Women vs. Wal-Mart

Just in time for holiday shopping, a new book portrays the world's largest retailer as greedy, sanctimonious and grossly unfair to its female employees.

By Corrie Pikul

Nov 22, 2004 | In 2000, a 54-year-old Wal-Mart worker named Betty Dukes filed a sex discrimination claim against her employer. Despite six years of hard work and excellent performance reviews, Dukes said, she was denied the training she needed to advance to a higher, salaried position. Dukes was fed up -- and she wasn't the only one. The suit, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., was eventually expanded to represent 1.6 million women, comprising both current and former employees, making it the largest civil rights class-action suit in history. The suit charged Wal-Mart with discriminating against women in promotions, pay and job assignments, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which protects workers from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or national origin). This past June, a California judge ruled in favor of the women. Wal-Mart is appealing the decision.

In her new book, "Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights at Wal-Mart," journalist Liza Featherstone follows the Dukes case from start to finish. Through interviews with lawyers, plaintiffs and witnesses -- and analyses of reports from both sides -- she paints a picture of Wal-Mart as a hypocritical, falsely pious, exceptionally greedy corporation that creates a massive sinkhole for working women. (Wal-Mart officials refused to be interviewed for the book.) Female employees from stores all over the country tell of being repeatedly passed over for promotions, enduring sexist comments from male co-workers, and worst of all, getting paid significantly lower salaries for doing the same amount of work, or sometimes even more.

Featherstone, a contributing editor at the Nation who has written extensively about labor issues, says that she saw the suit as an opportunity to examine the role that Wal-Mart -- which has over 3,500 stores in the United States and employs 1.3 million workers -- plays in our society, and the effects the company has on working conditions everywhere. Featherstone was also curious about the six named plaintiffs, whom she calls "the women who would stand up to the world's most powerful retailer."

Salon spoke to Featherstone about the details of the Dukes case, red-state and blue-state retailers, and Wal-Mart's paradoxical relationship to the Republican Party.

CNBC and "Frontline" both recently aired documentaries about Wal-Mart, and even South Park had an episode about a Wal-Mart store that takes over the town. Communities all over the country are debating the pros and cons of having a Wal-Mart in their area. Now we have your book. Why is the store getting all this attention?

Wal-Mart's business model of offering the lowest price is often at the sacrifice of many principles, including workplace fairness and gender and race equality. We're alighting on a critique of this business model, and Wal-Mart provides a glaring and enormous example.

Tell me about the lead plaintiff for the case, Betty Dukes.

She was actually a little bit prickly at first because she'd had [what she felt was] a very bad experience talking to a writer for Fortune. She had spent a lot of time with that writer, and she didn't end up in the story. That's a common situation in journalism. But Betty really felt hurt by that, and she didn't really want to cooperate with any more journalists. But Betty was also very eloquent and, ultimately, very eager to tell her story. She has a sort of wonderfully commanding manner that comes from being a pastor in her church: She likes giving proclamations, and she does that very well.

Next Page: Betty Dukes: The Rosa Parks of Wal-Mart?

• 
• Be the first to post a letter about this story
• View blog reactions