Wal-Mart is constantly under scrutiny with the media for different curious management acts. This proves to be one of those yet again. Chalace Lowry, who began working as an administrative assistant in January of 2007, was given a practice in ethics during one of her early seminars with Wal-Mart. The company explained that it was important to report any possible unethical acts that may be happening. Lowry did just that when she noticed a senior executive making copies of stock related papers just before it was mentioned that Wal-Mart was planning a stock buyback. To Lowry this seemed like possible insider trading, but her questions lead to the need for a new job.
When Lowry first noticed that the vice president for corporate communications, Mona Williams, was making copies of what she believed to be papers relating to stock, she thought nothing of it. Soon after however when Wal-Mart detailed their plans for a $15 billion stock buyback Lowry thought something was awry. Remembering what Wal-Mart executives had preached in her seminar on ethics Lowry decided that she would report Williams and see if a possible investigation could lead to potential insider trading. Lowry did not accuse Williams of any wrongdoing and even admits what Williams was doing could have been legal. She just believed that the red flags around the issue should be pointed out and investigated just in case there was a problem. The same day Lowry first filed a report Wal-Mart had already established a response saying that there was no insider trading going on and that none of Wal-Mart’s code of ethics had been violated. After this Lowry’s name was released to Williams and informed of the fact that she questioned some of her actions. Lowry then realized that she needed to request a transfer because Williams, who was essentially her boss, would not want to work with her. Things could have went over more smoothly if Wal-Mart would have informed Lowry that it was possible for her to not mention her name in the report given to Williams. Instead Lowry explained that Wal-Mart executives made it seem like it was a necessity with filing the claim. In her attempts at a transfer Wal-Mart informed Lowry she had 90 days to do so before they reassessed her situation. She considered this act to be unethical and is considering a lawsuit on Wal-Mart.
Patrick
3 comments:
Yeah, Wal-Mart tends to be unethical in many ways. They act like "bullies" to commercial retailers, by buying products for a low price (because they can) and selling it at Wal-Mart for higher prices. This in return, produces a larger profit for Wal-Mart than the company who actually distributed and/or created the product.
This case is very similar to the A-7D Affair. I learned today, actually, that to prevent names of whistle-blowers, companies have been ordered to create 1-800 hot lines for employees to call and "rat" someone out while keeping their identities anonymous.
I believe that it us partially Wal Mart's fault for not clarifying what Lowry should of done. I think it is the company's job to include details such as telling on someone and not using there name because of consequences that could occur. Lowry then has to move to a different location, which may make everything harder for her and inconvenient.
Walmart should have a clear cut plan on what to do should an employee see something they suspect may be unethical. It is no surprise to hear that walmart is making things unclear to employees and now her job is in jeopardy, I say she should sue because her rights were violated by not having an anonymous number to call
Post a Comment