Not really, but Wal-Mart should consider it.
In the current class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart that has just been certified by a federal appeals court: “The plaintiffs allege that women were paid less than, and were given fewer opportunities for promotion than, their male counterparts.”
If women are willing to work for less than men, then clearly Wal-Mart should hire only women to reduce labor costs. For more on the “pay gap,” see Walter Block.
{ 8 comments }
If women are willing to work for less than men
[sarcasm]
No, they are not willing, it’s the capitalists forcing them, men and all other externalities. Just as I did not want to work for my current salary, it’s the boss’ fault, or even market’s fault. What else could I choose? Starving? According to some, nothing in this world is voluntary. I was once told that “… any voluntary agreement is a compromise, thus someone must be losing in that transaction.” Rant over.
Women should stop having kids and should work overtime to compensate the loss of income, should practice voluntary simplicity and stay single and keep all the money for themselves, men also should do the same thing. I have no mercy for those who make kids and then suffer the consequences.
Women are mostly paid less than men because they are a child rearing liability to employers.
However, ask Nelling Nordegen or Tyra Banks if they make less than males, ask Oprah Winfrey if she makes less than males.
Women can make much more money than men if they look good and know how to market themselves.
But stacking shelves, of course women will earn less than men, because they are weaker than men and can leave for child rearing anytime. Employers factor all this when they hire women.
Bottom line, having kids is a big liability, not an asset.
until you’re old and living in your kid’s basement…
According to some others, any voluntary agreement means both parties expect to be better off…or else they would not have made the agreement. Thus both must be winning in that transaction.
ABC News repeated last night the tired, old claim that women are paid x% of men. No evidence was cited, no mention was made about variables such as labor force participation rates, choice of careers (some of which, of course, some pay less than others), and so on. Not even a source was cited, yet I can think of plenty of females who are highly compensated. Leftist rabblerousers take note: Such better-paid women tend to work in sales, marketing, and law (as lawyers), NOT as cashiers, baggers, and greeters at the front door of retail outlets. They get college degrees in something useful like business or engineering, not in French literature, gender studies, etc. They don’t spend their mornings prattling about yesterday’s soap operas, which enjoy more support from women than men, but about the deals that need to be closed with clients.
Now, given that HR departments attract females in numbers out of proportion both to their share of the workforce and to the population, it’s more plausible to suppose that women are compensated equal to or IN EXCESS of men for equal work. These HR women are certainly well positioned to make the discrimination happen while hiding evidence of the fact on the grounds of right to privacy of both employers and their employees. If women were undercompensated, there’d be a flood of hard evidence leaking out, not another repetition of an old claim without evidence. Of course, maybe the HR women are themselves baised against women.
Anyhow, the million woman lawsuit doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test. A better explanation is that some lawyer with a leftwing prejudice has a boilerplate contract that stipulates that plaintiff’s attorney (er, shakedown artist) gets paid 25% to 40% of any money, after expenses, recovered through settlement or trial.
The 9th Circuit is full of “judges” who will twist the law any way they can to hammer Walmart. I admire Walmart for fighting so hard. Since you cannot “disprove” discrimination in a class action lawsuit, settlement is usually the only way to go. Walmart is sending a message by fighting this so hard. If they ever do have to fund a settlement, the radicals who brought the claims will use that to fund even mroe litigation against ever more businesses. Go Walmart!
Yes, I work for Wal-Mart and they DO Pay Less to Women and make them work more than men. At my store the Women on GM side have to stock four departments than go to grocery side to help stock and zone for the men. But, they never make the men go to GM side. I started $2 an hour less then the men that started the same week that I started. You will also, see men taking longer breaks and more breaks then women too. The only reason I’m still with them is the economy.
That’s because you girls NEVER have to do the hard stuff like UNLOADING TRUCKS! Why don’t you get your scrawny bodies in that tractor trailer which is like an oven instead of the air conditioned part of the store putting clothes on hangers. I used to work at WM and once saw three girls doing what one guy is expected to do all by himself.
Comments on this entry are closed.