It is impossible for one man to summarize the mass of newspaper, TV, radio, internet, and other responses to the certification of the sex discrimination class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart. I won't even try. But I will give some recommended readings. Here's one.
Amy Joyce notes that "a pattern of pay disparties" may be enough to prove discrimination de-jure, even if not logically. Later on she recounts WM's rebuttal to plaintiffs accusations:
Wal-Mart lawyers had argued to the judge that statistical differences in pay and positions were due to differing job aspirations and interests between men and women that exist in the general labor force, and that can't be blamed on the company.
According to statistics gathered by an expert for the plaintiffs in the Wal-Mart case, women from the most menial positions up to top levels make less than men in the same positions. The numbers also found the number of women decrease as the level of job increases. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say Wal-Mart women were not told when higher level job opportunities opened, or they were told not to apply for certain jobs because they belonged elsewhere.But men weren't told to apply either. Isn't part of being a good manager knowing the right people and gaining their trust? If men do that better than women, should the men be punished? I cannot imagine any organization when a job becomes vacant, an internal memo is sent to notify all potentially qualified, and they are sorted and ranked with the best person getting the job. Networking--which we're told to do constantly--is not a "fair" process, nor is is necessarily based on merit or rankings or qualifications. It's about putting yourself "in" with the right people at the right place at the right time.
Posted by Kevin on June, 24 2004 at 10:38 AM
