In the largest sexual discrimination lawsuit ever, the Supreme Court sided with retail king Wal-Mart (WMT) on Monday, overturning a ruling that granted class-action status to female employees that had sought billions of dollars.
The unanimous decision, which was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, concerned the ability of 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees to team up to sue the world’s largest retailer for gender discrimination.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/06/20/supreme-court-sides-with-wal-mart-in-sex-bias-case/
Is there any downside to discrimination based on sex? I can't think of any. Nature abhors a vacuum, so does economics. If talented women are not reaching their potential at Walmart, wouldn't that give other companies the opportunity to scoop up these talented women? Doesn't this give those talented women the opportunity to open their own business and perhaps compete with Walmart? In the free market, the cream always rises to the top. This principle is easy to see in professional sports. The best athletes in the country play pro ball. The best actors/actresses get to be in the movies and TV. The most interesting authors write the best selling books. Discrimination, like diversity, is neither good nor bad in and of itself. If a restaurant will only serve men, that opens up a market for restaurants the serve women. In a market that is free from government interference, things will work out exactly as they should, but not necessarily equal.
For example, there are almost no female auto mechanics because women don't like, or are not talented, in that field of work. There are few Blacks in the NBA because the most talented basketball players are black. Most nail salons are owned and staffed by Asians because that is what they choose to do. The owners choose to hire their own kind. Most Chinese restaurants are owned and staffed by Chinese because the owners prefer Chines to work for them. Most cabs are driven by Arabs, because that is what they choose to do. This neither right nor wrong, this is exactly as things should be.
The government has no business demanding that private companies can not discriminate. Just as the government has no business forcing private companies to discriminate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
It looks like it all began
Submitted on June 20th, 2011 by John 2000
on March 6, 1961 with JFK:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmati...
reply
Brain, I understand that
Submitted on June 20th, 2011 by garyganu
Brain, I understand that this case was about the right to bring a giant class action suit against Wallmart. The 9th circuit court of appeals made another ruling based on ideology rather than law, as usual. Their ruling was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court. The 9th circuit court is not following judicial law and the justices should be impeached. Why isn't anyone trying to disbar or impeach those justices for not following the law in their rulings?
Brain, why do you think that the government should force private businesses not to discriminate? More harm than good comes from taking away the right to discriminate from a private company.
Is it wrong to discriminate against smokers (forced non smoking bars and restaurants)? Is it wrong for a church to discriminate against transvestites (not hiring transvestites to work in the church gift shop)? Are Lady's nights wrong at singles bars? Is it wrong to discriminate against those who have not graduated from Ivy League universities (when hiring for an important job)? Is it wrong to discriminate against men when hiring pre-school teachers? Is it wrong for the NAACP to discriminate against whites when hiring for top positions? Is it wrong to discriminate against everyone but big breasted women to serve food at Hooters?
I think that the these decisions are best made by the private companies rather than by the government. What say you?
I base my views on my personal experience, reason and common sense. http://garyganu.blogspot.com
reply
This ruling isn't about
Submitted on June 20th, 2011 by brain62
whether the women were discriminated against or not. This ruling was whether the attorneys could do a class action suit against Wal-Mart. I believe this was upheld by the 9th circuit (S.F.) and than went on to the supreme court for a ruling that was... unanimous. How many times has that happened lately? And shows how out in left field the 9th circuit is.
If the women were legitimately discriminated against; that is wrong. I do agree with this ruling though.
Hi Gary, I think that basic government enforcement of racism is needed. Example; if only blacks owned all the business they could conspire to keep all "whites" from being able to start a business. I am sure that probably happened in the south against blacks in some areas; I call this societal racism. Jews have been oppressed in Russia, Germany and other parts of the world as well, may not be a good example though because that was probably government driven. But we here in the USA have that saying "justice for all" and as you have stated before we strive to give equal opportunity, not equal outcomes and I agree with that. If we allow some societies to discriminate than the ones that are the target of that discrimination will not get equal opportunities. I don't like expanding protected status' to include groups that can conceal their "status". For instance, it is actually kind of hard to discriminate against many gays because it is not something they have to reveal, while a black person cannot conceal his skin color. Women should be given the same opportunities as men but if all the opportunities are "guarded" by men than they will not have an equal opportunity. I despise the smoking laws; if I want to allow my customers to smoke that is my business decision. The only role the government should play may be to require signs at entrances that warn smoking is allowed on premises. I think a transvestite could dress appropriately; I have no problem with a dress code for employees. Ladies nights is a tough one; it is a marketing ploy and I have no problem with it. Degrees is requiring a academic credential not the same as the original protected status. Men should be allowed to teach preschool. I like relatively small breasts and I can't remember ever going to a Hooters. I mostly agree with you that private companies make better decisions but basic racism is wrong and sometimes the government needs to enforce it.
Thanks for responding Brain,
If societal racism were to exist, other people would open businesses which would fill the vacuum of demand. If blacks were not allowed to eat in a particular restaurant, that would make an opportunity for someone to cater to blacks or multiracial customers.
If businesses would refuse to hire blacks, then many skilled blacks would be available to work for those who would take advantage of this opportunity.
As long as the government does not force discrimination or prevent discrimination, things will work out just fine. Can you provide an example to the contrary?
Women is America had no real option for work until the 60's-70's; I think society for the most part changed that. How about the racism/bigotry of the Arab states? I guess you could say that is government but it is also societal and it is wrong. I don't know how to solve that situation and I am not confident that any government can solve that. I your "theory" is understandable but humans don't behave the way that you are theorizing. We had racism that in my view oppressed blacks, that was/is wrong. Thomas Sowell argues in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals that the civil rights era hurt blacks more than helped (I will have to look back and see what his premise was on that, I can't remember) and he does make some good points, but I believe the south is better for blacks than before and that is an example of "societal racism".
Brian, this is off the topic but have you noticed that Skye is selectively removing comments and entire blogs from RBA? Also, Skye banned me from RBA and I can no longer post there. A new person at SHNS is in charge of RBA and apparently they gave her the power to moderate the blog. It seems as though she is censoring it instead of moderating it. I don't think that she knows the difference.
She recently removed her own blog entitled: "BILL PASSES ::: VICTORY FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN NEW YORK". There were about 8 comments on that blog and most of them were anti-gay marriage. Today I noticed that the blog was gone but I found the cached version on Google but it only had the first two comments. Here is the link to the cached version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AwTfaR-lI1AJ:redblueamerica.com/blog/2011-06-24/bill-passes-victory-same-sex-marriage-new-york-9518+redblueamerica.com+ny+gay+maarriage+law+passes&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
I also noticed that she selectively removed some of my comments from her Fathers Day blog but left other comments alone. For example, she left the comment where I suggested celebrating "Bastards Day" but she removed my subsequent comments that detailed explanations of previous comments.
I will repost one of my comments that was removed from RBA as a new blog on this site.
I have noticed that from Skye and I would agree with you; she is censoring. Apparently she has the "power" to do so, not sure that I like that. It is only blogging though and not of high importance to me. I do think that you should not be blocked but it "seems" to have gotten others to post/blog on there. I have stated before that I think there is a double standard by at least Skye and I still think that. The "pathetic old man" (Ajamo) can pretty much say anything and not get any push back. Jan or Skye can name call and it is OK; double standard in action.
Brain, I have another blog that I have not used in a while. The address is garyganu.wordpress.com If you comment on a post and sign up with wordpress, I can make you an author. I would make all commenters "authurs" who can post their own blogs. Then this website would have a similar format to reblueamerica.com. Do you want to try it. The first comment is subject to moderation, after that, you are on your own.
Post a Comment