I hope you like your gift. It may be Karma bringing it to you via Sam's after all!,

I think companies intrested is diversity don't have to sacrifice well qualified employees. These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

btw, my white male Dh says he was not offended.

MagdalenaLee: thinking the same. Arguers opposing the idea of diversity seem to be assuming that any women/non-white candidates would somehow be inherently less qualified. Anyone else aware of the term 'implicit bias'?

Project Implicit

Take a test

Beagles, I thought your entire political argument is based on capitalism? Let the system work itself out. So if the CEO of Sam's Club chooses to use her market power to influence her vendors - isn't that part of capitalism?

Yup. It is. My entire political argument is based on capitalism.

I'm not arguing that the government should stop her from trying to use her market power to influence her vendors. She can say whatever she wants.

But I can also hope the market punishes her for her prejudiced statement.

fyi..Walmart stands with Brewer. (I wonder how people would react if the statement didn't come from a woman of color?)

"During the interview, Brewer pointed out she also wants to see the suppliers Sam’s Club works with become more diverse.
“Just today we met with a supplier and the entire other side of the table was all Caucasian males,” she told Harlow. “That was interesting. I decided not to talk about it directly with [the supplier’s] folks in the room because there were actually no female, like, levels down. So I’m going to place a call to him.”

""Walmart stores, which owns Sam’s Club, is backing Brewer.
“For years, we’ve asked our suppliers to prioritize the talent and diversity of their sales teams calling on our company,”

Doug McMillon, President and CEO of WalMart Stores, Inc., said in a statement. “Roz was simply trying to reiterate that we believe diverse and inclusive teams make for a stronger business. That’s all there is to it and I support that important ideal.”"

I can see where both sides of view are coming from and each has valid points, imo. I think people need to focus on intent not punishment.

"But I can also hope the market punishes her for her prejudiced statement."

It won't because Wal-Mart has too much power and influence, which is exactly the crux of the inequities well established in this country.

I still don't see where "karma" is at play here.

There's more diversity of opinion here in this discussion than there is diversified representation in government and business. I agree with whoever said that there are plenty of reasons to boycott Walmart/Sam's but this isn't one of them.

Am I the only one here of a certain age? I remember Help Wanted-Male and Help Wanted-Female ads in the paper. Guess which ones were higher pay with more advancement opportunities? When I was in high school I worked the counter at a KFC. I found out the guys in the back cooking chicken made 50-cents an hour more than I did. Since I was making $2/hour, that was substantially more. I asked if I could be moved to cooking chicken when there was an opening and was told "Boys cook, girls serve". When I was in college, most women worked year-round while going to school. Most guys didn't have to as they made as much during the summer as we made working all year. Or even more.

It's a slippery slope and the gains have been small since Affirmative Action. Let's not lose what little has been gained and, instead, support progress.

Wal-Mart/Sams is of course free to take any position they want, and the market can react accordingly. I doubt enough people will care enough to actually hurt their bottom line, and I highly doubt the company cared about this lady calling them to complain they sent white men. Maybe they'll just make sure to send a woman or black person along next time so they don't get harassed by annoying phone calls- not sure how that will actually help make workplaces any more equal, but whatever.

Regarding her statement and if people would react differently if it wasn't made by a woman of color. I'd react the same as when anyone made a statement I consider narrow minded and prejudiced. I would not support the person who made the statement and I would try not to support the company any more if it stood behind the person. If I shopped at Sams/Wal-Mart, which I don't, I'd try to stop shopping there.

Interesting getting caught up on this thread. I don't think we have Sam's clubs here in the NW? I never heard of it, but we do have Walmart, which I have never/will never step inside of. Didn't know Sam's was affiliated, so even tho' I agree with her statements and stance, it wouldn't be enough to compel me to buy a membership. I do admire her and appreciate that she is being supported by her employer.

I brought this topic up in conversation with my kids and got intertesting responses.

DD, a consultant, said there's only so many minority employees to go around. Since whites still make up a majority of the population, it's not that unreasonable or unusual to see 4 white men at a meeting. Furthermore, they could be the company's founders for all the the Sam's Club CEO knows. Totally inappropriate for her to "place a call" to discuss the ethnicity of the staff of another company.

DS, a very committed social activist, said "no executive at Walmart/Sam's Club should be questioning the "ethics" of another company when Walmart itself doesn't seem to have any."

I think they both nailed it.

Non Hispanic whites make up about 63% of the US.

My province is about 92-95% white, kind of like a Vermont. Regardless, my employer practices affirmative action and my workplace (government) is female dominated and relatively diverse. I love it, especially knowing the top three tiers of my department are women. Working in a diverse environment as an employee is very beneficial for me. For one thing, I'm very rarely exposed to ignorant, racist or sexist remarks, which some of my friends do have to put up with (my province is pretty backwards in some ways). I also find my employer is very flexible and lenient with family obligations and work life balance in general. And most people have worked on a collaborative and consensus based work style that is very easy to work with.

"Totally inappropriate for her to "place a call" to discuss the ethnicity of the staff of another company." My understanding is that she intended to talk with the CEO of the supply chain company to discuss the Sam's Club diversity policy, not the ethnicity of the supply company. As a Sam's Club supplier they should already be aware of the policy as it is most likely built into Sam's Club supplier/procurement documents. Five meeting attendees who are all the same gender and race AND represent five levels of management is not an indication that the supplier understands the policy or does not understand the importance the CEO places on the policy.

I hadn't heard the story before finding this post. As I started reading down the thread, I was trying to figure out why in the world this was being seen as racist. I really, really was struggling to understand what the uproar was all about. She noticed a monochromatic, male contingency from the vendor, and made a note to herself about it. She noted there was no one of color, no one female . . . and wanted to encourage the vendor's upper management to stop a minute and evaluate, in light of Sam's own diversity policies. I still didn't get what the uproar was about.

Then I realized that the Sam's CEO was black.

And I found myself saying, silently to myself, "oooooh."

I honestly don't feel there would have been an uproar from corners of the far right if these had been the words of a white woman. I feel as though any boycott, or press/activism advocating same is - consciously or not - seeking to put a black woman in her place because some white folks didn't like what she said. Man, it's 2015 and we haven't travelled very far at all.

Or even if the words came from a white man. Maybe that would have carried more weight? Good observations, Jakabedy.

Yea. Of course.

Everyone on the "far right" is racist and the only possible reason to take offense to this woman's statement is because "white folks" want to put a black woman in her place.

Just like white men simply could not possibly have gotten their jobs because they were the most qualified for those particular jobs. They definitely must have been hired because of their white maleness and there is no possible reason at all to find it offensive for someone to assume they didn't deserve their jobs as a result of their race and gender.

God, those white people and people who you disagree with politically are terrible people, as a group. Hey... isn't there a word for making an assumption about an entire group of people based on their race or political beliefs.

I don't believe there was ever an assertion by the CEO that the white men at the meeting weren't qualified for their positions. The takeaway, as I see it, was that the company could be missing out on good talent representative of a greater swath of the population by not looking beyond what they have.

I recently saw a meme on Facebook with a passage attributed to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The gist was that someone had asked her how many women would be "enough" on the Supreme Court. Her answer? Nine. She added that for the bulk of its history, the Court had been comprised of nine men, and that nobody seemed to question that. Does that make her a sexist? I don't think so.

There is a danger in viewing certain things -- like success -- as zero-sum. There is not a finite amount of success in the universe, for which we all tussle and jockey for our share. The fact that there may be a black man, an hispanic woman, or a disabled person who would be a terrific employee for the Sam's vendor in no way takes away from the terrific-ness of the existing white male employee. The fact that the black man may be an ideal candidate does not mean that the white man is unqualified. It simply means there are more routes to success than an employer may have considered previously. Does that mean greater competition for a specific position? Certainly. But competition is good for business. And if one's talents aren't appropriate in one setting, they will be in another.

Some people may focus on the word diversity and equate it with race. It's interesting how this was brought up. But in this context, clearly, she was referring to the majority of the population that is female. And, she specifically calls out the fact that the supplier's management structure has no females, several layers down. It's the company policy, as people have noted. I'm assuming the supplier has no qualified females because qualified women are scarce in that field. For a retailer with a history of employment disputes and a very diverse workforce (57% female in the US), I'm guessing Walmart has made this a priority, as it helps their business performance.

Beagles hit the nail on the head. Thank you.

I do not care one bit what color someone's skin is.

I have boycotted Wal-Mart for over 15 years. I will continue to do so until I die.

I understand and completely why the group here is so SMALL.

So, which of the four white men attending the meeting should have been fired from jobs they were qualified for, so that someone else could have been hired in their place just for the sake of "diversity?"

Where does anyone get the right to assume another company is "missing out on talent representative of a wider swath of the population" just because they happened to hire white men for a particular position.

For all she knows, the company may have interviewed 10000 women and minorities and hired these men because they were the most qualified. But she assumed that they got their jobs, by default, because they were white men.

She'd likely be very offended (and rightly so) if some other CEO she met with believed she got her job because she was a black woman and called up the company to criticize "affirmative action" in their hiring policy. It is just as wrong for her to assume that this company gave these white men an advantage because they don't care enough about a diverse company.

The fact that the black man may be an ideal candidate does not mean that the white man is unqualified. It simply means there are more routes to success than an employer may have considered previously.

No one ever said it did. The company should hire the most qualified person. Greater competition is great! The best person should get the job, with both candidates judged based on their overall merits.

Asian students are now being advised to appear "less Asian" to try to get into ivy league schools. Success isn't a zero sum game, but focusing on "diversity" as a main factor in a decision, as opposed to focusing on the whole person- has consequences.

Why do people boycott Walmart?

And what does this mean?

"I understand and completely why the group here is so SMALL."

For many people. Walmart represents the death of Main Street America. A Walmart opens up in a town and small businesses close. That is the reason many people are anti-Walnart.

As for the other comment, I guess it's a response when not enough people agree with you.

In the three stores near me, Walmart hires predominantly African Americans and probably mostly females too. At least one store's manager is African American. I do not see this at other stores. It has always seemed to be rather discriminatory hiring to me when I go in there.

Were they all the most qualified? Compared to my experiences at other stores, no, Walmart does not appear to hire the most qualified and educated checkout and customer service people out there. Maybe they pay a lot less for the same type of jobs, or people actually do hate Walmart so much that few people want to work there?

When I first went in there a number of years ago, I had never seen a place where so many employees seemed to hate their jobs, although they have seemed a bit happier more recent years, I think. Many used to appear to be on protest. I would think how there are a lot of people who need and would like to have that job so please go get another one if you don't want to do this one. I think Walmart was in the papers around that time for some of their employment practices so maybe they were responding to that.

Yes, when I go in there I have to wonder about Walmart or those stores' hiring practices because they appear to be very skewed, or biased, not diverse. Maybe I should call their CEO and have a little chat about how they are running their business.

There are many reasons I prefer not to shop at Wal-Mart, the biggest being Alice Walton and her drunk driving. She used to live on a ranch here (it's currently for sale) and I've been around her at horse shows (plus know many people who know her personally). She's not a nice person, and I choose not to put any of my money in her pockets.

http://mic.com/articles/79039/the-untold-story-of-alice-walton-s-dwi-incident#.jLL9mXxzw

I'm glad she's moving away, one less drunk driver on our roads, who thinks she's entitled to a different set of rules/laws than the rest of us (including when her speeding killed a woman).

If hiring practices were based solely on qualifications, there would be greater diversity. Studies have been done in which all possible identifying factors were removed from applications/resumés including names (John and Mary get more call-backs than Deandre and Lakeisha). The results indicate that there continues to be bias against hiring minorities and women. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but chances are that a company with no women or minorities in management likes it that way and perpetuates that atmoshere through its hiring practices. Perhaps the company is unaware of what it is doing. Who knows? However, a nudge to increase their awareness (not "complaining" which is one of those words like bossy used more often to describe what women do or are and would probably not be used if the person were male) is not in and of itself a bad thing.

I am old enough to remember how it used to be. In too many ways, it seems our country is moving backward rather than building on the gains that were hard-won for women. The complacency of many younger women is troubling to me, especially when they are sitting pretty as many here are, as they justify not holding people to a higher standard or create false equivalencies to justify the possible deliberate exclusion of certain people even though no one is advocating against hiring qualified personnel. White, Black, Latino, Asian, male, female-JMHO

One example

"death of Main Street America"

Yes, I knew that was part of it. I guess I thought it was more involved than that. Do these same people who boycott Walmart not shop online, the largest most price competitive store on earth?

I go in there sometimes, they are close by and do have great prices. There are a lot of people who need those low prices because they can not afford to pay more, so they can live better for it. They do fill a need. What would happen to those people without those low prices?

They are also like a department store with lots of convenient items you can get easily without driving around or ordering something.

Our Wegmans is just as economical, is a great shopping experience in every way (the store, the staff, the products, the music) and is ranked as one of the nation's best companies to work for. They are also very competitive with Whole Foods, beating them quite a bit on price for the exact same items. It is obvious they hire the best, quite diversely. Love Wegmans!

Not just the death of Main Street, but the death of some American manufacturers. I remember a 60 Minutes segment years ago about how WalMart destroyed Fieldcrest Textiles by demanding they price too low to make a profit, which they refused to do. So WalMart went to China to have their towels manufactured, and apparently it's the kiss of death losing WalMart because of the volume of business it does. Now we have very few choices of quality American merchandise, and if we do buy American, it costs an exorbitant amount. Every time I'm forced to buy a Made in China piece of crap, I blame WalMart.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/readerservices/businessxml/17833642-95/wal-mart-helped-push-manufacturing-overseas-now-it-wants-to-reverse-that

The actual quotations and transcripts of the interview indicate the supplier's company had an entirely white male management structure, several levels down. She was not advocating that anyone get fired. That's ridiculous. And its quite possible that the supplier did not have a large pool of qualified and interested candidates. It's a problem in many fields. However, many companies do ask these questions, to root out sources of predominantly unintended institutional bias.

I'm not certain what made some bloggers assume the focus of the comments were race, and not gender. The headlines should be screaming: sexism. However, that would not be as click-bait worthy as "racism".

I don't shop at Walmart, for a variety of reasons. I also don't assume people working there got their positions due to some affirmative action program -- the jobs pay too little and their pool of interested and qualified applicants is too small in many communities (the case may be different in your community). And I assume that after associates work for some time, some get promoted to supervisory and and management positions (while others get brought in from the outside).

Bravo, cyn. I think you and I are about the same age, and I find it disheartening to see younger women ignoring the continuing bias against women and minorities. In fact, women are still at 78% of the income enjoyed by men. And, women of all groups--white, blacks, Hispanics--earn less that of men in the same group. Is this because we (women) as a group, are less qualified? Funkycamper, I had forgotten the male wanted, female wanted newspaper ads, but I remember applying for an entry level job with my liberal arts degree in hand and being asked how many words I typed, when a male friend with the same degree was put into the executive track. I wasn't even permitted to apply for that job. They were allowed to be more frank then.

I'm in my mid-40s and recall specific incidents of explicit sexual harassment early in my career (including from a few college professors before that) that would be punishable today. In addition, I experienced wage discrimination in a position in which all other factors, except gender, were equal.

Discrimination still takes place today although in forms masked by our societal structure. If you don't think it does, you probably haven't been on the receiving end of it.

There are many more reasons to boycott Walmart than their "death to Main Street America" juggernaut although that is a very valid reason. They are also the reason many American manufacturing and production facilities have moved overseas. And they have led to a suppression of wages/benefits for retail workers.

In my small, rural communities, about 40 small, locally-owned stores have closed since Walmart arrived due to being unable to compete with their low prices.

And their juggernaut is not just a broad, national strategies but, also, very localized. We had a very popular craft/fabric store that had been in business for several decades. Our local Walmart brought in a lot of the same type of items and our locally-owned store ended up closing. Shortly after that, Walmart raised the prices on their craft/fabric items and then shrunk down their selection. Now many crafters and sewers have to go out of town to get their supplies which means dollars leave our community.

As someone who hasn't stepped foot in a Walmart since May 2005, I find it challenging to purchase some items locally. Luckily, I found that my locally-owned hardware store which is an affiliate of ACE can get me the same products as can be found at Walmart via the ACE online ordering which is then shipped to my local store and they get the credit for the sale. This keeps the profit dollars floating in my community instead of being shipped back to Alabama to be spread amongst stockholders and the Walton family. This is better for my community. Sure, some items might be a couple dollars more than I would spend at Walmart but it's money well spent, imho.

The interesting thing to me is that I actually spend less overall than I did when I shopped at Walmart because I'm not being lured to buy a lot of unnecessary cheap junk that I didn't need in the first place and this means my house has less stuff but the stuff I have is better quality.

Sorry for the threadjack.

Back to the topic. Am I the only one here who has trained less qualified white men who were promoted over better-qualified women and minority staff? Or who has discovered that male colleagues were making more money for doing the same or even lesser jobs? Sure, there are legal remedies but it takes a lot of effort to go to court to prove that, and to find an attorney willing to take those types of cases on. And in a small town, that might mean you are marked as a trouble-maker and don't easily find another position.

Every time I hear a younger woman say "I'm all for equal rights but I'm not a feminist", I cringe. Sometimes I go on a rant with them. It's scary how complacent people have become over equal rights issues.

Yes, Funkycamper, what you wrote here: The interesting thing to me is that I actually spend less overall than I
did when I shopped at Walmart because I'm not being lured to buy a lot
of unnecessary cheap junk that I didn't need in the first place and this
means my house has less stuff but the stuff I have is better quality.

Also, there is a growing movement in my community and among my friends to shop local. There is still a lot of $$ flowing to online shopping but lots of locally owned, locally crafted, locally sourced, etc. etc. packaging is enticing to consumers. It may be trendy but it's a good trend.

Editing to add, I work with and teach a lot of young women in their late teens/early 20s who dismiss the feminist stance too. My new strategy is to encourage them to focus on local issues... the whole think global/act local strategy. In a recent local and state election there were several issues on the ballot that impacted young people. I was surprised how many young people did not vote--and in my community many decisions are made based on a difference of fewer than 50 votes.

I don't care how they vote. Just vote. Otherwise others will make decisions for them.

People discriminate in all sorts of ways, from how you comb your hair or dress, your personality, income level, social status, educational degree, sense of humor, voice, way of talking, to maybe you had bad breath that day or dandruff. I knew of one applicant that lost because the interviewer did not like the books she read!

Who knows what tips the scale when two equally qualified people are up for hire. I do think it is unfair to choose a minority applicant over a non-minority one simply for that reason or to fill a quota. That is reverse discrimination, still based on race/gender. I certainly would not want to be hired for that reason, either.

When I left my first job, I caught wind that my replacement was getting paid more than I did because she was a single mother. I had worked very hard and had saved them a lot of money. (No doubt my boss was swayed to the winner because he also found her pretty and charming - I did hear some comments from him). I think that type of wage discrimination happened with men, too, when there weren't a lot of women in the workplace. Men had families to support so were automatically paid more.

Why stop at WM with your boycotts? All of the other big box stores have their own issues if you dig deep enough. Same with online. Don't kid yourself.

My WM shopping is mainly confined to health & beauty items and food. Why go across the street to Albertson's and pay higher prices for the same things?

The Walton/Wal-Mart are from Arkansas, not Alabama.

"Who knows what tips the scale when two equally qualified people are up for hire." Human nature is to hire the person most like the decision maker. Think about how we align with people in a social context. We spend more free time with people who share our views on life, share our personality traits (or have personality traits we admire), share our interests... Without hiring practices that consider race and gender balance in a company's work force, nothing will or would have changed.

Or who look like us. Familiarity feels safe and comfortable. Being in agreement about things is validating, and comfortable. That is completely natural behavior.

On the other hand, there are people who do seek those who are different from themselves. It makes life more interesting and promotes growth.

Maybe I should have said, anything, not just race or gender, could have tipped the scales, because people judge and qualify others on all sorts of things.

I'm not sure we can ever really remove human nature from people. People like what they like, think what they think, and it influences their decisions one way or another.

Snookums, you're absolutely right! Thus, the diversity goals companies aim for help in that respect.

I'm no fan of WalMart and don't go to Sam's (I did not even realize they were affiliated) but multiple experiences at my workplace tell me that the CEO's efforts to promote diversity are still needed.

I work for a large company recently acquired by another even larger company. The CEO of the smaller company is black and so is the CEO of the larger company. On a daily basis when new hires see the "welcome" video at orientation they express shock or amazement that both of these top dogs are African American and one of them is also a woman.

I'm happy for the new hires who are black and clearly see this new information as an exciting positive about their new employer. But overall, I feel sad that everyone, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, seems surprised to learn that a large successful company is being run by black executives and has been for some time.

I look forward to the day when we can show that welcome video and nobody bats an eye because top execs of any color are everyone's idea of normal.

Why stop at WM with your boycotts? All of the other big box stores have their own issues if you dig deep enough. Same with online. Don't kid yourself.

True, however, Walmart drives the market. A couple years ago, it was bigger than the next 15 retail corporations combined in revenue. Thus, when Walmart forces a company to drop prices so low that they are forced to close American production facilities and have their items produced overseas, other big boxes and online retailers are often forced to do the same in order to compete.

FWIW, I also personally boycott Jimmy John's, Cabela's and Hobby Lobby for various reasons.

We strive to spend most of our money at locally-owned businesses and restaurants and seriously limit our spending at any of the big box, chain or online stores. It does seem to be impossible to totally avoid them but we do so as much as possible. I simply try to be deliberate with my spending.

Funky....I hadn't heard anything about Jimmy John's. We discovered them 10 years ago when our daughter went to college in Ohio and they just opened here in the last year or so. They don't seem to be as good as I remember from 10 years ago, but we do stop in occasionally.

We have a Sam's about ten minutes away and a WM about 15. Both opened about 20 years ago. Went to Sam's twice when they opened but had a Costco membership and liked it better. Never went to WM much but stopped altogether probably 15 years ago when one Christmas a fight broke out between two women who were screaming profanities at each other as their children watched. I left my cart in the aisle and walked out of the store vowing to never return. Later I learned of their horrid business practices which cemented my decision.

The owner of Jimmy John's is a trophy hunter.

Oh yuck! I'll cross it off my list!

I have been to Jimmy Johns twice and had bad experience both times. I can't remember the specifics except that they cannot deviate from the menu when making a sandwich. For instance, I ordered a sandwich that came with mayo but ds wanted mustard. Nope, can't put mustard on it for you, but you can get a mustard packet when you pay. Something si,air happened next time I went. I'm not much of a sub shop eater, but my kids love that place for some reason and get annoyed that I won't go there ever again. I told them they were welcome to spend their own money there but I'm not spending mine. Did not know the owner of company was a trophy hunter so that makes my decision even better!

BTW, not all locally owned stores are necessarily better when it comes to choosing not to shop somewhere based on personal behavior, it's just much more publicized with conglomerates. I live in a touristy, historic town with many, many small businesses so I do try to shop at them when I can, but there are some I refuse to set foot in. In fact, we had one locally owned touristy/wedding business that basically went out of business (made national news) because they refused to serve same-sex couples getting married when it became legal in MD.

Oh, I agree, 4kids4us. I was collecting donations once for a fundraiser dinner/auction and the owner of one local shop screeched and snarled at me because she, apparently, didn't like the cause. A simple "I'm sorry but I can't make a donation right now" would have sufficed. I will never go back in there. I mean, she really was practically spitting on me through her clenched teeth. It was ridiculous. I also don't eat at a local bar & grill because the owner posts the nastiest stuff on Facebook. I refuse to give people like them my money. Of course, I don't know everything about every business in my area so I might be giving money to some real jerks for all I know. But if I know something, I certainly factor it in.

Oh, and there are local businesses I try to patronize whenever possible because they are generous and do good things for our community. So it works both ways.

So what was the item? Did you keep, return?