In the Wal-Mart case, an issue that was brought up was that they were allowing or promoting gender inequality. From 1996 to 2001, the percentage of women who were employed fell 3 percent which doesn’t seem much; however, when dealing with a company like Wal-Mart who has a massive workforce, 3 percent is a significant drop. Also, only a third of salaried managers and 14 percent of the top managers were female. Moreover, opponents of Wal-Mart claimed that women did not receive equal pay for similar positions.
Undoubtedly, women and men should receive equal pay for equal positions. I was curious to what came out of the class action because I don’t believe the mentioned the end results in the case. And as far as the manager positions go, I think they both men and women should be made aware of opportunities for promotions, but in the end the position should be held by the person who is best for the job regardless of gender.
Wal-Mart established a goal that 50 percent of the workforce should be female. Someone brought up in class that it should not just be a goal but Wal-Mart should make sure that the workforce “is made” 50 percent women. I would think that the percentage in the end would be within the 50 percent range, but I’m not sure how that objective could be implemented. I feel that the most qualified worker and the worker who is more likely to help the business should be hired. While I believe that the percentage would end up to be around 50 in the end, I do not think that actions need to be taken to disrupt the idea of hiring the most qualified worker.