Wal-Mart Is So Evil Because Their Prices Are Low And They Give People Jobs. What?!

Wal-Mart class action suit biggest in history - Opinion

----------

"Right now, Wal-Mart is the most successful retailer in the world. Its ability to make money and grow in size is incomparable in its industry. Wal-Mart did not get to this point through equal treatment of employees and fair business practices, however. The Wal-Mart empire thrives on destroying small-town America and offering little in return to the many employees whose hard work helps bring this company success. As if that isn't bad enough, it is now facing a nationwide lawsuit for sexual discrimination."

-"Wal-Mart did not get to this point through equal treatment of employees and fair business practices, however." What is it that you propose we should do then? Do you think it's fair to fine a business for being too successful? In case you forgot, Wal-Mart was a small business once too and its rise to fame and fortune was not left to luck. What is being implied is that Wal-Mart is being evil because, like any other business, small or not, it is trying to make money through whatever means necessary. Is there a double-standard for companies that haven't "made it" yet compared to Wal-Mart? It sure sounds close to it. It's not Wal-Mart's fault that the consumer chooses to shop at Wal-mart and not some small-time business or that the retail giant became successful. Wal-Mart does not have a government-issued monopoly on the retail industry; the customers are free to shop anywhere they please for any reason. Should companies all strive for mediocrity instead of superiority? The biggest problem is that Wal-Mart is being branded as being evil because it took risks and alternative methods to sell their product, and now is extremely successful, and other companies are either are too lazy to engage in this, or haven't came up with a tactic that is good enough to be considered for practical use. Punishing Wal-Mart for succeeding is not going to assist in other businesses' profits, now or later. How does market dominance (not a monopoly) stifle creativity when one of the only methods of keeping your business alive is to approach the market with new, more creative ideas of expansion and sales?

"According to walmartclass.com, there are 115 women who worked at 184 different stores in 30 different states who are willing to testify against the retail giant. This Web site offers information to any current or former female Wal-Mart employee who has experienced a "glass ceiling" or has been made to feel inferior at her job. The lawsuit involves women who have "been denied positions, seen newly hired men promoted over them, been denied equal pay or been retaliated against for complaining about discrimination," according to the Web site."

-I am not one for degrading someone for their gender, but the part about having "...been denied positions, seen newly hired men promoted over them, been denied equal pay..." says nothing about sexual discrimination. What if the women that complained about this alleged "sexual discrimination" weren't truly qualified for the job? Qualification, of any sorts, should be left strictly to the personal merit, achievements, and actual relevance that the particular employee has to improving the company. Besides the point at hand, if a company wants to hire or promote only men (or only women, minorities, etc.) they should be allowed to do so because its their business. It is not in their best interest to do so, but they should be allowed to hire whoever they want for any reason(s) at any time. If they wish to stay in business, I wouldn't advise hiring on a preferential basis, I would advise, in every circumstance that they come across, to hire the best prospect for their company, based on nothing more than the achievements of that certain individual. If this was done by throwing all of those unrelated traits out-of-the-window, preference without reason, such as racism and sexism, would dissolve and companies would flourish even more, promoting more wealth for everyone.

"Complaints brought against the retail giant span from sexual to just plain sexist. One woman complained a stripper was hired to perform at a store meeting for a male manager's birthday. A corporate employee recalled being forced to meet her male business associates at Hooters for business lunches. Another former employee reported being told she and other females didn't need top pay or the first pick for promotions because women don't need the money as badly; their husbands should support them. Am I mistaken, or does that sound like a comment that belongs in 1950?"

-Again, allegations will be allegations. They will stay allegations until some sort of evidence is presented and connected strongly to the case at hand. I can make allegations about anything, or anyone anytime I want, but without proof they are (as they should be) immediately dismissed. As for Hooters being a place for lunch, so what? Its not like they went to the Mons Venus Strip club located off of 2040 North Dale Mabry, Tampa, Florida or anything like that for lunch. :) Besides that, were these lunches mandatory or where they optional? Somehow I doubt that a discussion about serious matters relating to the business was conducted at a place like hooters. From what I can tell, it looks like she didn't have to go, period. After all the dust settles, who's fault is it truly? Is it Wal-Mart's fault that they didn't have a totalitarian dictatorship over every action of their employees? Or is it the individual's fault for action upon their own freewill and rational consciousness? Why should Wal-Mart pay for their employees actions? Because they hired them? Is the U.S. Post Office legally responsible for all the workers that go around shooting other Post Office employees? Of course they aren't and by using the same line of reasoning, Wal-Mart should not be held responsible for the private actions of its employees. Wal-Mart recieves the major burden of guilt by being sued for millions of dollars, but the employee who actually committed the injustice might, at the most, get fired? Something seems a miss...

The Conclusion:

-Wal-Mart is not legally or morally responsible for the actions of its employees. It would be impossible for Wal-Mart to even begin to regulate its workers to the image of what a "model-employee" is suppose to look like. If discrimination were to occur, facts still need to be presented such as written documentation, video, audio, etc. Like I said before, accusations will only go as far as the facts will allow. I do not agree with harassment, mainly physical, but regarding this certain case, the facts seem a little more than shaky. Besides, they don't truly have to work at Wal-Mart now do they?