|
|
Post by jackmann on Jun 23, 2011 20:23:53 GMT -5
It's not that, Damen. It's simply that, having reviewed the facts, we've decided that while the woman are being discriminated against, a class-action lawsuit was not the appropriate way to handle this. It looks like the women's lawyers were taking advantage of them. A series of lawsuits against the local Wal-Marts would have been more appropriate, since that's the level at which the decisions were being made. Read Sandman's post.
No one so far has strongly agreed with Sandman, other than yourself, and you haven't really countered his point. Other than a chorus of "Yes, I agree," there isn't much to discuss besides the bags at this point.
Of course, if you'd care to counter Sandman's point, then you may respark the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 23, 2011 20:37:35 GMT -5
Ah, except I do not disagree with Sandman, and while I understand why the case was thrown out, I'd enjoy a discussion about how it could be brought up more effectively. The end result is that I do believe there has been discrimination against these women; maybe not as a matter of policy by Wal-Fart HQ, but I do believe it's been happening and it irks the hell out of me to see the topic get so damn far off course and turn into three pages of bitching about something so sickeningly trivial.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Jun 23, 2011 20:44:03 GMT -5
Well, we're talking about it now. Just because people aren't talking about an issue you care about doesn't mean they don't care too. It just means that they don't have anything more to say at the moment. And while only at a tangent, it is related. One way people can protest this is to shop at other places. The discussion of bags was simply a way to compare and contrast various competitors to Wal-Mart.
Also, consider that calling people disgusting is not a way to get them to care. All you're likely to stir up is anger at yourself, not any more interest in this cause. At the least, you could have tried a more positive means to steer the conversation back to the women before slagging off on everyone.
As far as the women go, I think they should now try for lawsuits on the local level. Do so enough, and it will inspire action from the top. While Wal-Mart may not have a policy of discrimination, that doesn't mean they can't have a policy to end it. And they likely will, if it's in their best economic interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 23, 2011 20:46:54 GMT -5
Topics de-rail all the time, Damen. If you want to get back on topic, then get back on topic, but don't scream at the other forum members for doing something that comes naturally on these forums.
And no one is denying that there's discrimination going on, and that there's something that needs to be done. But eventually, the conversation is going to devolve into this.
"OMG, the discrimination sucks!"
"I agree, it sucks really bad."
"This makes me mad."
"I hate this discrimination"
"Discrimination is an evil thing"
"I think we should <insert violent torturous act here"
"Yep, it's a bad thing"
"Yep"
"yep"
"yep"
For that matter, I can't shop elsewhere. Aldi's food is MORE expensive (and the stuff costs more), same with Piggly Wiggly's and, well, we're cutting costs as much as we can right now. So unfortunately, no boycotting for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 23, 2011 20:54:45 GMT -5
Well, we're talking about it now. Just because people aren't talking about an issue you care about doesn't mean they don't care too. It just means that they don't have anything more to say at the moment. And while only at a tangent, it is related. One way people can protest this is to shop at other places. The discussion of bags was simply a way to compare and contrast various competitors to Wal-Mart. Perhaps it started that way but all I've been seeing was "This place charges X" and "This place charges Y" Also, consider that calling people disgusting is not a way to get them to care. All you're likely to stir up is anger at yourself, not any more interest in this cause. At the least, you could have tried a more positive means to steer the conversation back to the women before slagging off on everyone. I can deal with people not liking me if it gets them talking about an issue that's actually important. And I've been on these forums for many years and I've come to find that asking nicely rarely ever works for anyone but a mod and the OP. I just wanted to cut out the middle man. As far as the women go, I think they should now try for lawsuits on the local level. Do so enough, and it will inspire action from the top. While Wal-Mart may not have a policy of discrimination, that doesn't mean they can't have a policy to end it. And they likely will, if it's in their best economic interest. But now many lawsuits will it take before the higher ups decide it's better business cheaper to treat their employees fairly rather than just fucking them over? And if there are enough suits brought against them, do you think it'd result in an investigation? |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 23, 2011 21:01:28 GMT -5
And no one is denying that there's discrimination going on, and that there's something that needs to be done. But eventually, the conversation is going to devolve into this. "OMG, the discrimination sucks!" "I agree, it sucks really bad." "This makes me mad." "I hate this discrimination" "Discrimination is an evil thing" "I think we should <insert violent torturous act here" "Yep, it's a bad thing" "Yep" "yep" "yep" Or on the other hand we could maybe talk about what can be done to end it. Ya know, just sayin'. |
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Jun 23, 2011 21:02:38 GMT -5
There are a lot of women out there being discriminated against. The legal fees alone are going to cost Wal-Mart more than a change in policy. Even enforcing the policy is going to be less expensive. Wal-Mart's a business. They do things to make money. They aren't evil for the sake of being evil. They do what makes them the most money.
An investigation is possible. At the least, I'd expect an internal investigation before too long. "How can we stop pissing women off? It's getting expensive."
If you want to change the behavior of a corporation, the best way is to hit them in the bank account.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 23, 2011 21:02:58 GMT -5
And no one is denying that there's discrimination going on, and that there's something that needs to be done. But eventually, the conversation is going to devolve into this. "OMG, the discrimination sucks!" "I agree, it sucks really bad." "This makes me mad." "I hate this discrimination" "Discrimination is an evil thing" "I think we should <insert violent torturous act here" "Yep, it's a bad thing" "Yep" "yep" "yep" Or on the other hand we could maybe talk about what can be done to end it. Ya know, just sayin'. We already did. We couldn't go anywhere with it because of the lack of ability to actually try it out. So then discussion shifted to the next nearest thing. Since, you know, that's what we do. Just sayin'. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 23, 2011 21:18:43 GMT -5
And no one is denying that there's discrimination going on, and that there's something that needs to be done. But eventually, the conversation is going to devolve into this. "OMG, the discrimination sucks!" "I agree, it sucks really bad." "This makes me mad." "I hate this discrimination" "Discrimination is an evil thing" "I think we should <insert violent torturous act here" "Yep, it's a bad thing" "Yep" "yep" "yep" Or on the other hand we could maybe talk about what can be done to end it. Ya know, just sayin'. Something that could have easily been started by you without the bitching. Just sayin'. (Yes, you can think less of me for being snarky, but I'm sick to shit of people whining about how we're not discussing the topic they want to discuss or the way they want it discussed rather than leading by example and actually trying to start something. This sort of mentality is more destructive than productive and is, in the long run, a good reason shit like this Wal-Mart case goes down. Because people complain that other people aren't doing something they want done. Next time, put up or shut up, instead of whining). |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 23, 2011 21:20:24 GMT -5
And while I've still got a little flame in my belly I'll point out that all this "Shame on you" attitude really did was encourage discussion about the discussion. So...The thread's really not any less derailed now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 23, 2011 21:31:09 GMT -5
There are a lot of women out there being discriminated against. The legal fees alone are going to cost Wal-Mart more than a change in policy. Even enforcing the policy is going to be less expensive. Wal-Mart's a business. They do things to make money. They aren't evil for the sake of being evil. They do what makes them the most money. An investigation is possible. At the least, I'd expect an internal investigation before too long. "How can we stop pissing women off? It's getting expensive." If you want to change the behavior of a corporation, the best way is to hit them in the bank account. I think they're ultimately about the bottom line (whether they're evil or not depends on the person) so I think they'll swallow the lawsuits as long as they feel it's more profitable to keep fucking people over. I'm just wanting to know when it becomes more profitable to change. We already did. We couldn't go anywhere with it because of the lack of ability to actually try it out. So then discussion shifted to the next nearest thing. Since, you know, that's what we do. Just sayin'. Of course we couldn't actually carry it out, none of us are lawyers involved in the case and few of us can afford anywhere else. But lack of ability to actually do anything doesn't mean we can't discuss the options. Just sayin'. And while I've still got a little flame in my belly I'll point out that all this "Shame on you" attitude really did was encourage discussion about the discussion. So...The thread's really not any less derailed now. I personally would disagree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Jun 23, 2011 21:53:03 GMT -5
Thing is, being discriminatory doesn't actually make them money. Changing policy is cheap. Enforcing it will cost money, but not a huge amount compared to what just a few of these lawsuits could cost them. It shouldn't take more than one or two before they start trying to head off the trend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 23, 2011 21:56:47 GMT -5
Thing is, being discriminatory doesn't actually make them money. Changing policy is cheap. Enforcing it will cost money, but not a huge amount compared to what just a few of these lawsuits could cost them. It shouldn't take more than one or two before they start trying to head off the trend. I'd hope so, but if they're doing it to enough women (remember, this was brought about by 1.5 million women) then the money they save by under-paying them could potentially outweigh the cost of a lawsuit or two and still turn a profit. |
|
Alyra
Full Member
ex-fundie
Posts: 143
|
Post by Alyra on Jun 23, 2011 22:01:13 GMT -5
Women are discriminated against, and not just by walmart. It's life. It sucks, it's not right or fair, but until every under-paid woman sues her employer for the same wages as her male co-workers get, things aren't going to change. And most people can't afford to lose their job for a chance of getting that extra $100 a week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Jun 23, 2011 22:38:27 GMT -5
That's another thing that gets me. I very seriously doubt all 1.5 million of those women were actually discriminated against. If you consider the number of stores and management positions at each one, it's pretty much statistically impossible that every single one of them was passed over for a man just because "fuck women". Especially when you consider how many stores do have female managers.
This reeks of the lawyers simply going around trying to get people to jump on the bandwagon by saying "Hey, if you're a woman who works at Wal-Mart and aren't currently a manager, come get free money!"
|
|
