Wal-Mart aims for change with multibillion-dollar initiative to help women

Submitted by anthony on Thu, 2011-09-15 21:55

Article here. Excerpt:

'Wal-Mart appears to be hoping that a new multibillion-dollar initiative will not only help women, but will also aid in changing its image.

Three months ago, Wal-Mart achieved a major legal victory – but incurred public-relations problems – when the US Supreme Court threw out an employee class-action lawsuit against it. Some 1.5 million women were suing for pay and promotion. It was the largest gender-discrimination class-action lawsuit in history.

“The Supreme Court decision in the Wal-Mart sex-discrimination class action has received an incredible amount of media attention, much of it negative and critical of the court’s decision in favor of Wal-Mart,” says Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California, Davis School of Law. Mr. Johnson made his comments in an e-mail.

Now, on Wednesday, the world’s largest retailer announced it will spend $20 billion over the next five years on goods and services from US businesses owned by women. It also said it would double what it pays women-run suppliers overseas. In addition, the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer said it will offer training to 60,000 factory women who supply its stores. And it will teach life skills – including punctuality and financial literacy – to 400,000 women worldwide (200,000 in the United States).'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

So because the suppliers are owned by women, they get DOUBLE the market value for their goods? Basically, Wal-Mart is deciding to run suppliers owned by men out of business *because they are men*, all in a an effort to appease feminists.

You know, Wal-Mart needs a campaign or two against it because of this. Let it start here. Tell them NO to discrimination against men-- because that is what their new initiatives amount to.

Contact info:

http://walmartstores.com/contactus/feedback.aspx
Select "Company Feedback and Questions" and click "Next". Then let them know what you think.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2011-09-16 02:04

I read the article at http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0914/Wal-Mart-aims-for-change-with-multibillion-dollar-initiative-to-help-women and was very disappointed. The short version is just this: You won the class action lawsuit issue that would have expanded the notion of 'class' so broadly that it may not have been meaningful any further, and would have most certainly left Wal-Mart and many other employers open to huge, costly legal actions based on the broadest possible pretexts. Yet instead of proudly stating that you had in effect spent a great deal of time and effort (and money) keeping your own and other businesses from being open to large-scale plundering by nearly any large group identifiable by indelible characteristics (men, women, whites, blacks, Asians, etc., etc.) that feels it can make a case based on the experiences of individuals (who have the means already by which to gain redress for real or perceived discrimination), you have in effect chosen to cave in to the lobbying of the (ostensibly) defeated parties and have launched an effort yourself to overtly and blatantly discriminate against the people of the opposite sex that had originally sought to sue you for discrimination against their sex.

Just what are you thinking? How do you imagine this action will help you? You seem now to have gone to live without fear of the wrath of the activists seeking to open up the concept of class action torts to an unprecedented and near limitless level of liability to implementing whole new initiatives based on placating them, and you are throwing members of another group of people under the proverbial bus based on their indelible characteristics: ie, men. Doubling the market price you pay to some suppliers because they are women is in effect discriminating against suppliers owned by men, and spare any rationalizations you may have for it. Any economist will tell you that that is exactly what is happening. I don't for one moment buy the 'explanations' presented in the article about why you are doing what you are doing. "Socially conscious"? Come on. You know that's P/R tripe.

You have lost me as a customer. There are other places I can shop at. I am no longer going to Wal-Mart for so much as a toothbrush.

---
Don't let the fact that they want your name, address, and phone number put you off to telling them how you feel. What, they're going to come to your house or steal your phone number? Anyway, currently I am having a problem finalizing the sending of the note. Seems the last ("Finish") button is deactivated. So I'll try later. Anyone else who has a different experience, please post.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2011-09-16 02:26

So a lawsuit was brought against wal mart for sexual discrimination, but ended up being thrown out by the courts.

And after this victory wal mart decides to create policies that discriminate based on sex...

This situation makes it painfully obvious at how biased and bigoted many of the people who hold sway over consumers are, ie the women's groups and all their ilk. I don't blame Walmart at all for this move. Walmart wants a profit and that is what they do. So the intention to disadvantage men is coming from the consumers, or at least the activist consumers. These biggots are using the politics of "equality" to greedily take for one gender. And not only do these "activists" shame themselves they are going help spread the idea that female business owners are less competebt and in need of help.

This may have been a victory for the women's groups that were complaining but in the long run it will hurt them.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fondueguy on Sun, 2011-09-18 00:07

And it would be a good idea to avoid Walmart for actually promoting discrimination towards men.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fondueguy on Sun, 2011-09-18 00:09

eom

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by fondueguy on Sun, 2011-09-18 00:10

I have only been to Walmart about 2 times and the place was dirty and chaotic as hell.

I will never go back so it is no problem for me to spend my money somewhere else that doesn't institutionalize misandry.

Losing $20 billion dollars for WINNING?????????? a feminist gender based class action money grab? This is nuts!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Luek on Sun, 2011-09-18 03:47