Walmart: Too big to be held accountable

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/20-10

Oh the American dream!

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/20-10

While I agree that Obama's extension of the USAPATRIOT act is abominable, I'm not sure what it has to do with Walmart. Are you sure you have the right link there?

The court didn't say Walmart couldn't be sued, all they said was this particular class action doesn't work because there is too many differences for a commonality (that or the plantiffs had a bunch of incompetitent idiots for lawyers).

But the conservative majority, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, went further than that, shutting the courthouse doors to the women's class action altogether. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented from the majority's ruling on this point, arguing that the female employees should have been given the opportunity to try to make their case under another part of the class-action rules.

the trial lawyers who will collect 3/4's of the claims should then donate 3/4's of their money to fight gender discrimination.

Hi. Liberal here. I think that the admittedly overwhelmingly conservative SCOTUS probably made the correct interpretation of law when they basically said that this does not look like a valid class action owing to the fact that they have not justified why that many people are part of the same class as victims of the same wrong.

Maybe, but we also have this:

What are you even talking about? What claims? These women were denied their day in court. What you are saying makes no sense. It sounds like you're just regurgitating right wing memes.

the 9-0 vote

'
no I know that, I read the article. It was an off-tangent crack at trial lawyers irrespective of case or no case at all.

In an op-ed in the NYT, UCSB historian Nelson Lichtenstein explains that the sex discrimination lawsuit against Walmart was intended to rectify the injustice that ambitious young men tend to work harder and make more sacrifices for the job than family-oriented middle-aged women:
Walmart's Authoritarian Culture
There are tens of thousands of experienced Wal-Mart women who would like to be promoted to the first managerial rung, salaried assistant store manager. But Wal-Mart makes it impossible for many of them to take that post, because its ruthless management style structures the job itself as one that most women, and especially those with young children or a relative to care for, would find difficult to accept.
Why? Because, for all the change that has swept over the company, at the store level there is still a fair amount of the old communal sociability. Recognizing that workers steeped in that culture make poor candidates for assistant managers, who are the front lines in enforcing labor discipline, Wal-Mart insists that almost all workers promoted to the managerial ranks move to a new store, often hundreds of miles away.
For young men in a hurry, that’s an inconvenience; for middle-aged women caring for families, this corporate reassignment policy amounts to sex discrimination. True, Wal-Mart is hardly alone in demanding that rising managers sacrifice family life, but few companies make relocation such a fixed policy, and few have employment rolls even a third the size.
The obstacles to women’s advancement do not stop there. The workweek for salaried managers is around 50 hours or more, which can surge to 80 or 90 hours a week during holiday seasons. Not unexpectedly, some managers think women with family responsibilities would balk at such demands, and it is hardly to the discredit of thousands of Wal-Mart women that they may be right.

So, it's sex discrimination if you hire harder-working people to be managers and more of them turn out to be men? Sounds like that proposition has four votes on the Supreme Court.