In her well-done post last Tuesday, Lydie Pierre-Louis revealed her surprise that the class action brought by women employees against Walmart alleging sex discrimination had not been settled. She noted that Walmart had been recognized for its efforts to protect the environment and wondered about the incongruity of Walmart’s good citizenship in this regard at the same time it denied accusations about pervasive mistreatment from over a million female employees.
Even more incongruous is Wal-Mart’s articulated position on diversity. The company says all the right things about women and “minority” employees and suppliers. Its supplier diversity program seeks to ensure that the company does business with women and people of color. Wal-Mart even requires diversity at the law firms it retains.
Walmart’s public discourse about diversity is similar to the statements many other companies make. “Diversity is a way of life at Walmart. And our commitment to diversity is not just something we talk about, it’s who we are.” But it’s hard to reconcile this kind of diversity cheerleading with the company’s stubborn denial of the allegations of millions of women about the company’s discrimination in hiring, promotion and pay. It seems to me that a true commitment to diversity would require Walmart to avoid blanket denials about anything amiss with its women employees – now and in the past. A real commitment to diversity would inspire Walmart’s managers to conduct a serious investigation into the accusations, make changes where appropriate, and settle the class action.
Walmart’s denials do not ring true because sexism, sexual harassment and discrimination are still prevalent in U.S. workplaces. Discrimination within a U.S. company that employees millions is inevitable. And, the disparities between the pay and promotion rates of male and female employees at Walmart would inspire a company that is truly interested in diversity to undertake a serious investigation of the plaintiffs’ allegations.
Walmart’s “diversity-is-a-way-of-life” rhetoric is what I call “diversity doublespeak”. I wrote about this phenomenon in an article entitled “’We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer’: Diversity Doublespeak”. Diversity doublespeak allows companies to avoid responsibility for enduring discrimination within a firm. Too often there is a gaping disparity between what companies say – “diversity is a way of life” – and what they do.
... it’s hard to reconcile this kind of diversity cheerleading with the company’s stubborn denial of the allegations ...
ReplyDeletePerhaps the company's "stubborn denial" is based on it's belief that it is innocent of the charges. Allegations, do not equal guilt. If you have evidence that Wal-Mart has not, and does not routinely, evaluate the treatment of it's employees - where is it?
Walmart’s denials do not ring true because sexism, sexual harassment and discrimination are still prevalent in U.S. workplaces.
Wal-Mart is not responsible for the state of all U.S. workplaces. Any attempt to target the company as a "proxy" for the perceived failings of U.S, businesses does not further the cause of justice, it only creates and inflicts further injustice.
Discrimination within a U.S. company that employees millions is inevitable.
Well, there you have it, no need for evidence of wrongdoing, guilt is "inevitable". The only question is how much Wal-Mart will have to pay for the "crime" of being a U.S. company.
Too often there is a gaping disparity between what companies say – “diversity is a way of life” – and what they do.
Perhaps, they should stop saying and doing anything about "diversity" since regardless of what efforts they make, they will be judged discriminatory. It's "inevitable". Policies, like setting aside a certain percentage of their business for women and minorities only implies that without such policies they would do business only with white males without regard to their performance. Or, that women and minorities are unable to compete without special considerations. Either suggestion would be ridiculous and unsupportable. And since there is absolutely no penalty to Wal-Mart with regard to hiring or contracting a woman or minority - in fact, just the opposite - Wal-Mart has no reason to discriminate.
As Milton Friedman pointed out, free markets force companies to pay for their discrimination. If women and minorities provide equal or superior goods and services, then companies that discriminate against them do so at a disadvantage to those companies that do not. This is true in this case as well. If a company, like Wal-Mart, fails to hire or recognize superior employees, because of who they are, then it's efficiency suffers relative to competitors who do not discriminate and whose only focus is the running of their business.
I can certainly tell you this, being a former diversity director at a Wal-Mart supplier, thier supplier diversity numbers are bogus...over 80% of the dollars they report are actually spent by the suppliers (colgate, J&J, etc), NOT WalMart directly. There are a bunch of liars in Bentonville!
ReplyDeleteBeing claim for something, and something that is in roots of a company is two different things.
ReplyDelete