport can't be recouped nearly as quickly.

And how much training is required to move an object rarely weighing more than a case of cans? Virtually none. Display is normally taken care of by managers, at least where I worked, the stockers merely move inventory from one location to another. That adds fairly little to the value of the product or the company.

Publix and Whole Foods associates are, with extremely few exceptions, not on the public dole. Publix, Target, and Whole Foods don't have a formal "message" encouraging their associates to apply for public assistance to supplement their incomes. They're also not facing class action lawsuits for systemic discrimination against their employees.

Those other retailers have different company strategies and target markets than Wal-Mart. They are also a fraction of the size and far less profitable. And technically speaking Wal-Mart isn't facing a class action lawsuit anymore.

Whole Foods is especially inapplicable considering it appeals to a completely different consumer base. I actually really like Whole Foods' model and I love John Mackey, I once attended a conference where he was a guest speaker. But however much I like Whole Foods I tend to shop at Wal-Mart more because it appeals to my wallet a little better for my everyday needs while Whole Foods is always there for my little hard to find indulgences.

When managers devalue work, they help to destroy the worker's capacity to perform, grow, and get dignity from the job.

I agree. But I'm not talking about devaluing work but rather about appropriate compensation. Some jobs really aren't worth the current minimum wage and would be better occupied by high school students and retirees than . Stocking is certainly one of them. I'd much rather see a more competitive workplace opened up.

What I view as far more corrupt than welfare is your statement above that the demanding job of stocking -- when truly done "right" -- means that stockers are costing their company more than they contribute to it.

If you are carefully arranging your store and your stockers are actively participating in the planning that arranging they may very well be worth minimum wage or better but Wal-Mart employees more often than not follow a preset grid with very uniform, specific instructions and play very little role in the decisions making process. As such it's possible they are costing their company more than they contribute at their current wage.

You wrote earlier about needing the books in front of you among other factors to take into consideration in order to make a proper decision. If we were to break down the supply chain to it's components from start to finish, a process which I'm willing to bet the folks at Wal-Mart do on a quarterly basis, I'd say that there is a very real possibility that an average stocker does not add value equal to what they are paid.

As an employer, I have just as much basic responsibility to ensure that people working for me can contribute in a way that enables them to receive greater value for their efforts to the extent that they don't have to rely on public handouts any more than I do.

Wal-Mart's entire business model is dedicated to providing the customer with the absolute lowest prices possible while still turning a profit. They pay low wages to their employees with very little chance of advancement and this is a widely known fact. If a person applies to Wal-Mart knowing these facts there is no reason to demand better wages for them. Nobody forces these people to work, in some cases government programs provide a counter incentive, yet they do anyway.

In individual cases where rights were infringed they should have their day in court but to demand the same personal and emotional investment in an employee as provided by a small business owner to a company with thousands of employees and millions of customers is ridiculous.

At least I wouldn't be a hypocrite preaching about the dignity of work out of one side of my mouth and devaluing it and people out of the other.

Once again, no devaluing coming from me. I have never worked for more or less than I thought I deserved for the job I was doing. To this day I've never worked at a job where I have felt cheated out of wages. Though I did once work as a janitor at a community college where I was grossly overcompensated, but that's more about union politics than equitable compensation. My point being that the value of a particular employee or job is best decided by the employer. If Wal-Mart feels that their stockers deserve a particular wage and the stocker in turn continue working at that wage I see no reason to interfere with that. I’ve always done work faithfully and have always demanded nothing more or less than what I’ve earned. I don't short change others and I expect not to be shorted likewise.

@TheQuestion

Your arguments are cool (cold, indeed) and rational and leave little room for argument, but I can't help but feel sorry for you. You assign human beings "value" like you would goods or machinery, just like the mill and factory owners did in Victorian Britain. It's a desperately impoverished and reactionary way of viewing the relationship between a company and its employees. You seem to lack any empathy whatsoever for people less fortunate than yourself.

I have never worked for more or less than I thought I deserved for the job I was doing.

Well, good for you. But not everybody is fortunate enough to be in a position to make that decision.

I didn't know you had a degree in menial labor appraisal.

A decade working at a major corporation as an organizational performance analyst and instructional designer.

Once again, no devaluing coming from me.

Of course there is. A blind person could spot it a mile away. The arrangement of work is a conscious decision of management. While I don't agree that you can totally separate stocking from layout, the idea that all some people's work is of so little value as to require virtually no training means that it has been purposely "dumbed down." This, of course, is done to try to convince people that their hard work is of little value so they can be paid and compensated accordingly. Of course this is devaluing people and their capacity for work.

No wonder Wal-Mart management has devalued female employees as a class. Many male managers of the company have spoken in the above-mentioned documentary that the men at the top perceive women as susceptible to needing time for things like families and children and therefore can't give 24/7 to the company. (Why would a healthy company demand that kind of blind loyalty? The question answers itself. Because they're not healthy.)

The massive tax subsidies that Wal-Mart is given by local politicians, along with billions spent by taxpayers to support the health care of Wal-Mart employees, are just two components that aren't reflected in the "low prices" of items. Knowing that, only a person who genuinely supports providing welfare to profitable corporations and their employees would continue to shop there. I understand there are many Americans who would buy goods made by slave labor, and wax philosophical on the wonders of "freedom" out of the other side of their mouths.

Knowing that, only a person who genuinely supports providing welfare to profitable corporations and their employees would continue to shop there.

Maybe if they pressure the welfare system enough it will quicken its eventual collapse. It has already been overextended and ought to be cut back. If it did fall apart I have no doubt that employees would require higher wages to compensate for their loss of government assistance. As it stands, they do not, so no action need be taken.

I understand there are many Americans who would buy goods made by slave labor, and wax philosophical on the wonders of "freedom" out of the other side of their mouths.

So long as a person has choice they are no slave. If you're referencing the working conditions in other nations my point still stands. A person always has the choice to obey or refuse, always. We all do what we need to in order to make our ways through life, I simply feel there should be as little coercion as possible. Wal-Mart doesn't force it's employees to work, it's a choice, so I have no issue with it.

A person always has the choice to obey or refuse, always.... I simply feel there should be as little coercion as possible.

An obvious self-contradiction, and a fatal one. If a person always has a choice, coercion is not possible.

A great many of the women victimized by Wal-Mart didn't feel they had a choice. Especially if choosing to refuse to work meant their kids would go hungry.

A great many of the women victimized by Wal-Mart didn't feel they had a choice. Especially if choosing to refuse to work meant their kids would go hungry.

They chose to marry. They chose to have kids.They chose to work at Walmart. It's not about their feelings.

They chose to have kids.

But those kids who'd go hungry didn't choose to be born.

But those kids who'd go hungry didn't choose to be born.

BreitbartV... is the type who seems like he'd enjoy letting his kids go hungry in the pursuit of one of his "principles." (He certainly doesn't care if others' kids go hungry.)

Sadly, this kind of pathological indifference to the welfare of others is what makes some people rise in the views of the psychopaths who run large organizations like Wal-Mart. In The High Cost of Low Price, Wal-Mart CEO is quoted several times saying how "concerned" he is that Wal-Mart associates have to depend on public assistance. If he was truly concerned, he could easily enact policies to change the situation.

In Wal-Marts in Germany, every associate gets a minimum of 30 paid vacation days a year, adequate income and benefits -- including the stockers -- and Wal-Mart still makes a nice profit. It's all because the German associates are unionized. A German female Wal-Mart employee was mystified as to why the same didn't exist in the United States.

The film does into that too, in some detail. One store manager talked about how he'd fire two employees if they were talking together and suddenly stopped and went separate ways as he approached them -- after all there could be a conspiracy going on.

Another manager spoke of the time a piece of paper that was found in a break room that said "This place needs a union." You want to see concern: The manager, after calling HQ, had to pick up "specialists" from Bentonville that same afternoon -- guys who flew in on a corporate jet to take over operations from the manager. (So much for each store being run by local management policies.)

The lowest prices -- on the rope you need to hang yourselves -- always.

But those kids who'd go hungry didn't choose to be born.

So by your own "logic" ( espoused also by yabits) the children of Sam Walton, owners of the chain retailer, cannot have the company sued or even dragged into court because, well, they did not choose to be born.

LOL