quote: LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is expanding the definition of "immediate family" in its employee-ethics policy to account for laws in states that recognize domestic partnerships and civil unions.
The change drew quick praise from a major gay-rights lobbying organization.
The revised policy, which was disclosed Wednesday in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites) recognizes that in some states "immediate family" includes an employee's same-sex partner.
The revisions deal with sections of the company's ethics code that bar employees from using confidential information to benefit themselves or immediate family members and from approaching Wal-Mart's suppliers about jobs for immediate family members, the company said Thursday.
Wal-Mart spokesman Gus Whitcomb declined to say whether the change would affect benefits for employees of the nation's largest employer or whether the revision meant the company was taking a position on same-sex marriage or civil unions.
"We updated our statement of ethics," Whitcomb said. "That brings us into compliance with state laws in terms of how they look at individuals with regard to policies" where a worker's "immediate family" would be a factor, he said.
For instance, in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, Wal-Mart would expect its workers in that state to abide by the company's ethics policy as it pertains to families, Whitcomb said.
The Human Rights Campaign, a national lobbying group for gay and lesbian issues, praised Wal-Mart for expanding its definition of "immediate family."
"We are encouraged by this sign showing America's heartland employer understands same-sex couples share the responsibilities that come with being a family," Daryl Herrschaft, deputy director of Human Rights Campaign's WorkNet program, said in a statement.
Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, is the world's largest retailer.
I was a little confused by the fact that this seems to be a restrictive measure more than one that increases benefits, but if the gay rights groups think this is a step forward, I'm inclined to defer to their opinion.
posted
I think you mean 'defer'. 'Differ' means precisely the opposite, so this is a case where it does make a difference. Not just nitpicking.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always been neutral toward Wal-Mart. I see that it drives smaller companies out of business, and the loss of local flavor makes me sad. But I don't froth at the mouth about it. It's just a fact of life, when it comes to capitalist-style competition. I support local shops when I feel they add something to my life, but I also shop at Wal-Mart.
You seem to take it for granted that people who are in favor of gay rights are the same people who hate Wal-Mart. I find that interesting.
As regards this policy . . . okay. I have no real opinion on it. They're just recognizing that immediate family means different things in different states, depending on how the state views gay marriage. Am I correct in assuming this is only relevant in a couple of states or so?
I would have much more respect for them if they extended same-sex partner benefits across the board (i.e., in all states), regardless of whether or not the state recognizes same-sex unions.
posted
I'm for gay rights and I've always liked Wal-Mart. It was founded in a small town not far from my home town. It's been a boon to the local economy as well as saving the residents of North West Arkansas tons of money.
However, the farther away from Bentonville you get, the lower the quality of the individual wal-mart stores.
quote:However, the farther away from Bentonville you get, the lower the quality of the individual wal-mart stores.
I must be pretty far from Bentonville.
A friend of mine actually has a theory that every door into a WalMart store is actually a portal that instantly transports you to Alabama. Sure makes sense...
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
That last one was about how much WalMart costs California taxpayers for public assistance for it's employees.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
NFL: The fact that a major corporation can win praise for simply deciding to obey the laws of the states it operates in is, to me, a sign of how unbalanced the labor laws are in this country.
"Wow look! WalMart decided to obey the laws! Yippee! We didn't have to pay millions in legal bills to force them to do it!"
Not only does this not change any of the horrendous business practices of the great blue giant, but it really isn't even all that great for members of the homosexual community. Sure, in the states that have already taken a progressive view of homosexuality, Wal-Mart employees will now be able to take advantage of the astronomically priced inflexible health care plan, but this is less a statement about Wal-Mart's compassion that it is a statement of legality. If they really had compassion, they would permit domestic partners to join insurance policies in eery state, like my company does. I live in freakin' Texas and if I were gay and had a domestic partner, he could be on my insurance plan.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that a major corporation can win praise for simply deciding to obey the laws of the states it operates in is, to me, a sign of how unbalanced the labor laws are in this country.
It's not at all clear that Wal-Mart must adopt the local state's definition of immediate family for its own policies. So they likely were not disobeying any law with their previous policy.
Some cynicism is due here, however. The adoption of those definitions only applies to policies that restrict what employees can do. It doesn't benefit them in any way unless they extend this new definition to benefits.
posted
I do tend to fome at the mouth about Walmart, with good reason I believe. However, I respect the fact that they publicly made this change to follow the law, instead of covertly makeing a change in their rules with out much of an anounsment.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I wondered about that. I read it as the new definition only applying to the ethics code, NOT to benefits.
Although, will that open them up to lawsuits if they don't also provide benefits? I would think it would at least make the plaintiff's case stronger, if the company has one definition of "immediate family" that inculdes same-sex partners and another that doesn't.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very customary to allow entities to define terms within the context of a particular plan or regulation, so I don't think it hurts Wal-Mart's case. For example, "dependant" in the tax code is different than dependant in social security contexts.
If I were the lawyer for an employee fired for violating the new, more restrictive ethics policy, I might try to make an eqauitable argument that they can't extend authority over people they refuse to grant the other attributes of "immediate family" to. But the ethics are rules for the employee, so I think it'd be weak.
Still, that kind of discrepency is likely to get a judge or jury looking for a way to decide in your favor.
posted
In the midst of WalMart's major PR push to polish its image, I can see this particular public announcement in a very cynical light. It's something they would have to do anyway, and it's NOT really affecting anything. I suppose it could lose them some support among some conservatives & some religious groups, but then they can point to the state laws and how they had no choice.
It's nothing to praise them for.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, yeah. It’s expands the definition of family in the policies that prohibit you from doing favors for people in your family, but NOT in the areas that benefit people in your family.
I’ll say that's nothing to praise them for.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to see a bunch of Mom and Pop stores ganging up and driving WalMart out of business. Mostly just for the ironic value.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never happen. They don't have the buying power to undercut prices or obtain goods from factories they own (or buy so much from that they control them in any event).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
