Women and Walmart

As the world's largest and most influential retail company, Wal-Mart poses some moral dilemmas for the American consumer. Wal-Mart has been accused of mistreating its employees, causing trade deficit with China, and exterminating small local businesses. The company's prices are without question the lowest in town, but does that outweigh the allegations against them? The arguments about Wal-Mart's effects on the American economy are extensive, but the most important issue is the company's disregard of the very principles this country was founded on. Wal-Mart is bad for America; the company's sex-discrimination practices are un-American by definition.

In early 2004, Betty Dukes, Stephanie Odle, Cleo Page, Dee Gunter, Patricia Surgenson, and Christine Kwapnoski filed charges against Wal-Mart for "systematically discriminating against women in pay and promotions" (Featherstone 661). In June 2004, six years after Odle first filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), the ninth circuit federal court in California certified the case (Dukes v. Wal-Mart) as a class-action lawsuit involving 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees. Dukes v. Wal-Mart is the largest class-action lawsuit in history. "The problem we face [is] Wal-Mart's creation," argued Joseph Sellers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "They created a system where managers discourage women from being interested in promotions" (84).

Wal-Mart is a large contributor to a much larger problem; sex discrimination in business is a nationwide issue. Journalist Karla Taylor cites a 2006 National Journal survey of executive salaries in national associations. Forty-eight CEOs were paid at least $1 million. Of those forty-eight, only two were women. The highest paid woman on the list made $1.24 million; the third highest paid woman made only $667, 161. The three highest paid men each made well over $3 million, with Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America topping the list at $11.08 million (29). According to the 2006 Association Executive Compensation and Benefits Study by ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership, for every dollar a male CEO makes, the average female CEO is only paid 72 cents. (Taylor 30).

The fact that many women are often drawn to, and content in, secretarial or service positions, does not mean that a woman who is more ambitious should be penalized. Even when a female CEO is making hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the women around her, it's not right that she makes, in some cases, millions of dollars less than a man would in the same position.

Studies suggest that female employees are treated unfairly on a deeper level. Gerrit Mueller and Erik Plug, in an analysis of personality traits and their effect on earnings, state that antagonistic, emotionally stable, and open men are paid higher salaries. "Extroversion and conscientiousness" write Mueller and Plug, "generated no returns at all" (10). The biggest differences in earnings, according to the study, are related to agreeableness. The most antagonistic men are paid more, but less agreeable women are paid the same or less (18).

Linda C. Babcock, professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, further demonstrates inequality in the workplace. In her research, she videotapes male and female actors interviewing for jobs using the same scripts. "People don't mind the man negotiating," she says, "but people—especially men—have a strong reaction to the woman who's negotiating. They think she's demanding and not very nice—and they don't want to hire her" (qtd in Taylor 32). In her book Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide, Babcock suggests that women avoid confrontation and try to please their employers. If they do negotiate in an interview, they ask for less in their initial offer and settle sooner than men do (Mueller and Plug 6). Lastly, Mueller and Plug state this confusing statistic in their study: "Unlike men, women appear to have been penalized for being extroverted, while they received a premium for being conscientious" (12). Does this mean that chest-pounding, aggressive men are paid more, while women are only rewarded for keeping quiet and being sweet to managers and coworkers? If so, it's no surprise that sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuits are so rampant in American business.

Wal-Mart is not the only large national company charged with mistreating its employees; in 1997, Home Depot settled a suit for $104 million for a class of 25,000 women, and in May 2004, Boeing settled a suit for a class of 28,000 women in the Puget Sound area (Halkias and Maxon). It's ironic, however, that the world's largest retailer is facing the world's largest lawsuit. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart say this is "the worse case of sex bias they have seen in decades," and that women only succeed at Wal-Mart by "dropping their necklines and dolling up" (Waldmeir). Wal-Mart faces potential damages of billions of dollars if the case goes to trial. Currently, the court is still reviewing Wal-Mart's appeal of the class-action certification.

But not everyone sides with Betty Dukes. Journalist Patti Waldmeir says, "Everybody loves to hate the world's biggest corporation"—implying that people are prejudiced against Wal-Mart only because of its size. Waldmeir, like Wal-Mart's lawyers, argues that the class-action lawsuit is "too big" and gives the women "blackmail power" over Wal-Mart. She claims the actual merits of the case are irrelevant because Wal-Mart would rather settle a class-action suit than risk losing in court. "The courts are not the place to mobilize against stingy employers," Waldmeir says. "Courts are there to enforce justice, not social responsibility" (1).

But social responsibility is part of justice. What better place than court to enforce Wal-Mart's responsibility? Waldmeir is wrong – the bias is the issue, not the legal details. As long as Wal-Mart is blatantly ignoring the Constitution, the company's executives deserve to reap the consequences of their actions. Wal-Mart's lawyers argued that the class was "too big" for a class action lawsuit, but if the company discriminated against all of these women, the case stands – why shouldn't they be allowed to sue as a group? And if Wal-Mart did not, in fact, discriminate against those women, the company could defeat 1.5 million as easily as one.

Journalist Liza Featherstone urges Americans to think about what kind of world they want to live in (666)."[Wal-Mart] has built its vast profits not only on women's drudgery but also on their joy, creativity and genuine care for the customer" (662). Though she admits that boycotting the store is noble, she stresses that this is not enough. "As long as people identify themselves as consumers and nothing more, Wal-Mart wins," she says (663). She encourages civil rights and feminist groups need to take advantage of all the controversy surrounding the company. With a slight push, consumers who feel guilty about shopping at Wal-Mart could become engaged citizens, whether by organizing union pickets or pressuring politicians, and do something to check Wal-Mart's growing power over America (663).

If one woman is discriminated against, whether it's in an executive or retail position, it's wrong, but it only affects her life. If Wal-Mart systematically discriminates against women, it becomes more acceptable for other companies to do the same. Just as it is in economics and trade, Wal-Mart is continuously lowering the standards for employee treatment. A company with as much political clout as Wal-Mart needs to take some responsibility and be aware of the example it sets for America and the rest of the world. While the Equal Rights Amendment still has not been ratified, the fate of women's rights hangs in the balance. Wal-Mart's influence could make the situation change for the better, but for now, it's making things much, much worse.