Women and Lawyers vs. Wal-Mart
by Don Cooper
by Don Cooper: Dolts
ABCNews.com there was an article entitled: Women
vs. Wal-Mart. It was an article regarding the misogynistic tactics
used by Wal-Mart in a systematic attempt to oppress women in the
workplace. Or in their words: "women were uniformly disadvantaged."
That is to say, women were victims again.
goes on to point out that "Christine Kwapnoski of Concord,
CA. told her boss at a division of Wal-Mart that she wanted a job
promotion," but she didnít get it and didnít like her bossís
response, so she decided to sue.
told her BOSS that SHE wanted a job promotion? Wow, is that how
it works? I had no idea. Let me go upstairs right now and tell my
boss I want a promotion and see how that works out for me. And if
he refuses or gives me some smartass remark, then Iíll sue him for
discrimination against unprofessional, irresponsible, rude, and
arrogant employees. We are certainly a minority and need protection
by the federal government, otherwise how will we ever get, keep,
and be promoted within a job? In fact, as an employee I want to
be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and not
even have to work if I donít want to but still get paid. I
want to be able to decide my own work schedule. Can the government
make that happen for me?
she wasnít fired for insubordination. Her rights to work were not
violated and she has no right to be promoted, but now Wal-Mart's
rights are going to be violated by being forced to hire and promote
women just because they're women Ė not because they're the right
people for the job.
You see, Christine
is a victim Ė just like the blind guy hired by UPS I met the other
day at a trade show. He and his UPS manager were looking for special
software with the ability to read text and convert it into audio.
UPS hired a blind guy for a job that requires the ability to read!
somewhere in the world, right?)
goes on to correctly point out that: "[this case] will likely
encourage an avalanche of new class-action litigation on a broad
array of subject matters, beyond employment issues." Of course
it will. America is a litigation nation. Any group of people, and
I mean ANY, who can organize and raise enough financial capital
can then Ė thanks to the governmentís legalized bribery, I mean
lobbying Ė influence the government to pass legislation that violates
our rights, imposes harmful economic constraints, and does nothing
more than transfer wealth from those willing to earn it to those
Title VII, the federal law that prohibits sexual discrimination,
came about. But of course Title VII isnít really about sexual discrimination,
Block has pointed out many times. If it were really about sexual
discrimination in society, then all heterosexuals would be guilty
by discriminating against members of the same sex in their personal
relationships as would homosexuals be guilty of discrimination against
members of the opposite sex.
would be guilty of sexual discrimination by not hiring men to wait
tables; Victoriaís Secret has no male sales associates; strip clubs
have only female dancers; the LPGA only allows female golfers; NOW,
the National Organization for Women, doesnít represent men at all;
and the list goes on.
between men and women are all around us and it would be economic
suicide for any business to ignore them. Thatís why restaurants
have a menís room and a ladyís room, why Nike has a menís division
and a womenís division, Schwinn makes menís bikes and womenís bikes,
JC Penney has a menís department and a womenís department, there
is Playboy and Playgirl, gynecologists andÖwell, you
get the point.
between men and women is a part of life. Hell, even our own language
makes the discrimination. Thatís why we have words like man/woman,
mom/dad, brother/sister, aunt/uncle, bride/groom, boy/girl, sister/brother,
grandma/grandpa, and waiter/waitress Ė clearly discriminating between
the sexes. Is the English language in violation of Title VII? Some
would say yes as the assault to homogenize the language has already
been politicized and created gender neutral words such as server,
salesperson, and flight attendant. I guess eventually a wife wonít
be a wife but rather a life partner and a girlfriend wonít be a
girlfriend but rather a friend with benefits.
The crux of
the womenís lawsuit against Wal-Mart is that women had been paid
less than men in comparable positions. Walter
Block has written extensively on this issue and found that those
wage disparities, although they exist, cannot be attributed solely
to male chauvinist pigs Ė that the differences between men and women
in the work place must be considered. In fact, it would be irresponsible
and negligent on the part of a manager not to.
Kramer also points out the absurdity of the argument that businesses,
able to cut their costs so significantly by hiring more women, still
donít because they are just so innately misogynistic. Their inferior
view of women far outweighs their own desire to do well in their
businessesí bottom line. Nonsense.
if a newlywed woman applies for a position that requires a multiyear,
long-term commitment, should the fact that she could become pregnant
(intentionally or not) be ignored? Should the impact on the company
and, therefore, the livelihood of other employees be discounted?
The physical effects of pregnancy affect women in different ways.
Some are out of the office for long periods of time before, during,
and after the pregnancy. And what about her maternal duties after
the birth? Doesnít waking up at night to breastfeed take a toll
on the motherís sleep? (The father obviously canít breast feed.)
What if itís twins? Men, on the other hand, have none of these concerns
in the workplace.
I know people
donít like facts. They really muddle up the "victim" argument.
And what if
a manager were to discriminate based solely on sex? What if he is
a misogynist of the nth degree? Does he not have a right to be a
jerk? Of course he does. And if his manager likes his hiring
decisions and the company is profitable, then heís doing whatís
expected of him. Who would be better off by discriminating in favor
of women just because they are women?
And what if
two employees, one male and one female, are up for a promotion and
the manager feels they are both exactly equal? How then should the
decision be made? It has to be based on something; it has to discriminate
on something. What should it be then? Whoís taller? Whoís "nicer"?
"Whoís a Steelers fan"? In PC America it will most likely
be made based on who is more likely to file a frivolous law suit
if not chosen, and that will be the woman.
bottom line is that when multiple people apply for a job or a promotion,
the decision maker has to ultimately make a decision and that decision
will be discriminatory since he canít choose both at the same time.
So what should that discriminatory decision be based on and who
has the right to dictate what it should be? I know who it shouldnít
be: the employees up for the job or promotion.
feel differently though. They feel theyíre different. They feel
they "deserve" more. They live in that land of nod where
life is all rainbows and unicorns and gosh darn it what the grown-ups
in the real world are doing just isnít fair.
why I drink!
[send him mail] is a Florida
native, Navy veteran, economist, business analyst and father.
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.