By
a five-to-four vote, the Supreme Court has
blocked the filing of a class-action discrimination lawsuit by
current and former female employees of Wal-Mart. The women sought
relief through the court for a pattern of discrimination and unequal
pay instituted by the world’s largest private employer. Since
Wal-Mart is known for its anti-union policies and low-paying jobs,
this case could have signaled the beginning of a renewed fight to end
employment discrimination against women across the United States.
However, in its June 20 ruling, the majority of justices refused to
recognize a commonality of interest among Wal-Mart’s 1.5 million
female workers.
Dissenter
Ruth Ginsburg wrote, “Women fill 70 percent of the hourly jobs
in the retailer’s stores but make up only 33 percent of management
employees.”
“The
plaintiffs’ evidence, including class members’ tales of their own
experiences, suggests that gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s company
culture,” Ginsburg wrote.
Wal-Mart’s
wages are so low that many workers must rely on public assistance
such as food stamps, Medicare and subsidized housing to make ends
meet.
But
“Wal-Mart views low labor costs and a high degree of workplace
flexibility as a signal competitive advantage,” according to The
New York Times. And the retail industry like all other sectors of the
economy operates on competition. While Wal-Mart has doled out
millions to employees for ignoring labor and wage laws, it still
operates under an anti-union policy. Therefore, other companies in
the retail industry are forced to reduce wages and health benefits to
compete with the retail giant.
“The
underlying issue, which the Supreme Court has now ratified, is
Wal-Mart’s authoritarian style, by which executives pressure
store-level management to squeeze more and more from millions of
clerks, stockers and lower-tier managers,” according to New York
Times editorialist Nelson Lichtenstein. And this authoritarian,
profit-driven orientation will continue to drive down labor standards
for retail companies across the country.
Women
make up almost 70 percent of hourly workers for Wal-Mart, and yet
very few are promoted beyond the position of clerk, greeter or
cashier. The worldwide corporation officially forbids sex
discrimination; however, discrimination has been part of Wal-Mart’s
corporate culture and business model since its founding in 1962.
The lack of promotion of women and frequent abuse by managers should
have supported the class-action lawsuit. But the court majority
sided with the corporation and shut the door to workers seeking
justice from the judicial system.
The
Supreme Court
is an organ of the capitalist state, and as such acts to protect the
interests of the capitalist class. Wal-Mart and other retailers have
profited off their super-exploitation of women workers. This decision
shows that while such legal actions may be useful, we cannot rely on
the court to defend or expand workers’ rights.When
the court has taken a progressive position in the past, it has
reflected an upsurge in the mass struggle, for instance the decision
in Brown v. Board of Education ending legal segregation reflected the
growing civil rights movement of that period. It will take a mass
struggle of working women and our organizations to end sexist job
discrimination and guarantee a living wage for all workers.
