"That's what the courts are for."
SCOTUS decisions and corporate/employer you-can't-sue-me contracts keep people out of the courts.
Depends on the case. That you can counter it with other possible reasons doesn't mean that the jury is going to buy it or that it's a better explanation than the presented evidence. These are civil cases, you don't need to prove something beyond reasonable doubt.
Which makes it even worse sometimes in that people on juries are usually those who don't work, or are too dumb to get out of jury duty. I was appalled at fellow jury members on a civil case i was on once. Too many of them had the at ude to give the plaintiff the money just because she was suing deep pockets. Their thought had nothing to do with innocence or guilt.
Ever been on a civil case? Ever have to decide how much is paid?
That's how the justice system in this country has worked forever. I can see how an authoritarian like you would have a problem with your opinion not being that of the rest of the jury.
Not a citizen yet. Maybe next year.
If you ever get jury duty, make the best of it. It can be a real eye opener.
Will do.
Wal-Mart’s Authoritarian Culture
The underlying issue, which the Supreme Court has now ratified, is Wal-Mart’s authoritarian style, by which executives pressure store-level management to squeeze more and more from millions of clerks, stockers and lower-tier managers.
Indeed, the sex discrimination at Wal-Mart that drove the recent suit is the product not merely of managerial bias and prejudice, but also of a corporate culture and business model that sustains it, rooted in the company’s very beginnings.
In the 1950s and ’60s, northwest Arkansas, where Wal-Mart got its start, was poor, white and rural, in the midst of a wave of agricultural mechanization that generated a huge surplus of unskilled workers. To these men and women, the burgeoning chain of discount stores founded by Sam Walton was a godsend. The men might find dignity managing a store instead of a hardscrabble farm, while their wives and daughters could earn pin money clerking for Mr. Sam, as he was known. “The enthusiasm of Wal-Mart associates toward their jobs is one of the company’s greatest assets,” declared the firm’s 1973 annual report.
A patriarchal ethos was written into the Wal-Mart DNA. “Welcome Assistant Managers and Wives” read a banner at a 1975 meeting for executive trainees. And that corporate culture — “the single most important element in the continued, remarkable success of Wal-Mart,” asserted Don Soderquist, the company’s chief operating officer in the 1990s — was sustained not only by the hypercentralized managerial control that flowed from the Bentonville, Ark., home office but by the evangelical Protestantism that Mr. Soderquist and other executives encouraged.
, for all the change that has swept over the company, at the store level there is still a fair amount of the old communal sociability. Recognizing that workers steeped in that culture make poor candidates for assistant managers, who are the front lines in enforcing labor discipline, Wal-Mart insists that almost all workers promoted to the managerial ranks move to a new store, often hundreds of miles away.
For young men in a hurry, that’s an inconvenience; for middle-aged women caring for families, this corporate reassignment policy amounts to sex discrimination. True, Wal-Mart is hardly alone in demanding that rising managers sacrifice family life, but few companies make relocation such a fixed policy, and few have employment rolls even a third the size.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/op...gewanted=print
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
