Dateline: Panties in a Wad...Women Sue Walmart

Gimme a break...gimme a break...break me off a piece of that kit kat bar.....BUT NOT FROM THOSE CHAUVINIST BASTARDS WHO RUN WALMART!!!!

Rodger...your behind this aren't you!!!

 

Clever, Lever.


Linky dinky?

 

Haven't seen the evidence yet, but I have no philosophical or moral problem about suing a business b/c they discriminate on the basis of sex. (Or race, age, sexual orientation, etc.)I've done it at least 40 times before. )

It is all a question of evidence -- what proof do the plaintiffs have?

But I agree Jeff -- it does seem impossible that anyone at a respected company like Walmart would ever discriminate.

 

The plaintiffs said on average full-time women earn 6.2% less a year than men in similar jobs.

Walmart says the data is misinterpreted but the CEO announced senior mgrs. would lose 7.5% of their bonuses next year if women were not promoted in direct proportion to the numbers that apply for management jobs.

I dont think that .7% will cover the settlement.

 

what i want to know is what happens to the poor homaphrodites (sp?)

 

Doesn't matter, afterall, they're gay.

 

BIG FRICKING WHOOPDY DOO!!! Women here earn less, but there are so many fricking factors to take into account, for instance... women are more likely to take time off to take kids to doctor/soccer game/school event than men are, not saying that's wrong, family should come first, but don't expect your employer to pay you the same as someone beside you being more productive because they focus more on work, just a fact of life, you can't have both a number one priority of work, and a number one priority of family... women choose family, and again, that's good..... jesus, now they settle, and up the prices on their products, and all of a sudden I am paying a higher salary for all the women that work for walmart.... god capatilism can help ya, and hurt ya...

 

And what if the woman does not have a family. What's your excuse then? I have seen plenty of those while working on Wall Street, if you're wondering.

p.s. Do female secret agents get equal pay?

 

So, under that logic, should a man who has no kids (hence no ball games to go to, no special events at school, no emergencies) get paid more than a man who kids to support??? That has to be the dumbest arguement I have ever heard for why women should be paid less than men for the same job. Single dads raising kids have to deal with those same situations - should they be paid less also? What if you don't have kids, but have a sick parent living with you, should you be paid less because you might have to take time off to take care of them??

So how would this work?? Is there a question on the application or during the interview regarding how many kids these women have? Does it line up directly with a pay scale model that details how much time they are likely to need off due to each child at home, and, therefore, what they should be paid? Or, does Walmart, similar to idiots like you, just assume that if I have a wedding ring on my hand and a maiden name that I must have kids (since its ILLEGAL TO ASK) and just make a judgement call on how much less to pay me?

 

Why is the career of the woman with children the number two priority in her life, but the number one priority in the husband's life? He has children too?

 

Shut the hell up you moron, I never attacked YOUR opinion, so don't go calling me an idiot.... and Yes, under my logic, a single dad would get paid less, but guess what, in our society there are FAR FEWER single dads than single moms, so a 6.2% less pay for women would be about right, do you know how little 6.2% is in the big picture? So in closing, if you don't know how to put an opinion out there without calling someone an idiot, SHUT THE FU*K UP!

 

Yep, which is why the 6.2% is a statistic, just like the women WITH families is probably STATISTICALLY higher than those without.

 

Call me chauvanistic if you want, but in some families, it's the woman's priority to raise the kids and the males priority to bring in the bacon..... but again, we're talking about statistics here, and in any statistic there's going to be exceptions to the majority statistic... so there ARE males who make families their priority, and there ARE women with families who make work their priority.

 

But, the question then becomes, who decides, and how do they decide which group these people fall into in order to ensure they are paid fairly? When they ask me if I have kids, and I say no, are they going to automatically believe me and pay me more?

 

This is about to get interesting.

 

doesn't matter if you have kids or not, if you are more productive, you will get more money...... but we are entering a new era where people who are NOT productive think they should get just as much pay because they have a good excuse (kids, sick family, etc.).....

 

Zeb, that era started in the 70's.

People do not aspire to be the best worker they can be and thus make more money and rise up the ladder. They just deserve it and deserve it now.

 

But you said earlier that women with kids should get paid less because they have to take care of them. So, are you now saying that your original opinion was wrong, or just misunderstood?

 

Well, hopefully one day the damage can be reversed...

 

NO, I said that women who put things ahead of work, and aren't as productive should get paid less, so yes, you misunderstood, hell, just to clarify, ANYONE who is less productive at work for ANY reason should get paid less.