POWIP Piece of Work In Progress – Former Abode of Dan Collins

Walmart Sex Discrimination Lawsuit 31Mar2011

A followup on the post from a few days ago -- the Supreme Court heard testimony on allowing some money-chasing lawyers to form a super-duper class action where the covered class would likely get only a few hundred or thousand dollars each, while the lawyers would be raking in millions [oh wait, is that biased reporting? I think it's a salient fact that isn't brought up too much when they trot out the women's sob stories.]

I'm going to pull out some telling quotes:

Because the plaintiffs' claims are based on statistical evidence of pay and promotions that favor men over women, Justice Samuel Alito asked if that meant "every single company" in the country could potentially be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination.

Possibly so, Mr. Sellers said.

....

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned whether the plaintiffs, seeking a procedural advantage, had cut thousands of alleged victims out of potential remedies. The suit was filed under a provision that makes it easier to certify a class action, but limits compensatory damages.

Justice Ginsburg said that for women who no longer work at Wal-Mart, those compensatory damages for past wrongs are more important than ensuring future opportunities at the company. "They're not interested in" an injunction against future discrimination, "but everyone's interested in money," she said.

....

Wal-Mart also claims that its statistical study done on a store-by-store basis shows no pay disparity between male and and female workers.

Let's start with the middle idea -- money. Ginsburg understands this. The lawyers are acting to maximize the expected take to themselves, while reducing the possible payout to the aggrieved class. All the justices know this, but there's nothing in the Constitution against lawyers trying to cash in big time, so that means nothing on the likely ruling as to whether this can be a super-duper class action suit.

But it does have something to do with the PR campaign. And I assume Walmart knows that it has to do something here ... there have been stories where they trot out women managers of stores, talking about their experiences working at Walmart. This is not just a matter of law, but also of their corporate image as an employer (though they have no problem finding workers, from what I can tell, especially in an age of high unemployment.)

But how about those two items sandwiching it? Those go back to my point: you can have a situation where there is absolutely no discrimination - no differential pay, promotions, etc. - and the stats skew heavily. Due to personal choices and due to how stores differ across the country, things can shake out that you get lots more women working in the Walmarts in rural areas with lower wages than in Walmarts in more upscale areas with higher wages.

There's nothing particularly nefarious about women dominating lower level jobs in retail. Many women like getting discounts from retail employers (the reason for a lot of mall employment - those are shit jobs, but if you're always buying shit at the Gap, why not work there and get the employee discount?) Many women like being able to work low hours during the day, as opposed to the nasty shift work at night - they like to be home for their kids. In a similar way, many women like being schoolteachers, because they're on the same schedule as their kids. They can work and have a home life, without worrying about "the juggle" that some of us 9-to-5ers [or, rather, 8-to-8ers] have. It's a choice.

When it comes time to pick managers, you're generally not picking from the people who have taken the easy route. Managers need to be a bit more flexible than the workers under them, and need to have experience with the cycle over the day. You do have to be more committed to your job, as you have more responsibilities. Some people, men and women alike, don't want that sort of responsibility.

Now, here is where I'm supposed to put some "of course, there's some sexism..." yadda yadda, but I'm tired of this shit. As per OUTLAW! philosophy, someone else can make the qualifications and hedging statements.

The point is that there are always trade-offs in life, and no, you can't get everything you want on a platter. People are paid more, not out of the goodness of the corporations' hearts, but because that's what it's going to take to get that particular person to agree to do the work. And they expect something in return. And if they know they can get people to do the job right for less money, they will pay less.

So I am tired of hearing that elementary school teachers, or whatever female-dominated profession, should be paid more. Women created those "problems" for themselves. If they cared all that much about money, they'd be pursuing it more like men -- going into the higher-paying, nastier jobs. Idly whining that you'd like more money is as meaningful as a child trying to get a higher allowance -- pure rent-seeking behavior. If you aren't willing to change jobs, take on more responsibilities, take on more unpleasantness, take on more uncertainty, in exchange for the money, then you're not being serious.

I think most people, while being happy with the thought of being paid more, do understand the trade-offs. I have been having lots of conversations with older Boomers lately who have stepped down the responsibility levels of the jobs they take on, which also means they've been taking lower salaries than in the past. But these people have lower debts to cover, and don't have the health or energy that they once had. They understand that, and don't have a problem that they are no longer at their earning peak. I see nothing wrong with choosing more leisure or less responsibility over more money, but people need to realize these are the choices being made.

So I hope the Supreme Court does knock down the attempt at putting this into super-duper class action status. The cockroaches will then scatter, as the money won't be worth it. How much was this case about "justice" then?

WARNING: HERE THAR BE ARITHMETIC

A little math, by request of a friend, to demonstrate how Simpson's Paradox works.

Very concrete example:

Say we've got 100 men and 100 women.

Let's say there are two jobs, clerk & manager. Say they can be paid two wages for each -- a clerk can be $10 or 15/hr, a manager can be $20 or 25/hr.

We can have situation that all women paid more than all men for same job, but average woman paid less than average man.

Situation: 80 women are clerks paid 15/hr, 20 men are clerks paid 10/hr.

20 women are managers paid 25/hr, 80 men are managers paid 20/hr

Here's the math:

Average wage for women:

(80*15 + 20*25)/100 = 17

Average wage for men:

(20*10 + 80*20)/100 = 18

So the average wage for men is higher by $1/hr, but within each job, the women are getting $5/hr more.