Wal-Mart redefines 'family' in new policy

  • Thread starter Thread starter katherine2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ohio,

I say this was sincere respect, your opinion makes no sense to me. We cannot ever separate the natural law from civil law–that applies to all people, not just to Catholics (whether non-Catholics know it or not). To say that walmart is making a morally nuetral decision is simply not true. Whenever anyone willingly cooperates with sin, they are making a moral statement–that can be personal and coporately applied.

Walmart has submitted their new ethics statement, which they know full well includes support for deeply sinful situations. They did NOT have to include statements about marriage, a simple declaration that they will not discriminate for any reason, and they will follow all federal and state laws, is all that was required. They could have made a much more generic statement, they could have intentionally left-out statements about the family and that would have truly a nuetral statement. Yet, reading their statement, it is clear that walmart did not want to take a truly neutral position.

Since companies are run by people, companies are held to the same moral ethics as we are.
 
Wal-Mart is one of many companies using inclusive language. It does seem Wal-Mart may just be protecting itself from future lawsuits. I am not into arguing that point. What do you think about Verizon (telecommunications company) it now has health insurance coverage for life partners? Verizon’s position seems very clear.
 
Ive posted in other threads about Wal-Mart and Ill say it again. Wal-Mart always tries for the image booster. They are only doing this for publicity because their sales are less than projected. Remember the “week after Christmas tab” they run? They have never had to do that before. In the end, they could care less about gay people inso much as their reputation with this group of people and them trying to boost sales. I know thats what they are supposed to to do, but to do it with publicity stunts and political correctedness is deplorable. SHAME ON WAL-MART. Sam must be turning over in his grave.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
How are they “embracing immorality?”

All businesses must have written policies in areas like this. It’s part of personnel management, a critical management function.

If they have a policy that says “Shoplifters will be prosecuted,” are they “embracing” shoplifting?

If they have a policy that determines where exits and fire extinguishers will be, is that “embracing” arson?
 
I’ve reflected on this and I have decided WalMart’s policy is totally wrong. They should be asked to recind it.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
…Walmart has submitted their new ethics statement, which they know full well includes support for deeply sinful situations. They did NOT have to include statements about marriage, a simple declaration that they will not discriminate for any reason, and they will follow all federal and state laws, is all that was required.
Click to expand...
The Statement of Ethics statement that this whole thread seemed to be referring to is not a statement of discrimination. It is a statement which holds employees, suppliers and vendors to principles of business ethics in their corporate dealings with WalMart and extends those same prohibitions and expectations to members of their “immediate families”. By recognizing that state and local laws differ and holding those newly-recognized (even if only in MA) forms to the “immediate family” designation, they ensure that their ethics statement does not contain loopholes. In light of corporate ethics litigation (remember ENRON?) and the statutory requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley, I still fail to find morality judgements in extending their corporate compliance policies (not their anti-discrimination policies) to close all loopholes to unethical business practice. I think we are just speaking past each other.

I haven’t read their employee benefits policies or their non-discrimination policies. I think these policies would be a more accurate reflection of the corporate philosophy of WalMart. I haven’t read them and don’t intend to, since as I mentioned, I don’t shop at WalMart anyway. I’m not proposing that WalMart is concerned about promoting morality.

If this continues to make no sense to you, I guess we’ll just agree to disagree.
:tiphat:
 
40.png
katherine2:
I’ve reflected on this and I have decided WalMart’s policy is totally wrong. They should be asked to recind it.
Click to expand...
:cool: Very interesting.
 
vern humphrey:
How are they “embracing immorality?”

All businesses must have written policies in areas like this. It’s part of personnel management, a critical management function.

If they have a policy that says “Shoplifters will be prosecuted,” are they “embracing” shoplifting?

If they have a policy that determines where exits and fire extinguishers will be, is that “embracing” arson?
Click to expand...
I too am shrugging… :hmmm:
 
40.png
katherine2:
…Of course, the Church also teaches that its not the employers place to reject unions, but a decision of the workers.
Click to expand...
While the Church clearly supports the right to organize, I still don’t see your statement reflected in the quotations you cite. The fact that the Church supports unionization as a social justice means to combat oppression, you aren’t proposing that to mean that the Church considers a union workplace to be preferable to a non-union one, are you? In my opinion that would be extending the Church’s position far beyond reason.
 
Ohio,

I do not agree–yet since we both share a dislike for walmart, I am going to simply leave it at that. 🙂
 
vern,

Walmart did not have to word their ethics statements as they did…it is immoral.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
vern,

Walmart did not have to word their ethics statements as they did…it is immoral.
Click to expand...
Precisely what part of

“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.”

is immoral?

Do you demand they say, “Domestic Partnership or Civil Union, even if recognized by law will not be regarded as vaild?”

Do we demand that Wal Mart violate the law?
 
vern,

There is no reason to mention domestic partnerships–they are immoral.
 
40.png
OhioBob:
you aren’t proposing that to mean that the Church considers a union workplace to be preferable to a non-union one, are you?
Click to expand...
Am I proposing? No, it seems the popes and bishops are proposing:

Pope John Paul II
On Human Work #49, 1981
“organizations of this type are an indispensable element of social life,”

Pope John Paul II
Centesimus Annus, 1992
“…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
"These groupings, autonomous in character, are considered if not essential to civil society at least a natural accompaniment thereof."

Vatican II
The Church and the Modern World, #68, 1965
"Another such right is that of taking part freely in the activity of these unions without fear of reprisal."

It seems clear to me that for an employer to reject a union when it has been chosen by the workers in a violation of the workers’ natural law rights.

The preference for such forms of industrial organization is stressed particularly by teh Holy Father’s characterization of unions as “indispensable”. Not “a nice idea, if you want.”
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
vern,

There is no reason to mention domestic partnerships–they are immoral.
Click to expand...
They are required BY LAW to recognize them in some states or towns.

Let me point out that there are presently laws in some states (California comes to mind) that require all employers to provide certain “health benefits” to their emplloyees – including birth control. What has been the Catholic Church’s response to this regarding it’s OWN employees?

Does the Church follow the law, or break the law?
 
vern,

When state or federal laws require it, then walmart must either concede, or shutdown. But, they are not at all required to make such statements in their global ethics.

As for your comments about providing health care benefits…you have it a bit wrong. California has mandated that Catholic institutions must offer certain coverages under their helth care coverage–the proper response for the Church in California would be to drop all health care coverage and let the employees choose their own plans.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
vern,

When state or federal laws require it, then walmart must either concede, or shutdown. But, they are not at all required to make such statements in their global ethics.
Click to expand...
They are required to have ethics statements. Those statements must be worded carefully, so as to be in compliance with the law – which means they must be careful not to inadvertantly commit “discrimination” or similar offenses.

Blaming them for the law is a bit hypocritical – WE vote for the politicians.
40.png
TPJCatholic:
As for your comments about providing health care benefits…you have it a bit wrong. California has mandated that Catholic institutions must offer certain coverages under their helth care coverage–the proper response for the Church in California would be to drop all health care coverage and let the employees choose their own plans.
Click to expand...
Is that what the Church is doing in California?

The law requires employers to PAY for “health care” and the Catholic Church meets the threshhold requirements. They must pay. The law specifies what benefits are covered. The Church must either pay or decide to refuse.

What has the Church decided?
 
40.png
katherine2:
…The preference for such forms of industrial organization is stressed particularly by teh Holy Father’s characterization of unions as “indispensable”. Not “a nice idea, if you want.”
Click to expand...
I can’t say that I have reached the same conclusions you have in consideration of those documents. Given the separation between our views and the fact that it is quite a bit off-topic, it’s a subject best left undisturbed.

Peace.
 
vern,

In California, the problem is with the fact that the Catholic clinics and hospitals often get state and federal funding…that means they are beholding to state laws and regulations. The Catholic Church right now is in compliance, as we would expect it to be, but these matters are also under great consideration. It is possible that the Church will simply close or sell-off their positions in the hospitals or clinics. There is also another alternative: If the Church were to refuse state and federal dollars, and if they were to hire only Catholic people as employees, then they can be exempt from the state and federal laws.

Right now, those clinics and hospitals are no longer Catholic, they are better served to sell to someone else, or to completely re-organize so that they are exempt. Either one of those choices will take great courage and the California Church has not shown great courage.

As for the ethics statements, they can be localized–it does not have to be a sweeping global statement. While you are completely correct to say walmart must follow the law, they do not have to anticipate law.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
vern,

In California, the problem is with the fact that the Catholic clinics and hospitals often get state and federal funding…that means they are beholding to state laws and regulations. The Catholic Church right now is in compliance, as we would expect it to be, but these matters are also under great consideration. It is possible that the Church will simply close or sell-off their positions in the hospitals or clinics. There is also another alternative: If the Church were to refuse state and federal dollars, and if they were to hire only Catholic people as employees, then they can be exempt from the state and federal laws…
Click to expand...
I have a vision – the Great Persecution has returned. Public officials are hammering on the doors demanding “Vasa Traderi!”

And we reply, “Well, we can’t HAND OVER the altar vessels – but we’ll SELL them to you, cheap.”
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Right now, those clinics and hospitals are no longer Catholic, they are better served to sell to someone else, or to completely re-organize so that they are exempt. Either one of those choices will take great courage and the California Church has not shown great courage…
Click to expand...
If we sell off our hospitals and clinics we have abandoned a charitable work that is one of our Christian missions. And not prevented the evil we know is coming – we will have simply washed our hands like Pilate.
40.png
TPJCatholic:
As for the ethics statements, they can be localized–it does not have to be a sweeping global statement. While you are completely correct to say walmart must follow the law, they do not have to anticipate law.
Click to expand...
Yes, they do – the company must have comprehensive policies. They cannot have one set of ethics in one store and another set in another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top