Wal-Mart redefines 'family' in new policy

[katherine2]

Wal-Mart redefines ‘family’ in new policy

Friday, January 28, 2005 / 06:06 PM

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer and the world’s biggest retailer, has changed its definition of “immediate family” to include same-sex partners.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. disclosed the change Wednesday in a filing of its ethics policy with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

Wal-Mart redefines ‘family’ in new policy

Friday, January 28, 2005 / 06:06 PM

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer and the world’s biggest retailer, has changed its definition of “immediate family” to include same-sex partners.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. disclosed the change Wednesday in a filing of its ethics policy with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

What an interesting post from you Katherine.

Do you really object to this new “definition” ?

 

[TPJCatholic]

I do not shop at walmart for this very reason, among many other reasons.

 

[OhioBob]

I don’t think that WalMart’s policy is an expression of any particular viewpoint on the societal acceptability or moral equivalency of various definitions of “family”. It is simply a recognition that different locations where they have stores have different laws regarding “family” relationships.

The policy language at issue reads:
“Immediate family members include (whether by birth, adoption, marriage or Domestic Partnership or Civil Union, if recognized by your state or other local law) your spouse, children, parents, siblings, mothers and fathers-in-law and brothers and sisters-in-law.” (From the WalMart Statement of Ethics on their web site).

The key words in this definition are “if recognized by your state or other local law”.

I don’t think it is intended as a moral declaration on Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions or any other nontraditional “family” structure.

Regardless of what our own opinions on the subject might be, I don’t think it is fair to read any more into the Statement of Ethics than what it says.

And don’t read into my response that I like WalMart as a company, an employer or an economic entity, because I don’t.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Ohio,

It is an acceptance of sin…even if that acceptance is localized, walmart has embraced sin and codified it in its own company rules.

 

[buffalo]

Write them here:

 

[OhioBob]

TPJCatholic:

Ohio,

It is an acceptance of sin…even if that acceptance is localized, walmart has embraced sin and codified it in its own company rules.

While I agree with you on the moral abandonment inherent in the hijacking of the term “family”, from a legal standpoint WalMart’s policy is less an acceptance of sin than an acceptance of state and local law. If the law recognizes a legal equivalency to a non-traditional description of “family”, WalMart would be obligated to recognize that equivalency.

I’m not defending them on moral grounds, I was just pointing out that their policy is not a moral declaration but a statement of legal compliance.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Ohio,

Then using your logic, legal abortions have nothing to do with morality.
Because something is legal, does not mean the moral component is negated. In fact, laws should always be based in moral or natural law.

 

[space_ghost]

I guess wal-mart feels they have a place in their store, especially in their cash registers…

 

[space_ghost]

TPJCatholic:

Ohio,

Then using your logic, legal abortions have nothing to do with morality.
Because something is legal, does not mean the moral component is negated. In fact, laws should always be based in moral or natural law.

no, but you can sure be sued if your not within the law…

 

[TPJCatholic]

space,

Walmart is forced to follow the law, yet that does not mean they should be embracing immorality–yet of course immorlaity is a core value of walmart–imo.

 

[OhioBob]

TPJCatholic:

Ohio,
Then using your logic, legal abortions have nothing to do with morality. Because something is legal, does not mean the moral component is negated. In fact, laws should always be based in moral or natural law.

Uh, no. I don’t think that’s what my logic says at all.

It only says that what is law is legal. Yes, laws should always be based in moral or natural law. But are they always so based? No. Should they be? Yup. But until laws are changed, they is what they is. Stating a policy recognizing the existance of varying state and local laws is merely a statement of reality. I don’t see it as “embracing immorality”. They may in fact embrace it. I don’t know. But in my opinion that particular policy doesn’t address their corporate morality, just their corporate compliance.

So let’s work to change the laws. Until then, don’t shoot the messenger.

 

[space_ghost]

TPJCatholic:

space,

Walmart is forced to follow the law, yet that does not mean they should be embracing immorality–yet of course immorlaity is a core value of walmart–imo.

i guess the word “embrace” vs “compliance” is the root of the issue…
I really don’t feel Wal-Mart is trying to make a public statement that they condone or support a gay life style… as much as they are just trying to stay out of the litigation spotlight… a corporation the size of Wal-Mart has to be proactive in reducing their exposure to possible law suits… i promise you attorneys lay in wait for such mistakes…

I could be wrong… who knows?

Peace:thumbsup:

 

[OhioBob]

space ghost:

i guess the word “embrace” vs “compliance” is the root of the issue…
I really don’t feel Wal-Mart is trying to make a public statement that they condone or support a gay life style… as much as they are just trying to stay out of the litigation spotlight… a corporation the size of Wal-Mart has to be proactive in reducing their exposure to possible law suits… i promise you attorneys lay in wait for such mistakes…

I could be wrong… who knows?

Peace:thumbsup:

Don’t forget the old Chinese curse: “May your life be filled with lawyers.” :bigyikes:

 

[TPJCatholic]

Ohio,

I am not shooting the messenger…I am disagreeing with your opinion.

Walmart has changed its policy to one that is a blanket coverage for a variety of possible configurations for “family.” The problem is, there is only one state (Mass.) where such arrangments are legal and it does not look like that will change anytime soon (eleven states voted for state amendments defining marriage). Therefore, walmart is really doing this in anticipation of sweeping legal changes to the definition of marriage…that is a moral statement because they are a huge company and they know full well that what they embrace often becomes reality. Why do you think manufacturers celebrate when they place their product in walmart stores?

Walmart could take an entirely different approach. While their ethics statement must adhere to established law, the company itself can do a great deal to help propogate natural law…yet they do not go that way, instead they embrace whatever debased treans our culture can cook-up.

 

[Brad]

Brad:

What an interesting post from you Katherine.

Do you really object to this new “definition” ?

Katherine?

Don’t tell me this is a hit and run because you oppose Walmart’s rejection of unions. Do you really object to this policy of family definition?

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

Katherine?

Don’t tell me this is a hit and run because you oppose Walmart’s rejection of unions. Do you really object to this policy of family definition?

I believe we should have universal health care making domestic partner benefits a moot point ( and I believe this because this is what my Church tells me is right).

Of course, the Church also teaches that its not the employers place to reject unions, but a decision of the workers.

 

[OhioBob]

TPJ:

You seem to have a much keener insight into WalMart’s corporate philosophy and moral compass than I do. I don’t like them and try to avoid all things WalMart. As such I am in no position to judge what their corporate positions are with regard to moral issues.

My original point was just that their statement of ethics is written to comply with the law regarding vendor and supplier relationships and business dealings by employees and their “immediate families”. As such that definition must follow applicable state and local law whether that law is the same in all states and localities or the same in all but one. I was only suggesting that the policy itself is neutral on moral grounds and only recognizes that state and local laws vary.

Whether the company is neutral - or morally bankrupt - I have no idea. If your suggestion is that WalMart’s corporate policies influence the development of law in America, I’m not prepared to go that far. But since they are composed of members of our culture (as officers, employees, suppliers and customers), they probably do reflect the moral morass into which our culture has sunk.

Sad, that.

 

[OhioBob]

katherine2:

…Of course, the Church also teaches that its not the employers place to reject unions, but a decision of the workers.

I don’t recall reading that in the Catechism. I must have missed it…

 

[katherine2]

Pope John Paul II
On Human Work #49, 1981
“Workers have the right to form associations for the purpose of defending their vital interests…The experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are an indispensable element of social life, especially in modern industrialized societies. Catholic Social teaching…hold that unions are…indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice, for the just rights of working people in accordance with their individual professions…It is characteristic of work that it first and foremost unites people. In this consists its social power: the power to build a community…It is clear that, even if it is because of their work needs that people unite to secure their rights, their union remains a constructive factor of social order and solidarity, and it is impossible to ignore it.”

Pope John Paul II
Centesimus Annus, 1992
"…The freedom to join trade unions and the effective action of unions…are meant to deliver work from the mere condition of ‘a commodity’ and to guarantee its dignity. “…The right of association is a natural right of the human being…Indeed, the formation of unions cannot…be prohibited by the state because the state is bound to protect
natural rights…”

Pope Pius XI
Quadregesimo Anno, #83, 1931
"For as nature induces those who dwell in close proximity to unite into municipalities, so those who practice the same trade or profession, economic or otherwise constitute as it were fellowships or bodies. These groupings, autonomous in character, are considered if not essential to civil society at least a natural accompaniment thereof."

Pope John Paul II
Centesimus Annus, 1992
“Trade unions…serve the development of an authentic culture of work and helps workers to share in a fully human way in the life of their place of employment.”

Vatican II
The Church and the Modern World, #68, 1965
"Among the basic rights of the human person must be counted the right of freely founding labor unions. These unions should be truly able to represent the workers and to contribute to the proper arrangement of economic life. Another such right is that of taking part freely in the activity of these unions without fear of reprisal."