Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
What happened to dc_dux, after calling be delusional, intellectually dishonest and wrong, wrong, wrong, I would think he would respond to data from an outside source that supported my argument. Just when it was getting to be fun, he leaves.
|
I didnt want to divert the discussion to my past place of employment, but your comment about the article on employement practices in the Senate is just factually incorrect:
Here is an somthing I found, to me suggesting cronyism more so than racism, regardless - many major employers have ended up in court defending against prima facia evidence like this suggesting violations of the Civil Rights Act.
There are no violations of the Civil Rights Act.
The statement in the article that best describes the employment record:
Paul Thornell, a former Senate and White House staffer who is black, says most senators will tell you, privately, that they hire from within, promoting senior staffers from the junior ranks. But with so few people of color on Senate staffs, that policy guarantees the status quo will remain in place for years to come.
"I truly believe that the source of the problem is not overt discrimination that keeps people of color out of these positions. The hiring process is a broken one that has resulted in relatively few people of color in senior policymaking positions," says Thornell, senior vice president, public policy and field leadership, United Way of America. "Limited networks and candidate pools [and] the practice of hiring from within without a pipeline of existing minority employees are some of the dynamics that contribute to this situation."
Of course there are diversity issues in the Senate staff, in part, because unlike retail employment, there is a natural political component. Just as there are diversity issues in the makeup of the Senate itself.
I simply dont see how a further discussion of that has anything to do with Wamart's record.
But others are addressing the Walmart issue quite well without me.
Just for the record, I also applaud Walmart's recently announced environmental initiative:
Quote:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has unveiled an environmental plan to boost energy efficiency, cut down on waste and reduce greenhouse gases tied to global warming as part of a wider effort to address issues where it has been pummeled by critics.
Wal-Mart Chief Executive Lee Scott said the world’s largest retailer wants to be a “good steward for the environment” and ultimately use only renewable energy sources and produce zero waste.
“As one of the largest companies in the world, with an expanding global presence, environmental problems are our problems,” Scott said in a transcript, released Tuesday, of a speech he gave Monday to employees titled “21st Century Leadership”.
Targets include spending $500 million a year to: increase fuel efficiency in Wal-Mart’s truck fleet by 25 percent over three years and doubling it within 10 years; reduce greenhouse gases by 20 percent in seven years; reduce energy use at stores by 30 percent; and cut solid waste from U.S. stores and Sam’s Clubs by 25 percent in three years.
full article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9815727/
|
But that doesnt take away from its abysmal employment record, by far the worst in the US retail sector.
Or its equally abysmal past environmental record:
Quote:
Between 2003 and 2005, state and federal environmental agencies fined Wal-Mart $5 million.
• In 2005, Wal-Mart reached a $1.15 million settlement with the State of Connecticut for allowing improperly stored pesticides and other chemicals to pollute streams. This was the largest such settlement in state history. [Hartford Courant, 8/16/05]
• In May 2004, Wal-Mart agreed to pay the largest settlement for storm water violations in EPA history. The United States sued Wal-Mart for violating the Clean Water Act in 9 states, calling for penalties of over $3.1 million and changes to Wal-Mart’s building practices. [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 12, 2004, U.S. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2004 WL 2370700]
• In 2004, Wal-Mart was fined $765,000 for violating Florida’s petroleum storage tank laws at its automobile service centers. Wal-Mart failed to register its fuel tanks, failed to install devices that prevent overflow, did not perform monthly monitoring, lacked current technologies, and blocked state inspectors. [Associated Press, 11/18/04]
• In Georgia, Wal-Mart was fined about $150,000 in 2004 for water contamination. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/10/05]
And finally, In Wal-Mart’s Annual Report for 2006, the company disclosed that it faces multiple investigations for failing to follow environmental rules and regulations on hazardous waste.
|