Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Another stab at women.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another stab at women. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 10:06:33 AM   
IceDemeter


Posts: 84
Status: offline
FR ~

Please forgive my ignorance on how class-action lawsuits work, but could someone please explain to me why you feel that it makes more sense to have one overall gender discrimination suit instead of having a few lawsuits more specifically tailored to the individual issues?

From the little information that I've seen on this, there are numerous items that need to be addressed (less pay for equal work, less opportunity to advance, part time designations to allow for no benefits while requiring full time hours, etc) and that not all of these things apply equally at all locations. From my personal perspective, I could see a court saying that they would prefer to see each issue sued for separately so that they can each be given full, undivided attention and each be considered as a "primary" issue. I could see that there could be a tendency to look at a huge listing of issues and feeling that prioritizing them would be required if addressing them all at once. Since these are all priority issues, it would seem more likely that they would all be addressed fully and fairly if they were presented separately.

The opportunity was left open to break down in to smaller groups, not just individual suits. If it were broken down by issue, then there would still be significantly large groups for each one. This would also allow the opportunity to expand it beyond gender discrimination to include others (elderly, handicapped, students) where that particular issue has impacted them as well.

I see it that in a single over-arching lawsuit, each individual issue will still need to be addressed by both the lawyers and the courts, so I don't see a significant savings in time or cost in putting it in to one instead of in to a separate suit for each issue. I personally would also prefer to see a separate clear ruling on each issue as a separate case and not an overall ruling on everything. My reasoning on this is that if the court finds for one side on one issue and the other side on another issue, then the overall spin will go in favour of the corporation and the findings of what it did wrong will be lost. If it's treated on an issue-by-issue basis, then it's not quite so easy to spin.

So - what am I missing here?

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 10:13:05 AM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Tj44 the fact that he is being exploited doesnt matter to you at all?
didnt think it would



exactly how is he being exploited?

Youve never known anyone who has worked for Walmart have you, part time hours only yet are actually doing more hours per week than fulltime workers and gettin no vacation or benefits
I m guessing you dont care to, and would put up lame excuses as to what he could or should do.
Not everyone has your abilities or mind set, or background, but you would like everyone to do the things you do, WHY?
One mans happiness is anothers misery..

Edited to add.yeah what Lilly said tooo!


I know someone that works there, yes, but he doesnt see himself as exploited and neither do I.
If someone is working as part-time and not getting the benefits then it depends on if the law is being broken or not. If its being broken then that person should stand up for themselves and if it means a lawsuit then that is what they should do. Its up to them tho.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 10:16:04 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
Individual plaintiffs don't have the money to pay lawyers for discrimination lawsuits. It may be hard to find a lawyer that would take one on a contingency basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Advantages

Advantages

Class action lawsuits may offer a number of advantages[27] because they aggregate a large number of individualized claims into one representational lawsuit.

First, aggregation can increase the efficiency of the legal process, and lower the costs of litigation.[28] In cases with common questions of law and fact, aggregation of claims into a class action may avoid the necessity of repeating "days of the same witnesses, exhibits and issues from trial to trial." Jenkins v. Raymark Indus. Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1986) (granting certification of a class action involving asbestos).

Second, a class action may overcome "the problem that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or her rights." Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617 (1997) (quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 388, 344 (7th Cir. 1997)). "A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someone’s (usually an attorney’s) labor." Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 617 (quoting Mace, 109 F.3d at 344). In other words, a class action ensures that a defendant who engages in widespread harm – but does so minimally against each individual plaintiff – must compensate those individuals for their injuries. For example, thousands of shareholders of a public company may have losses too small to justify separate lawsuits, but a class action can be brought efficiently on behalf of all shareholders. Perhaps even more important than compensation is that class treatment of claims may be the only way to impose the costs of wrongdoing on the wrongdoer, thus deterring future wrongdoing.

Third, class action cases may be brought to purposely change behavior of a class of which the defendant is a member. Landeros v. Flood was a landmark case used to purposely change the behavior of doctors, and encourage them to report suspected child abuse. Otherwise, they would face the threat of civil action for damages in tort proximately flowing from the failure to report the suspected injuries. Previously, many physicians had remained reluctant to report cases of apparent child abuse, despite existing law that required it.

Fourth, in "limited fund" cases, a class action ensures that all plaintiffs receive relief and that early-filing plaintiffs do not raid the fund (i.e., the defendant) of all its assets before other plaintiffs may be compensated. See Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999). A class action in such a situation centralizes all claims into one venue where a court can equitably divide the assets amongst all the plaintiffs if they win the case.

Finally, a class action avoids the situation where different court rulings could create "incompatible standards" of conduct for the defendant to follow. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A). For example, a court might certify a case for class treatment where a number of individual bond-holders sue to determine whether they may convert their bonds to common stock. Refusing to litigate the case in one trial could result in different outcomes and inconsistent standards of conduct for the defendant corporation. Thus, courts will generally allow a class action in such a situation. See, e.g., Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 259 F. Supp. 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

(in reply to IceDemeter)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 10:21:30 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
From yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/business/21class.html?_r=1&src=recg

In its majority opinion, the court essentially said that if lawyers brought a nationwide class action against an employer, they would have to offer strong evidence of a nationwide practice or policy that hurt the class. In the Wal-Mart case, the court wrote that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that Wal-Mart had any nationwide policies or practices that discriminated against women. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, noted that Wal-Mart’s official corporate policy opposed discrimination, while the company gave the managers at its more than 3,400 stores considerable discretion over pay and promotions.

“In a company of Wal-Mart’s size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction,” Justice Scalia wrote.

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 10:27:10 AM   
DeviantlyD


Posts: 4375
Joined: 5/26/2007
From: Hawai`i
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Leaves no doubt as to who is running the Supreme Court.... big business.


Does that really surprise you considering the whole country is run by big business? Sorry to go off topic here, but your (above quoted) comment prompted the thought. ;)

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 10:43:10 AM   
IceDemeter


Posts: 84
Status: offline
Thanks, Kalikshama!

It does make sense to have a class-action suit in this case (obviously), but I'm still not understanding why it might be considered better to have it as a single class-action suit covering all of the issues, rather than having several suits each dedicated to a single issue. I would think that it would be easier to take each issue separately and show the prevalence of just that issue across the nation and thus justify the lawsuit.

If, for example, they went in to this with examples of a store in each state showing one issue as a problem (Wisconson paid less, Michigan hindered female advancement, North Dakota never hired senior female managers), then I could see the court saying that there isn't any "glue" holding this together as a case.

However, if you had one lawsuit strictly for less pay for equal work at the cashier level, with examples from one store in each state, I would think that this would be harder to dismiss.

Granted that this would mean a number of class-action suits, but I still don't think that there would be appreciably more time / costs with this than trying to do it all in a single lump. Of course, I'm a one-step-at-a-time thinker (ladder logic, anyone?), so this approach makes more sense to me...

(in reply to DeviantlyD)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 10:49:38 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
Try not to look at it as it pertains to this one case....look at it as it will pertain to any and all class actions in the future.The Supremes werent ruling on the merits of this case...they were ruling on "certification".... In ruling the way they did it would seem that they have taken a burden that was ,45 years ago,deliberately set low....and raised it to such a degree as to make it nigh on impossible for future suits.The burden for certification is that all the individual cases must be tied together( at least it was) Now Scalia,writing for the majority,has declared that not only must they be tied together...but there must be "glue" somehow conjoining those ties

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to IceDemeter)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 11:06:18 AM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Try not to look at it as it pertains to this one case....look at it as it will pertain to any and all class actions in the future.The Supremes werent ruling on the merits of this case...they were ruling on "certification".... In ruling the way they did it would seem that they have taken a burden that was ,45 years ago,deliberately set low....and raised it to such a degree as to make it nigh on impossible for future suits.The burden for certification is that all the individual cases must be tied together( at least it was) Now Scalia,writing for the majority,has declared that not only must they be tied together...but there must be "glue" somehow conjoining those ties

Well, I dont know the labor laws here, I am getting the impression that a lawsuit is the only recourse? Is that correct?

Where I am from originally, its different. The labor laws are overseen by a govt body. I think an employee has the choice of filing a complaint with the govt or a lawsuit on their own. I have filed only 1 complaint about an employer and all i had to do was fill out a form, provide docs and then wait for the govt to do what they do. I was not exactly happy about the result as the company went bankrupt but at least i got 20% of what i was owed (rather than 0).

Perhaps a better overall solution is just that, to have a govt body set up to enforce its own laws? Perhaps that is what employees and unions should lobby for? Or is that asking too much?

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 11:14:16 AM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

The opportunity was left open to break down in to smaller groups, not just individual suits. If it were broken down by issue, then there would still be significantly large groups for each one. This would also allow the opportunity to expand it beyond gender discrimination to include others (elderly, handicapped, students) where that particular issue has impacted them as well.


Classes are meant to do essentially this. Eliminate the burden on the courts of trying potentially as few as a dozen and as many (factoring in this whopper) millions cases. imagine the financial strain on the system if all 1.6 million cases were had their separate day in court, or even had to be filed and settled out of court.
    This does not quite fit this case however... it's a little more complicated, since
The most frequent reason why a class action would be shit-canned at this point is due to the willingness of class action attorneys to take the matter up again and restructure classes and go for a new judgement, based on the precedence in this case.
    But in this case, I am not even sure there was so much as a summary judgement entered. But rather the panel of three judges hearing arguments entered certification for the class. This resulted in Walmart filing en banc (which means instead of the panel of three, they wanted EVERY JUDGE in the 9th US District hear the case for class.
   Then, the case (as near as I can tell) got licked back to the panel of three only with the requirement that it review a superseding filing. This is easily the most complicated procedural train wreck I've ever seen in all the years I've had an interest in law. Since this has been being battled over by dozens of lawyers and it's been all locked up at the fundamental procedural level, I wouldn't exactly call this a case that is an example of anything else in the world of class action law.
   So anyway, at least for the plaintiff's attorneys currently invested, it's probably more expensive to go back to the drawing board on many levels than they can afford.
   There's the possiblity a new batch of attorneys could come along and try again as smaller class actions. But given the amount of resistance the case received from walmart (a DECADE of just the 'motions phase'???), it's probably going to feel pretty daunting to anybody thinking about taking it up anew.
   Could I be wrong and these attorneys have morphed into human beings with a true sense of social responsibility? Sure ... I suppose it's as likely as my answering the door and finding Tazzy kneeling on my stoop with that gorgeous rack hanging out.


In fairness to you, this is a REALLY BAD class action to cut your teeth on if you actually didn't understand what was truly going on... it took quite a bit of reading top make complete sense of it this morning.


(in reply to IceDemeter)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 11:19:56 AM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Try not to look at it as it pertains to this one case....look at it as it will pertain to any and all class actions in the future.The Supremes werent ruling on the merits of this case...they were ruling on "certification"


Glad you were able to figure out it was about soundness of certification BEFORE hearing the actual complaint... I must've gone through a dozen scholarly/non-scholarly articles before I saw anything hinting that the complaint itself had not yet been heard. And certification can be tried before or after a case is heard. This one was a mess, and I think WallyWorld spent a fortune making sure it was a mess.


< Message edited by SternSkipper -- 6/21/2011 11:20:40 AM >

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 11:21:03 AM   
IceDemeter


Posts: 84
Status: offline
I'm trying to see what you're saying here, Slvemike4u, but I'm afraid my foggy little brain isn't quite getting it.

Although I feel that the wording of the ruling in this case is absolutely ludicrous, I am getting the feel from it that they felt that there was what I would call a "scatter-shot" approach to the case. If someone comes to me with a "they did this here, and that there, and this other thing over there, so this means that they overall are scum to all women everywhere" - well, I can't see that as being an overwhelming convincing case.

If, however, they come to me and say that "they have done this precise thing to this many people in this many places, so they are showing a consistent practice of discrimination, regardless of their written policy, for this precise thing" - much more convincing.

I can sort of see what you mean about changing where the bar is set, but I guess that I'm not entirely sure whether this will create a lasting change at all, and whether it is a bad thing or a good thing. In a society as litigious as the US, perhaps requiring a more specifically stated argument might not be the worst thing in the world.

Of course, I can't discount my familiarity with Canadian labour laws in having a part in me not quite understanding the background of this lawsuit in the first place. I'm assuming that these issues are all things already encoded in American labour laws, so I'm not sure why anyone who felt that these laws were broken wouldn't have individually gone to their labour board and had the complaint registered and investigated. Been there, done that, and the company that I worked for was forced to change their ways. For so many individuals (over a million!) to have just accepted this without complaint just blows my mind.


(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 11:36:44 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
Okay try it like this...the plaintiffs( in this case woman) were seeking injunction against unfair labor practices as it pertains to woman...yes it was a large,cumbersome and unwieldily suit...they did this here,and that there and so on and so forth.Now the plaintiffs lawyers contended that the commonality was present in that the discrimination was against woman( a protected class under the law).... The court ruled that while there was commonality there was no"glue" binding that commonality together...so certification was denied.
Please don't ask me to define what "glue" is,or how one proves it....I can not do so....and I would hazard a guess neither can,nor does he want to,Scalia.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to IceDemeter)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 11:37:18 AM   
IceDemeter


Posts: 84
Status: offline
Wow, SternSkipper - ten years, and still just trying to get it certified as suitable for class-action?!? Sheesh. You were posting as I was typing, so I missed where I should have clarified that I do understand that they weren't ruling on the case itself, just whether it would meet the requirements of whether it could be considered a "class-action".

Your additional information (which I wasn't able to find in any of the incredibly non-scholarly articles that I managed to dig up this morning) does certainly make more sense of where so many are coming from. I knew I was missing something - thank you!

What I had found made it seem that this had come up before the first round of courts and certified in a very straight-forward manner, then appealed to the Supremes and rejected --- all of which I would figure would be a couple of years at most. Considering that they would have to have put together the argument to bring forward each of the issues anyways, I didn't see it being that difficult to break it down into smaller groups to target it more specifically to meet the requirement of both "tying" and "glueing" it together. Having a decade already invested in this definitely does make a difference.

Although I find it highly doubtful that either the lawyers grew souls (or that Tazzy will show up on your doorstep), I do hope that the lawyers feel that there is enough chance of wringing some cash out of Wallyworld to try to bring forward some separate groups to keep trying on this.

(in reply to IceDemeter)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 11:45:06 AM   
IceDemeter


Posts: 84
Status: offline
Damn, Slvemike4u - I told you I was fuzzy brained...

Would you believe that the part I couldn't wrap my head around was that the
quote:

commonality was present in that the discrimination was against woman
Thanks for putting it in simple words so that I did get it!

I still would hope that if they do try to continue with this, that they would find that breaking it down and showing a consistent practice of one specific discrimination would be the "glue" that the Supremes would not be able to get around the next time.

Thanks again, all - appreciate your patience in answering my questions!

(in reply to IceDemeter)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 11:50:11 AM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
No patience was required....you asked pertinent questions...and actually read the reponses.That is far more than what usually passes here as conversation.
Thank you for the pleasure.
Edited to add.....speaking for my own self....it seemed a tad arrogant otherwise

< Message edited by slvemike4u -- 6/21/2011 11:52:16 AM >


_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to IceDemeter)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 11:57:06 AM   
errantgeek


Posts: 156
Joined: 6/20/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

Classes are meant to do essentially this. Eliminate the burden on the courts of trying potentially as few as a dozen and as many (factoring in this whopper) millions cases. imagine the financial strain on the system if all 1.6 million cases were had their separate day in court, or even had to be filed and settled out of court.

[...]

There's the possiblity a new batch of attorneys could come along and try again as smaller class actions. But given the amount of resistance the case received from walmart (a DECADE of just the 'motions phase'???), it's probably going to feel pretty daunting to anybody thinking about taking it up anew.


On the bright side, the Supreme Court may prove itself capable of doing something Congress hasn't over the last six months...create jobs (in the legal profession...that aren't in bankruptcy or divorce...)! :)

quote:

Well, I dont know the labor laws here, I am getting the impression that a lawsuit is the only recourse? Is that correct?


If I remember my administrative and labor law right from my mighty one semester of business law, the problem is that executing labor law in the U.S. on the federal level (on the state level is an entirely different matter and clusterf*ck all to its own) is invested in a myriad of executive administrations -- OSHA, EEOC, WHD, the list goes on. Each of those administrations is susceptible to regulatory capture, which in essence means the interests that administration is designed to regulate end up garnering influence within the regulation to get policy decisions in its favor, if not free passes on law violations outright.

A great example of regulatory capture itself is the EPA -- check out the SCOTUS case Chevron v. NRDC (which you should read anyway if you're remotely interested in U.S. politics, business, economics, or law), or the Halliburton loophole.

Anyhow, in the failure of these administrations to execute labor law, which is in essence what the plaintiffs allege, then yes the only recourse is to file suit, unionize or start voting for reps in favor of administrative/labor law reform (good luck with that). Wal-Mart has a strict no-unions policy which they execute with stunning efficiency -- when I worked there ten years ago I saw a union rep banned from the store for only shopping, and employees were encouraged to report pro-union employees to management; that's not to mention the time they closed an entire store in Quebec after its employees successfully unionized. And, considering Wal-Mart's overwhelming legal resources and this recent decision, there's not much hope with the court.

That's just my opinion though, no need to go spreading it around or anything.

< Message edited by errantgeek -- 6/21/2011 11:58:33 AM >

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 12:13:09 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
While I,at times ,decry the stranglehold unions have on getting anything at all accomplished in New York city....their effective blocking of any wall mart from operating in Mahattan proper is something I applaud.WallMart is not only anti union but virulently so.

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to errantgeek)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 12:58:28 PM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: errantgeek
Wal-Mart has a strict no-unions policy which they execute with stunning efficiency -- when I worked there ten years ago I saw a union rep banned from the store for only shopping, and employees were encouraged to report pro-union employees to management; that's not to mention the time they closed an entire store in Quebec after its employees successfully unionized. And, considering Wal-Mart's overwhelming legal resources and this recent decision, there's not much hope with the court.

That's just my opinion though, no need to go spreading it around or anything.

Ok, well, there are some unionized Walmart workers in Canada, according to the UFCW. I am surprised that the labor laws are so much weaker in the US where there are 10 times as many people.

"It is a right that Walmart can’t ignore because Walmart is not above the law. That law is Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms — our constitution — which has established the Freedom to Associate as a fundamental Canadian right."
http://www.ufcw.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51%3Awal-mart-workers-canada&catid=17%3Acampaigns&Itemid=90&lang=en

Edited to add that the only option for a company that didnt want a union was to shut down, as Walmart did in Quebec but since then that loophole is a lot harder to squeeze thru due to that case going to the Supreme Court of Canada.

< Message edited by tj444 -- 6/21/2011 1:04:12 PM >

(in reply to errantgeek)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 1:11:21 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
FR,

There were TWO decisions, one 9-0, one 5-4, so that's how unanimous and 5-4 are both correct in one case :)
Only the 5-4 decision is getting coverage, however.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2011-06-20-walmart-sex-bias-case_n.htm

In a vigorous dissent on this key part,, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the majority for disqualifying the workers "at the starting gate" and for emphasizing not what united the women but what differences may have existed.

She suggested Monday's ruling would imperil other class-action job-bias claims, which allow individuals to sue on behalf of people with similar interests. Yet Ginsburg focused on the situation for female employees at Wal-Mart and the evidence they had presented to show bias.

"The plaintiffs' evidence, including class members' tales of their own experiences, suggests that gender bias suffused Wal-Mart's company culture," Ginsburg wrote. "Among illustrations, senior management often refer to female associates as little Janie Qs.'"



(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Another stab at women. - 6/21/2011 3:00:14 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

Well, if you work for someone else, you are under their thumb. I found that out when I was 20, I was harassed by a supervisor, and figured out that when you put your livelihood in someone elses hands, you lose control of your life from 9 to 5. I decided that I couldnt be a wage slave and that I could only work for myself. I know most people dont have what it takes to do that but they are the ones that decide to take a job or leave it and find a better job, and even a new city with better job prospects. Life isnt always equal and fair but there is always someone out there that has it worse than you.



Unemployment at 15% and you want them to "get" another job.

If they are that unhappy with the one they have then that is their choice. Maybe they would find that the job at Walmart isnt as bad as they thought.


I ran into my ex manager last month. After looking for work for 1 year he finally found a job at walmart. And yes it was as bad as he thought. But with the unemployment situation he has no other choice. What makes you think the women who work there are any different? But I agree that if a situation is bad, you should do something to change it. In fact I believe that is why the suit was thought up in the first place. To change it.


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another stab at women. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109