Sunday, September 15, 2019
Policies and Practices at Wal-Mart Essay
Think about Wal-Mart and think about the biggest and most successful chain of department stores in the United States. Think about Wal-Mart and think about a multi-billion dollar company which just continues to expand. Now think about working for this company. Initially you might think about the great opportunity and promise to work for a solid company. But, if you are not a white male, think again.            Wal-Mart gets sued a lot. Back in 2002, Wal-Mart received over six thousand lawsuits (Daniels, 2003). Today the company is facing the largest civil rights class action lawsuit, the Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Inc. The Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Inc is a sex-discrimination lawsuit filed by Ms. Betty Dukes. According to Ms. Dukes, her employer denied her the chance of progressing to the upper echelon of the company she works for. Now what we have before us is an ongoing circus between 2 million women who are currently working or used to work at Wal-Mart and the Wal-Mart company.            The United States government has an agency which prosecutes any work related discrimination act. It is called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC. EEOC was established to ensure that every person has an equal opportunity to be hired and employed and that no form of discrimination will be done against them. EEOC laws protect the employees as early as during the application stage.            As I have stated above, it is just normal for Wal-Mart to be sued a lot. The reason is maybe because discriminatory practices exist here. Let us study what the law states and compare it with what is really going on inside Wal-Mart. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964            Title VII of the Civil Rights of Act of 1964 commonly known as Title VII protects employees at being discriminated based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. If an employer employs fifteen or more individuals, that company covered by Title VII. It is not only intentional discriminations that is prohibited but any practice which has the effect of discriminating against individuals is under Title VII (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004). The U.S. EEOC is in charge of enforcing this law. The question now is what is the practice in Wal-Mart. Is this law enforced strictly or is Wal-Mart disregarding this act?            Back to Ms. Dukes, she filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart because she claims that Wal-Mart did not gave her a chance to move to the next higher job position because she is a female (Pikul, 2004). With what Ms. Dukes is claiming, this is clearly showing that sex-discrimination is widespread at Wal-Mart and this is definitely unacceptable. Since there are many other complaints just like this, the court has allowed the largest class action discrimination case against Wal-Mart. Equal Pay Act            Under the Equal Pay Act, there should be no difference in wage based on the sex of the employee. Men and women who basically have the same job position and skill level should be paid equally. This act further states that employers cannot reduce wages of either sex for the sake of equalizing the wage between men and women (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004).            In a Sam’s Club in Riverside California, Ms. Stephane Odle working as an assistant manager found a W-2 form lying around the office. The W-2 was owned by her male college which also happens to be an assistant manager just like her. She discovered that her male counterpart was earning some thousand of dollars more than her (Daniels, 2003). Again, another act of dishonesty on the part of Wal-Mart. The company made a fool out of Ms. Odle and made a mockery of the act enforced by the EEOC. Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is aimed to protect women from discrimination they may incur on the basis of pregnancy and childbirth. Women who are pregnant or feeling any related conditions should be treated the same way as other regular applicants or employees (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004). Another act violated by Wal-Mart in which a settlement has been made. In November 1991, a female applicant was denied to be hired because she was pregnant at that time. The EEOC on behalf of Miss Jamey Stern filed a case against Wal-Mart. The settlement cost Wal-Mart $200,000 in damages done to Ms. Stern. There is no smoke if there isn’t any fire. Wal-Mart is certainly guilty of discrimination on their female workers and the minority. They are not only culpable to their workers but also to what the law states. The sheer number of lawsuits being filed against Wal-Mart clearly shows that this company has a big problem. It is never too late for the company to correct its wrong doings against their employees. Eradication of discrimination at work is a process that is why it is imperative that they act now. Instead of being the leaders in discrimination, they should set an example to all other companies, huge or small, that there is no place for discrimination in the work place. References Daniels, C. (2003, July 21). Women vs. Wal-Mart. How the retailer reconcile its storied culture with the anger of these female workers? Retrieved March 11, 2007 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/07/21/346130/index.htm Pikul, C. (2004, November 22). Women vs. Wal-Mart. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2004/11/22/wal_mart/ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2004). APA style: Electronic references. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://www.eeoc.gov
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.