Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

[Mr.Canada]

Here's more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wal-Mart

[Mr.Canada]

Oh, I almost forgot. The lawsuit against WalMart for sex discrimination is actually a total of $11 Billion not $10 billion as I said earlier, I missed a whole Billion dollars somehow.

Anyways do the math yourselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/business/suing-wal-mart-but-still-hoping-to-move-up.html

I've cited tons of lawsuits where they were found guilty, yet you continue to be a huge Wal Mart supporter.

First you denied a lawsuit even existed now that I proved you wrong you come back and say well they haven't been found guilty of anything. Lol. So you admit you were wrong when you said no such lawsuit existed right. It's so hard to admit when you're wrong right...lol.

Make some more nonsensical arguments for me to shoot down.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[segnosaur]

More facts for all that think WalMart is an awesome and wholesome company.

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

Once again.. this is not exactly a source where you can expect to find unbiased facts.

At no point have I ever referred to the Wal-mart corporate web site in order to prove my point... so why do you find it necessary to go to various anti-wal-mart sites to try to justify your claims?

(The answer is... when you actually look at the facts, your claims tend to crumble. So you're forced to look at such anti-corporate sites.)

Workers forced to work unpaid overtime.

Workers faced to not take meal breaks.

WalMart hiring illegal immigrants.

And you know? All of these have happened. In some cases, Wal-mart has been punished (through settlements, fines, etc.)

But as I said before, Wal-mart is a huge organization. When you have that many stores, managers, executives, etc. you are going to get at least some problems.

How about Costco? Here's a lawsuit for unpaid overtime: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/case/costco-50-million-overtime-class-action.html

Also happened with Ambercrombie and Finsh: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200601/ai_n16012591/?tag=content-inner;col1

How about Toyota? Here's a sexual harrasement lawsuit: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_21/b3985078.htm

How about McDonalds, one of the biggest food retailers in the world. Here's the result of a lawsuit brought forward by one of their employees who was strip searched: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071006/mc_lawsuit_071006?s_name=&no_ads=

So, pick a big company, you'll find some problems. Should those problems be dealt with? Most definitely. Do those problems mean that the offending company is somehow "evil"? No, just that in many cases it becomes impossible to micromanage each and every store.

Lawsuit on behalf of 1.6 million women suing for equalization payments + punitive damages which will total more than $10 billion.

Again... innocent until proven guilty.

I could go on and on.

You could...unfortunately, it seems like its impossible for you to actually provide facts to back up your assertions.

But this is a great company which always does things above board right guys?

Nope. They're a big corporation, and like any corporation they will make mistakes. Doesn't mean the company as a whole should be condemned.

[Mr.Canada]

At he bottom of each of those pages I gave you is a list of sources from popular media outlets.

Keep backing up huge corporations. The CEO made $23.7 Million + bonuses + stocks. That's over 1,100 times that of an average worker.

This is what you're supporting when supporting Walmart.

You support breaking child labour laws.

You support he hiring of illegals.

You support wage discrimination.

You support sex discrimination.

It's good that we all know where you stand on these issues.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[segnosaur]

Oh, I almost forgot. The lawsuit against WalMart for sex discrimination is actually a total of $11 Billion not $10 billion as I said earlier, I missed a whole Billion dollars somehow.

You know what else you've missed?

Proof that 90% of all Wal-mart managers are male.

Know what else you've missed?

Proof that the situation at Wal-mart is significantly different than at any other major retailer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/business/suing-wal-mart-but-still-hoping-to-move-up.html

I've cited tons of lawsuits where they were found guilty, yet you continue to be a huge Wal Mart supporter.

That's because you can also find tons of lawsuits against almost any company.

You seem to be employing a double standard:

Lawsuits against Wal-mart -> They are an evil company and should be destroyed

Lawsuits against other companies -> Insert fingers in ears, shout 'la la la'

First you denied a lawsuit even existed...

Please point to any post where I denied a lawsuit existed.

Is it as imaginary as your '90% of Wal-mart managers are men' statistic?

What you have here is known as a 'straw man'. Your claims have been completely debunked, so the only way you fight back is to try to address claims that haven't actually been made.

[segnosaur]

At he bottom of each of those pages I gave you is a list of sources from popular media outlets.

If you make the claim, it is up for you to provide the proof. It is not my job to try to track down your sources. (Besides, its a fools errand... You're simply wrong on your facts, and I see no need to look for information that doesn't exist.)

Keep backing up huge corporations.

So, are you against Wal-mart specificially, or are you against all large corporations?

The CEO made $23.7 Billion + bonuses + stocks.

Nope, wrong again.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wal-mart-ceo-pay-package-exceeds-23-million

(You know, I'd be willing to accept you mis-typed 'billion' instead of 'million'. But given the total ignorance you've displayed in this thread, I'm not so sure...)

This is what you're supporting when supporting Walmart.

Most companies pay their executives a lot. Of course, many executives have a rather exclusive skill set.

You support breaking child labour laws.

You support he hiring of illegals.

Nope... already pointed out that those things are wrong, but they are not systemic to Wal-mart. They were isolated cases and have been dealt with appropriately.

[Mr.Canada]

I know you rabidly defend your God WalMart but here's something to burst your bubble.

http://www.feminazi.org/Wal-Marts_Massive_Bigotry-BusinessWeek.HTM

That link provides an easy to read table.

Here is the actual report.

http://www.walmartclass.com/staticdata/reports/r2.pdf

As you can clearly see 90% of the upper management is male as I've said. While female WalMArt employee's account for 75% of their work force. This is perfectly fair to you I know relax. We know you hate women, we get it, you can stop now.

Yeah million. Which is still over 1100 times more than the average employee.

I have provided facts but you have chosen to just disregard them out of hand for no reason other than you refuse to admit you're wrong.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[blueblood]

I know you rabidly defend your God WalMart but here's something to burst your bubble.

http://www.feminazi.org/Wal-Marts_Massive_Bigotry-BusinessWeek.HTM

That link provides an easy to read table.

Here is the actual report.

http://www.walmartclass.com/staticdata/reports/r2.pdf

As you can clearly see 90% of the upper management is male as I've said. While female WalMArt employee's account for 75% of their work force. This is perfectly fair to you I know relax. We know you hate women, we get it, you can stop now.

Yeah million. Which is still over 1100 times more than the average employee.

I have provided facts but you have chosen to just disregard them out of hand for no reason other than you refuse to admit you're wrong.

For the love of God take a commerce and an economics class.

The pay for a Walmart CEO is right in line with the pay other CEO's get for other companies. The reason they get paid a large sum of money is because they are worth it. Their decisions can make or break a company. Their decisions cost millions if not billions of dollars. A cashier does not have that kind of responsibility.

BTW in your report it said 33% of management positions were filled by women.

You sir are not a conservative, you hate business, you don't like the fact that people should earn different pay based on their skills, the only thing "conservative" about you is your a religious zealot. If "socialists" in this country took your stance on religion/crime there would be nothing wrong with that in your eyes.

[segnosaur]

I know you rabidly defend your God WalMart but here's something to burst your bubble.

Already pointed out that Wal Mart is neither a perfect company, nor one that deserves undue criticism. Guess its easier to engage in ad hominem attacks by suggesting that I consider Wal Mart "god" than actually deal with the issues. (Face it, its a sign that you've lost.)

http://www.feminazi.org/Wal-Marts_Massive_Bigotry-BusinessWeek.HTM

That link provides an easy to read table.

Here is the actual report.

http://www.walmartclass.com/staticdata/reports/r2.pdf

As you can clearly see 90% of the upper management is male as I've said. While female WalMArt employee's account for 75% of their work force. This is perfectly fair to you I know relax. We know you hate women, we get it, you can stop now.

Well, where to begin. You've shown so many flaws in your arguments that its not easy to pick the best ones.

First of all, remember what I told you about selecting unbiased sources? One of your sources is from a site called 'feminazi'... the other is from the lawyers who launched the lawsuit. Why exactly should we consider those reputable sources? Think they may have a reason to, I don't know, spin the information in their own favour?

Secondly, you said that 90% of "upper management" is male... But in your initial claims, you never singled out upper management. Your exact statement was:

Wal Mart's lack of women is management positions is seen a good thing? 90% are men (See: Post 370 at http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=2872&st=360&p=490127entry490127). What you characterize as "upper management" consists of only a small fraction of "managers" (only around 3% of the total). In fact, your own sources show that women make up around 35% of all management postions.

Thirdly, you still have not addressed a point that was raised in Forbes... that the classification of "manager" used at Wal-mart differs from other retail stores, and when similar criteria are used, then the number of women in management is roughly comparable.

Yeah million. Which is still over 1100 times more than the average employee.

So? That's typical of most corporations.

Top executives earn large salaries for the same reason that top sports figures earn large salaries... because the set of skills they possess is not a common entity.

I have provided facts....

No, you haven't. You've produced cherry-picked data from biased websites supporting moving goalposts. Not exactly the same thing.

[punked]

I know you rabidly defend your God WalMart but here's something to burst your bubble.

http://www.feminazi.org/Wal-Marts_Massive_Bigotry-BusinessWeek.HTM

That link provides an easy to read table.

Here is the actual report.

http://www.walmartclass.com/staticdata/reports/r2.pdf

As you can clearly see 90% of the upper management is male as I've said. While female WalMArt employee's account for 75% of their work force. This is perfectly fair to you I know relax. We know you hate women, we get it, you can stop now.

Yeah million. Which is still over 1100 times more than the average employee.

I have provided facts but you have chosen to just disregard them out of hand for no reason other than you refuse to admit you're wrong.

SO progressive Mr. Canada, welcome to the NDP friend.

[blueblood]

SO progressive Mr. Canada, welcome to the NDP friend.

Zing!!!

[Mr.Canada]

SO progressive Mr. Canada, welcome to the NDP friend.

This is a non partisan issue as far as I'm concerned. segnosaur would rather make it a divisive issue whereas I wouldn't. I am illustrating that WalMart is undertaking in some unsavory business practices and he is saying that their business practices are just fine and they should be applauded. Maybe she/he's a lobbyist for them.

I think that it's relatively obvious that WalMart is something less than a fair and reputable company but segosaur would rather ignore the facts.

I provided an article from the New York Times, I provided a report which is basically a survey on the hard numbers of WalMart employees and have provided links to the actual lawsuit. None of these are good enough for segosaur so I'm not sure what he wants to be honest. I really don't care. I'm done playing his game. I am convinced he's another one of these unemployed who has nothing better to do with his time then to waste mine.

This will be my last post responding to segosaur on this issue, you can choose to ignore my facts if you want, I don't care anymore.

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

This article has everything bad WalMart has done recently. In quotations at the end of each point is a place where you can find the source article from the news agent responsible for reporting it. So you can do what you want with it but you're unable to say I have bad sources as they're all right here.

http://www.walmartclass.com/public_home.html

Link to the lawyers handling the largest class action lawsuit in US history on behalf of 1.6 women and growing suing for a total of $11 Billion dollars for sex discrimination on the part of WalMart.

http://www.feminazi.org/Wal-Marts_Massive_Bigotry-BusinessWeek.HTM

http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/feb2003/ca20030221_1282_ca011.htm

Both of these are the same article outlining the facts of the case against WalMart. I have included the first one as it provides a chart which depicts how badly women are discriminated against in an easy to read format. The bottom one is the exact same article from its source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/business/suing-wal-mart-but-still-hoping-to-move-up.html

This is an article covering the numbers involved and how it became an $11 Billion lawsuit.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XXBmN-81GcMJ:www.walmartclass.com/staticdata/reports/r2.pdf+Richard+Drogin,+Ph.+D&hl=en&gl=ca&sig=AHIEtbQimCQGff4x2X9NmfPafjkPF0LfyQ

This is the actual report of WalMarts gender patterns within the WalMart work force. It was prepared by Richard Drogin, Ph. D. He's held this PHd since 1970 and has taught at a variety of Universities. His background is all contained within the report.

This is hard data taken directly from WalMarts personnel databases so it cannot be biased at all. It is based on fact and actual numbers not some rando commando on these forums or some other kook. These are based on WalMarts own personnel data and the numbers can't lie. They are what they are.

So there it is in a nice and easy to read and find.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[bloodyminded]

But lets say your claim is true... So what? There are plenty of other jobs available in the country. (You can't drive down any of the major streets here in Ottawa without seeing a "now hiring" sign.) If things really were bad at Wal-mart, then enough employees would leave and they'd have to improve the work situation to maintain a functional staff.

Really? Gee... I know 2 different people who have worked in retail jobs (neither of which was Wal-Mart), both of whom were at least occasionally checked on their way out the door.

But I never said no one had any possibilities for any other jobs. And I never said WalMart has no legal right to behave as monumental assholes.

I merely pointed out the fact THAT WalMart is run by monumental assholes. Full stop.

I don't quite understand why people feel the need to defend WalMart from insults. I imagine its some sort of servility towards wealth and power.

I know 2 different people who have worked in retail jobs (neither of which was Wal-Mart), both of whom were at least occasionally checked on their way out the door.

If this is the case (and it's not really surprising), I fail to see how other people behaving like knuckledragging elitists determined to undermine their employees' dignity exonerates WalMart's nasty little policymakers.

[Argus]

For the love of God take a commerce and an economics class.

The pay for a Walmart CEO is right in line with the pay other CEO's get for other companies. The reason they get paid a large sum of money is because they are worth it.

Really? Executive pay has skyrocketed over the past twenty five years, especially in comparison with workers salaries. Is there any evidence at all that this has resulted in a higher level of diligence among CEOs, that they are in any way at all better qualified than CEOs from thirty years ago? Did the immense rewards for CEOs in the American investment and financial community ensure that organizations there were well-run and capably managed? If you cut pay and bonuses in half do youi think you'd be left with some high school drop out at the top of the corporation?

[Argus]

Already pointed out that Wal Mart is neither a perfect company, nor one that deserves undue criticism.

I don't think criticism of Wal-Mart is undue.

It's a shitty company to work for, which treats its employees abominably. It's a shitty company to sell to, for it treats its suppliers miserably. It's a crappy store to shop IN, for it has narrow aisle, long lines, poor to non-existent cusstomer service, and bottom scrapings as merchandise. It's a bad company to have in your community, for you wind up exchanging middling poor wages for poor wages and half the number of jobs. It's a lousy company to have in your country, for it encourages, some even go so far as to say extorts its suppliers into firing workers and transferring production abroad.

It's efficiently run. Bully for them. And Musullini made the trains run on time.

[bloodyminded]

I don't think criticism of Wal-Mart is undue.

It's a shitty company to work for, which treats its employees abominably. It's a shitty company to sell to, for it treats its suppliers miserably. It's a crappy store to shop IN, for it has narrow aisle, long lines, poor to non-existent cusstomer service, and bottom scrapings as merchandise. It's a bad company to have in your community, for you wind up exchanging middling poor wages for poor wages and half the number of jobs. It's a lousy company to have in your country, for it encourages, some even go so far as to say extorts its suppliers into firing workers and transferring production abroad.

It's efficiently run. Bully for them. And Musullini made the trains run on time.

I agree...particularly about working for the company, the one point you raise in which I hold true and incontestable expertise.

I find it odd that some people consider any criticism of WalMart to be some wayward attack on capitalism itself. If anything, this astonishing defensiveness and deference towards WalMart suggests either an underlying motive (servility to powerful men?), or else reflexive thoughtlessness. LOTS of capitalists don't like WalMart.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I find it odd that some people consider any criticism of WalMart to be some wayward attack on capitalism itself. If anything, this astonishing defensiveness and deference towards WalMart suggests either an underlying motive (servility to powerful men?), or else reflexive thoughtlessness. LOTS of capitalists don't like WalMart.

Indeed...because they have failed while competing with WalMart. Not a very big surprise there.

[bloodyminded]

Indeed...because they have failed while competing with WalMart. Not a very big surprise there.

Well, I have never competed with WalMart, not attempted to do so; most critics of WalMart are not competitors. But then, surely you must know that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I have never competed with WalMart, not attempted to do so; most critics of WalMart are not competitors. But then, surely you must know that.

Neither are most critics of wireless providers, but surely you must know that as well.

[bloodyminded]

Neither are most critics of wireless providers, but surely you must know that as well.

Exactly. Most critics of ANY business (whether you agree with them or not) are criticizing from a principled stance, not from selfish reasons of business competitiveness.

[blueblood]

Really? Executive pay has skyrocketed over the past twenty five years, especially in comparison with workers salaries. Is there any evidence at all that this has resulted in a higher level of diligence among CEOs, that they are in any way at all better qualified than CEOs from thirty years ago? Did the immense rewards for CEOs in the American investment and financial community ensure that organizations there were well-run and capably managed? If you cut pay and bonuses in half do youi think you'd be left with some high school drop out at the top of the corporation?

So???

Welcome to the world of competition. There are a lot of big companies and there are few highly qualified CEO's to run them. All CEO pay is board approved. Yes they are more qualified than 30 yrs ago, larger companies to manage, knew tech and knowledge, that sort of thing.

Like I said those investment and financial industry companies have to compete with other industries to hire the CEO's with the best qualifications. Those investment and financial companies were well run prior to the crap hitting the fan with mortgage backed securities as a result of the CRA. Blame the gov't, not the CEO's for trying to cover their ass for being forced to loan money out to trash.

If you cut the pay and bonuses in half, you can bet your ass that any CEO worth his salt would be looking at another company for work.

Welcome to the world of competition.

[segnosaur]

But I never said no one had any possibilities for any other jobs. And I never said WalMart has no legal right to behave as monumental assholes.

I merely pointed out the fact THAT WalMart is run by monumental assholes. Full stop.

Quote possibly. But then, so are pretty much every other company.

Guess what... in the business world, being "charitable" is a good way to find yourself out of business.

I don't quite understand why people feel the need to defend WalMart from insults. I imagine its some sort of servility towards wealth and power.

Because most "insults" are either totally baseless (the whole "walmart eliminates small business", which ignores the fact that there are roughly as many small businesses today as there were 2 decades ago), or ignore the fact that the types of problems wal-mart has are not unique to Wal-mart. I have no problems with people having valid criticisms of wal-mart, but any criticsm should be fair. Condemming wal-mart and wal-mart only when similar problems exist elsewhere is, in my opinion, dirty pool.

If you want to criticize Wal-mart, fine... but where is your criticism of Costco and Ambricrombie & Finch (subject to multiple lawsuits over unpaid overtime and gender discrimination)? Where is your criticism of toyota (subject to a sexual harrasement lawsuit)? Women executives typically earn less than male executives across virtually all industries. Why is Wal-mart being singled out?

(edited for typos)

Edited December 15, 2009 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

I don't think criticism of Wal-Mart is undue.

Make sure its valid criticism, something that Wal-mart is actually doing wrong, and which other similar companies are not making the same mistakes.

It's a shitty company to work for, which treats its employees abominably.

Quite possibly. But then, so was the corner store and restaurant that I worked in when I was in high school. And so was the small clothing store a friend of mine worked in.

You're talkig about unskilled, entry-level jobs. Why exactly do you think Wal-mart should be held to a different standard?

It's a shitty company to sell to, for it treats its suppliers miserably.

Strangely enough, I've never seen a law that says a company is required to sell to wal-mart. Perhaps you can point me to such a law.

It's a crappy store to shop IN, for it has narrow aisle...

Depends on the store. I've seen Wal-marts that have narrow isles, I've seen Wal-mart with fairly wide open isles.

I've also seen Zellers stores with the same issues. Why aren't you criticising Zellers for too?

... long lines...

Happens at other stores I've been to (Zellers, Loblaws, etc.) Why hold Wal-mart to a different standard?

(I've also been at Wal-mart when there were no lines. Guess what? Stores can get unexpectedly busy.)

...poor to non-existent cusstomer service...

Again, compared to what? I've always found they as many people "on the floor" as any other similar retailer (and their greeters can be of assistance too, even if their real job is for security.)

I've also found that Wal-mart has an excellent return policy (especially compared with many smaller companies.)

...and bottom scrapings as merchandise.

First of all, while Wal-mart usually doesn't bother with high-end merchandise, much of their stock is identical to what you would get at any other retailer. (Do you really think that a tube of Crest toothpaste is somehow worse if you get it at Wal-mart as opposed to your local drug store? That the bag of M&Ms they sell is different than the bag of M&Ms you'd get at the grocery story? That the DVD and video games they sell don't work the same as the ones you'd get from the video store?)

Secondly, even when there are differences in some of the brands that they stock, so what? Sometimes, all people want/need are the basic models, and spending extra money for the "high end" models is a waste.

Here's an anecdote... I used to go camping as a kid, but I stopped going when I grew up. A couple of years ago, I decided to try camping again. So, I needed a tent. I could have gone and bought a top-of-the-line tent from the local camping supply store; however, I had no idea A: if I would enjoy camping, and B: how often I'd actually get to go. So, I went to Wal-mart, bought a low-end tent with the minimum of features. Result: it cost me a fraction of the money, and I've been completely happy for what I use it for.

It's a bad company to have in your community, for you wind up exchanging middling poor wages for poor wages and half the number of jobs.

I've already pointed out (and given a reference to a report!) that as the number of Wal-mart stores has increased in the past few years, the number of small businesses has remained relatively stable. Furthermore, there appears to be no co-relation between the number of wal-marts in a particular state and the number of people employed by small business.

It's a lousy company to have in your country, for it encourages, some even go so far as to say extorts its suppliers into firing workers and transferring production abroad.

You could claim that, but then you'd be just as wrong as when you suggested that Wal-mart eliminates jobs.

Edited to add:

Really? Executive pay has skyrocketed over the past twenty five years, especially in comparison with workers salaries. Is there any evidence at all that this has resulted in a higher level of diligence among CEOs, that they are in any way at all better qualified than CEOs from thirty years ago?

No there isn't. But in the real world, we don't have the ability to transport CEOs through time. Companies can only hire and pay people compared to what similar people are earning today.

Your average football/baseball/hockey player is not significantly better than they were 2 decades ago either. They still earn a heck of a lot more money. Why? Because teams have to compete in their hiring practices with other teams for a limited number of skilled players.

Edited December 15, 2009 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

This is a non partisan issue as far as I'm concerned. segnosaur would rather make it a divisive issue whereas I wouldn't. I am illustrating that WalMart is undertaking in some unsavory business practices and he is saying that their business practices are just fine and they should be applauded.Maybe she/he's a lobbyist for them.

You know, here's what I find ironic....

I use (as reference material) mainstream material published from business magazines and academic institutions. I have specifically avoided referring to anything on the Wal-mart corporate website.

On the other hand, YOU have posted most of your material from either anti-wal-mart sites, or from sources directly involved in the law suit itself.

Yet You are suggesting that I am somehow a "lobbyist" for them.

I provided an article from the New York Times,...

Oooohhh.... an article from the new york times.

Wow, amazing.... except basically the only thing that the article said is that there is a lawsuit going on, something that was not in doubt.

I provided a report which is basically a survey on the hard numbers of WalMart employees...

Except, as the FORBES article I referred to pointed out (You know Forbes, a well respected business magazine that isn't published by Wal-mart) indicted that those "hard numbers" provided in the law suit are flawed.

... and have provided links to the actual lawsuit.

All the links to the lawsuit show is that there is indeed a lawsuit going on. It does not actually validate the claims of the lawsuit.

None of these are good enough for segosaur so I'm not sure what he wants to be honest.

I want you to be less of an idiot. Guess that's asking too much.

I really don't care. I'm done playing his game.

You never really 'played the game'. Basically, all you did was make false accusations, post information that was either irrelevant or downright wrong, and avoid addressing issues I brought up.

Oh, and you engaged in ad hominems.

I am convinced he's another one of these unemployed who has nothing better to do with his time then to waste mine.

Which, of course, is pretty much an ad hominem attack.

This will be my last post responding to segosaur on this issue

What, you mean that we'll never hear you explain why the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply when we're talking about lawsuits against Wal-mart?

We'll never hear why Wal-mart deserves to be condemned but other large companies who have exhibited similar behavior remain untouched?

We'll never hear you address the issue about why Forbe's pointed out the numbers quoted in the lawsuit are flawed?

We'll never hear you try to justify why Wal-mart is somehow wrong for its number of top-level female executives, when there are very few female executives in all industries?

I've been bringing these issues up for a long long time. Thought you might actually want to address them. Guess I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up.

I guess that should be expected... you've been exposed as being ignorant. You've shown that you're unable to actually address information and issues raised in other posts. So now, you run away.

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/

Biased site.

http://www.walmartclass.com/public_home.html

Biased site.

http://www.feminazi.org/Wal-Marts_Massive_Bigotry-BusinessWeek.HTM

Hmmm... site with the name "feminazi". Think it might be biased?

http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/feb2003/ca20030221_1282_ca011.htm

Yes, an article that says that they're a lawsuit going on. But guess what? Ever hear of the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty"? I've mentioned it enough. Need me to explain it to you?

Oh, and by the way, from your very own article it has the following statement:

Clearly, the numbers alone don't prove discrimination. Pre-Wal-Mart job histories and the preferences of women, for instance, could factor into the case. ... But spokeswoman Mona Williams says the plaintiffs "manipulated" the numbers and that Wal-Mart is promoting women into management "at rates consistent with the qualified and interested pool of candidates" at the company.

So, this is your reference, and it has parts that indicate that the law suit may be without merit. Hmmm.... how come you don't seem to be mentioning that in any of your posts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/business/suing-wal-mart-but-still-hoping-to-move-up.html

Again.... innocent until proven guilty.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XXBmN-81GcMJ:www.walmartclass.com/staticdata/reports/r2.pdf+Richard+Drogin,+Ph.+D&hl=en&gl=ca&sig=AHIEtbQimCQGff4x2X9NmfPafjkPF0LfyQ

This is the actual report of WalMarts gender patterns within the WalMart work force. It was prepared by Richard Drogin, Ph. D. He's held this PHd since 1970 and has taught at a variety of Universities. His background is all contained within the report.

And it was prepared on behalf of the paintiffs in the court case!!!!! Hmmmm, really think an article written by someone paid for by paintiffs in a court case is going to give a completely fair and unbiased account?

This is hard data taken directly from WalMarts personnel databases so it cannot be biased at all.

Actually, yes it can. For example:

- It doesn't take into account that Wal-mart classifies positions differently than other retailers

- Does not address the situation at other retailers. (Sorry, but there is a shortage of top female execs across all industries. Pointing out the lack of top women at Wal-mart isn't really valid if the shortage systemic to society as a whole.)

[Mr.Canada]

Seg, listen carefully. I know it's really hard for you to comprehend this basic message. So I'm going to go really slowly for you. Just give me a yes you understand please for each instance I am describing below. Perhaps you aren't old enough to understand what I'm saying. How old are you? Just give me a age range you're in if you're too afraid to tell me. I have a hard time believing that a grown up has a hard time understanding what I'm saying.

This site is based on factual events. http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/ The sources in in the quotes themselves. many of the sources are from government sites or from independent news agencies or from the CEO's own mouth or from WalMart itself. Do you understand that?

This http://www.feminazi.org/Wal-Marts_Massive_Bigotry-BusinessWeek.HTM and http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/feb2003/ca20030221_1282_ca011.htm are the same article. One has a chart based on the facts and one doesn't. I said this in my post. Do you understand this?

WalMart has been proven guilty many many times and has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement money already. Are you aware of this?

Edited December 16, 2009 by Mr.Canada