[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 90 (Friday, June 25, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1272-E1273]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPLAUDING BETTY DUKES FOR HER COURAGE IN STANDING UP FOR WOMEN WORKERS 
                              AT WAL-MART

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 25, 2004

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last month, Vice 
President Dick Cheney visited the corporate headquarters of Wal-Mart 
and praised the company for the example it is setting for American 
business. Here is the example that Wal-Mart has set for American 
business:
  If you violate workers' organizing rights, you can get away with it, 
receiving just a slap on the wrist from weak and ineffective federal 
labor laws.
  If you shift the cost of health care onto workers who cannot afford 
it, you can increase your profits and have taxpayer-funded programs 
like SCHIP pick up the tab.
  If you distrust your own workforce enough to disregard their safety, 
you can lock them inside your store overnight without a key.
  If you want to increase the wealth of one of the wealthiest families 
in the world, you can maintain the lowest wages in the industry, laying 
off your most senior and loyal employees and replacing them with lower-
paid entry-level workers.
  If you want to eliminate competition in your industry by lowering 
your wages and prices, you can force U.S. suppliers to outsource their 
manufacturing jobs, so that you can reap the benefit of cheap labor 
from countries with even worse workers' rights records than our own.
  All of these reprehensible labor practices are detailed in the 
February 2004 report which I commissioned, ``Everyday Low Wages: The 
Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart.'' I urge Vice President Cheney to 
read it.
  Today I submit to you, contrary to the Vice President's remarks, that 
the employees of Wal-Mart are beginning to set an example for American 
workers--by fighting back on behalf of themselves and others who are 
unfairly treated by their employer. This week, as the attached L.A. 
Times article explains, a judge in California certified the largest 
employment-discrimination class action in history. A class of 1.5 
million women who have worked at Wal-Mart are suing the retail giant 
for sex discrimination. According to papers submitted in court, female 
employees are paid less than their male counterparts, promoted less 
frequently than their male counterparts, and retaliated against when 
they complain. In today's workplace--all too often rife with employer 
threats and intimidation--it takes a great deal of courage from workers 
to stand up for their rights. So I rise to salute one of those workers, 
a brave woman from my home district,
  Betty Dukes of Pittsburg, California, one of the lead plaintiffs in 
this historic lawsuit. She has worked at Wal-Mart for ten years and 
simply wants a fair opportunity to succeed. She is now standing up for 
over a million other women who have punched the cash registers, stocked 
the shelves, and greeted customers for years without that opportunity. 
Her courage is to be commended. And I hail her as an American hero.

                   [From the LA Times, June 24, 2004]

Wal-Mart Plaintiff Still Loves the Store: Worker Who Is Spearheading a 
   Landmark Gender Bias Suit Says She Just Wants a Chance To Advance

            (By Donna Horowitz, Eric Slater and Lee Romney)

       Pittsburg, CA.--Less than 24 hours after a federal judge 
     ruled that 1.5 million women who have worked for Wal-Mart 
     could pursue a class-action gender discrimination suit, the 
     lead plaintiff in the case was back on the job here Wednesday 
     nattily dressed, quick with a smile and talking about how 
     much she likes the company she's suing.
       All Betty Dukes wanted, the 10-year veteran of the company 
     said, was ``the opportunity to advance myself with Wal-
     Mart.''
       On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins in San 
     Francisco ruled that the suit originally filed by Dukes and 
     five other women could be expanded to virtually every woman 
     who has worked at the world's largest company since late 
     1998. The suit alleges that Wal-Mart pays women less than men 
     for performing the same job, passes over women to promote 
     less-qualified men and retaliates against women who complain.
       The judge's ruling set the stage for what could be the 
     giant retailer's greatest test ever. The sheer number of 
     plaintiffs means that a loss or even a settlement could cost 
     the company billions of dollars.
       As Dukes was receiving minor-celebrity treatment from 
     customers and co-workers--``Did you see my story in the paper 
     today?'' she asked customers, holding up a copy of a local 
     newspaper--officials from the Arkansas retail colossus 
     emphasized that Tuesday's ruling did not address the merits 
     of the case and said it would do nothing to influence the 
     company's plans to expand in California and elsewhere.
       ``It really doesn't change anything,'' said Robert McAdam, 
     the firm's vice president for state and local government 
     relations. ``Nothing is different as it relates to our 
     development plans or our prospects for growth in the state.''
       The company has weathered a series of high-profile tests, 
     most recently in Inglewood, where Wal-Mart went so far as to 
     ask voters to allow a Supercenter in their community only to 
     be rejected. At the same time, other communities in the state 
     have actively courted the retailer.
       As Dukes smiled and welcomed customers to the store in this 
     town of 48,000 about 40 miles northeast of San Francisco, 
     many of the mixed emotions that Wal-Mart tends to evoke 
     were in evidence around her.
       Lorell Belarde, 39, seemed to embody the dichotomy of some 
     customers.
       ``I really don't even like the store,'' said the property 
     manager after a short shopping

[[Page E1273]]

     spree. ``I don't like the company. They don't treat their 
     employees right. They don't even treat the customer right.
       ``But,'' she added, ``the price is reasonable.''
       Holly Hamilton pushed her shopping cart through the parking 
     lot looking not unlike an ad for Wal-Mart. In her cart was 
     almost everything the 27-year-old nurse would need for an 
     upcoming camping trip: a fishing pole, beach towels, food and 
     bottled water, all gathered at a single store for hard-to-
     beat prices.
       Like many customers outside the Pittsburg store Wednesday, 
     Hamilton did not know about Tuesday's ruling, but when told, 
     she expressed some concern and said she might consider 
     shopping elsewhere if a court determined the company 
     discriminated against women.
       During an afternoon break, Dukes, dressed in a black and 
     tan outfit with a billowing red scarf, turned an upside down 
     shopping cart into an impromptu chair.
       ``Wish you the best of luck, sweetie,'' a male customer 
     called to Dukes in the store parking lot.
       Dukes was hired at Wal-Mart a decade ago, with grand plans 
     for a quick move up the ladder into management. Instead, she 
     says, she was passed over for promotions repeatedly, as men 
     with less experience landed the job.
       But she makes $12.53 an hour--an increase of more than 25% 
     in the three years since the lawsuit was filed, thanks to 
     generous raises. A volunteer minister, Dukes likes most of 
     her co-workers and bosses, who ``respect my right to pursue 
     this matter.'' She likes most of the customers, most parts of 
     the job. She works at Wal-Mart and shops at Wal-Mart, and 
     loves the prices.
       ``All we're asking for is our day in court, and to let the 
     evidence speak for itself.''
       The ruling, in which Jenkins said the ``evidence raises an 
     inference that Wal-Mart engages in discriminatory practices 
     in compensation and promotion that affect all plaintiffs in a 
     common manner,'' however, is by no means the company's first 
     considerable trial. And even as the number of Wal-Mart 
     critics appears to be growing, so does the number of its 
     defenders--and so does the company's reach.
       One of the company's previous blows came in April, when 
     Inglewood voters soundly defeated a sweeping initiative that 
     would have allowed the company to build a Supercenter the 
     size of 17 football fields without going through the 
     traditional layers of city bureaucracy.
       The company spent more than $1 million in its failed effort 
     to pass the initiative, buying television commercials and 
     handing out doughnuts, all for an election that drew just 
     12,000 voters. Opponents spent a fraction of that amount and 
     won the contest, about 7,000 casting ballots against the 
     proposal and 4,500 in favor.
       The contest's David vs. Goliath overtones rippled across 
     the country. On paper, however, the defeat cost the company 
     but a single Supercenter.
       And the company, which opened its first Supercenter in the 
     state this spring in La Quinta, southeast of Palm Springs, 
     has plans for 40 more across California, including stores in 
     Stockton and Hemet expected to open this year.
       The Supercenters are the company's most controversial 
     because of their size, averaging 200,000 square feet, and the 
     fact that they stock groceries.
       Wal-Mart pays its employees, male and female, less than 
     many other similar retail outlets as well as grocery stores. 
     The so-called Wal-Mart effect--the company's ability to 
     undercut competitors with its lower wages and prices--helped 
     trigger the longest grocery store strike in Southern 
     California last year as some grocers sought wage and benefit 
     concessions they said were needed to compete with the 
     Supercenters.
       Although the company lost its Inglewood battle, and as many 
     California cities, including Los Angeles, have passed 
     ordinances that effectively ban such massive ``box stores,'' 
     the company has found open arms in many other parts of the 
     state. Some describe the Inglewood opposition, the lawsuit 
     and other attacks on the company as knee-jerk bashing of a 
     successful corporation.
       In Gilroy, where the City Council voted 5 to 2 in March to 
     approve a Supercenter, Wal-Mart proponents wrote off the news 
     of the lawsuit ruling as legal hullabaloo.
       ``Certification of a class-action suit is easy to do,'' 
     said Bill Lindsteadt, executive director of the Gilroy 
     Economic Development Corp., which embraces the new center. 
     ``It's frivolous. It's another ploy by the unions to force 
     Wal-Mart to become union.''
       While heated fights over proposed Supercenters are playing 
     out across the state, some observers say the company is 
     facing increasing difficulties as it moves from rural and 
     suburban markets into urban areas--and that Tuesday's ruling 
     may increase opposition.
       As Wal-Mart moves ``from the suburban fringe and really 
     starts to look more in urban areas . . . they're encountering 
     a different level of concern and opposition than they were 
     when they were building out amid the strip malls,'' said 
     Amaha Kassa, co-director of the East Bay Alliance for a 
     Sustainable Economy. ``These kinds of issues of pay equity 
     and disparate treatment are very much going to be issues of 
     concern for urban voters.''

                          ____________________