More on Wal-Mart Decision; More Responses on State Budget …

by on June 23, 2011

To the Editor:

What goes unremarked upon, on both sides of the case, is that about 72 percent of Walmart’s hourly sales jobs have all along been held by women — which is discrimination FOR women, or, worded differently, discrimination against men. Suppose 72 percent of the company’s hourly sales employees were men and most of the managers were women.

Since women’s advocates now ignore Walmart’s current, real hiring discrimination against men, doesn’t this mean the advocates would ignore women’s dominance in Walmart’s management and claim that a 72-percent male sales staff proves hiring discrimination against women? Wouldn’t this hiring discrimination in fact now be the basis for the class-action lawsuit against Walmart? For a primary reason Walmart has more male managers than female, see: “Taking Apart the Sex-Bias Class-Action Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart” at or at

Jerry Boggs
Livonia, MI

To the Editor:

So you are another, let my kids pay for it type. Until the two sides come together and realize that at all levels of the government cuts like the Republicans call for along with tax increases like the Democrats call for plus cuts in defense spending (like no one calls for) will be needed to start making any progress on getting to sustainable situation.

Don James
San Jose, CA

Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)

Please do not send anything to this mailing address that is not intended for Randy Shaw or Paul Hogarth. If you wish to reach other Beyond Chron writers directly, please call us.

Filed under: Archive