Business Report on Business Ethics and Equal Opportunities: Wal-Mart’s Hrm-Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wal-Mart, employing more than two million workers worldwide, has endured a great amount of criticism in the last decade, coming from both the workers as different research centers. More specifically, this critique is mainly directed towards the company’s HRM-policy. The purpose of this report is to examine whether Wal-Mart’s employment policy is beneficial or harmful for the welfare of an average worker.
On the one hand, Wal-Mart argues that there are multiple advantages of the company’s HRM-policy. Firstly, the company’s policy of labor compensation is based on wages accompanied by both financial (e.g. 10% discount on merchandise) and non-financial benefits (e.g. receiving a life insurance). Secondly, Wal-Mart states in its Supplier Partner Standards that child-labor, both within the company itself and related to its suppliers, won’t be tolerated. Lastly, the company consists of a department founded specifically to strengthen the cooperation of a diversified workforce.
On the other hand, keeping in mind these pro-Wal-Mart statements, there are still numerous morally inspired accusations directed towards this enterprise. To begin with, The workers earn a wage below self-efficiency forcing them to rely on public health and welfare programs. In addition, other retailers follow the company’s example, exacerbating the overall welfare of the labor force. Furthermore, notwithstanding the company’s anti-child labor policy, children are still continuously being employed in Wal-Mart stores. The critique ends with Wal-Mart being prosecuted by 1.5 million women regarding sex discrimination.
The report concludes that disadvantages outweigh the benefits, branding the company’s HRM-policy as “immoral”. The solution provided in this report is to increase wages, significantly improving the living conditions of low-income families and slightly decreasing the welfare of the consumers.
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
A.
Wal-Mart, employing more than two million workers worldwide, has endured a great amount of criticism in the last decade, coming from both the workers as different research centers. More specifically, this critique is mainly directed towards the company’s HRM-policy. The purpose of this report is to examine whether Wal-Mart’s employment policy is beneficial or harmful for the welfare of an average worker.
On the one hand, Wal-Mart argues that there are multiple advantages of the company’s HRM-policy. Firstly, the company’s policy of labor compensation is based on wages accompanied by both financial (e.g. 10% discount on merchandise) and non-financial benefits (e.g. receiving a life insurance). Secondly, Wal-Mart states in its Supplier Partner Standards that child-labor, both within the company itself and related to its suppliers, won’t be tolerated. Lastly, the company consists of a department founded specifically to strengthen the cooperation of a diversified workforce.
On the other hand, keeping in mind these pro-Wal-Mart statements, there are still numerous morally inspired accusations directed towards this enterprise. To begin with, The workers earn a wage below self-efficiency forcing them to rely on public health and welfare programs. In addition, other retailers follow the company’s example, exacerbating the overall welfare of the labor force. Furthermore, notwithstanding the company’s anti-child labor policy, children are still continuously being employed in Wal-Mart stores. The critique ends with Wal-Mart being prosecuted by 1.5 million women regarding sex discrimination.
The report concludes that disadvantages outweigh the benefits, branding the company’s HRM-policy as “immoral”. The solution provided in this report is to increase wages, significantly improving the living conditions of low-income families and slightly decreasing the welfare of the consumers.
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
A.
References: JACOBS, K., DUBE, A., 2004. Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs [online]. Uc Berkely Labor Center. Available at: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart.pdf [Accessed 7 February 2012]. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOBS AND FAMILY SERVICES, 2009. Ohio Medicaid Recipients by Employer [online]. Ohio Department of jobs and Family Services. Available at: http://pnohio.3cdn.net/5ddd17f44b6d3a8a58_sjm6bx1ew.pdf [Accessed 8 February 2012]. REDIFF BUSINESS, 2012. The world’s largest employers [online]. Rediff business. Available at: http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-the-worlds-biggest-employers/20101207.htm [Accessed 6 February 2012]. RUSHE, D. 2011. Victory for Walmart as huge sex bias case is thrown out [online]. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/20/walmart-sex-discrimination-class-action-rejected [Accessed 8 February 2012]. SOLMAN, P., 2004. Critics Decry Effect of Wal-Mart 's Low Prices [online]. PBS. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec04/walmart_8-23.html [Accessed 8 February 2012]. STRINGER, S. M. 2011. Food For Thought : A case study of Wal-Mart’s impact on Harlem’s Healthy Food Retail Landscape [online]. MBPO. Available at: http://www.mbpo.org/uploads/WALMARTREPORT.pdf [Accessed 7 February 2012]. WAL-MART STORES INC., 2011a. About us [online]. Wal-Mart Stores, inc. Available at: http://walmartstores.com/aboutus/ [Accessed 8 February 2012]. WAL-MART STORES INC., 2011b. Careers [online]. Wal-Mart Stores, inc. Available at: http://walmartstores.com/Careers [Accessed 8 February 2012]. WAL-MART STORES INC., 2011c. Diversity [online]. Wal-Mart Stores, inc. Available at: http://walmartstores.com/Diversity [Accessed 8 February 2012].