Walmart Needs to Stop Discounting the Voices of Christian Employees
“If your promise of respect already binds you to offer protection against discrimination, why not make it explicit?"
I just finished a meeting with five Walmart executives. A financial advisor has proposed a resolution calling on the company to examine and report on its treatment of employees focused on civil and religious liberty and viewpoint diversity. When shareholders file to place proposals on the ballot and the companies are not able to successfully block them, those companies almost always offer to have a meeting to discuss the issue and to see if they can persuade the shareholder to withdraw the proposal. CEOs do not like to have any element of the annual meeting that is not under their control and shareholder proposals are by definition not under the control of management.
Executives were introduced according to their function. I’m so-and-so, General Counsel. Here’s such-and-such, “Labor”…”Investor Relations”…”ESG.”
Investor relations started the meeting by asking me what the proposal is about. The conversation below is summarized and paraphrased.
Me: It’s about the increasing perception of the proponent and of others who I work with that companies are taking sides in divisive culture war issues. Specifically, we’re looking at the company’s tendency to make public statements about such issues in a way that might make their conservative and Christian employees feel unsafe in expressing their own views on these matters. That’s why this proposal focuses on employment and viewpoint discrimination protection. Walmart does not offer in its EEO policy explicit protection for divergent religious or political viewpoints. Not just religious or political affiliation, but viewpoint.
ESG: What specifically would you like to see changed? Are there protections other companies offer which you would recommend?
Me: This is a weak area in corporate life because other forms of diversity have gotten most of the attention. But the Alliance Defending Freedom has gathered ‘best practices’ language, for example, about going beyond just offering ‘respect’ for different viewpoints, to offering explicit protection against discrimination.
General Counsel: Our corporate language and our corporate culture is built around ‘respect for the individual’, so other language is not needed.
Me: But one can ‘respect’ an individual and still cut off doing business with them. Respect is weaker than an explicit protection against discrimination.
GC: But that’s implied in the language of ‘respect’, we don’t need to add anything.
Me: So, your argument is that by saying ‘respect’ you are already assuring people that this includes protection against discrimination?
GC: Yes.
Me: Great, then it doesn’t actually force you to change anything by making that explicit. If your promise of respect already binds you to offer protection against discrimination, why not make it explicit.
GC: But we don’t need that, our culture of respect speaks for itself.
Me: Then why not offer a Christian employee resource group (which you call ARGs)?
GC: We have a religion ARG.
Me: Yes, but not a Christian one. Your other ARGs are affirming, for example the Pride ARG. But you’re religious one is about teaching people of faith “how to appropriately integrate your faith in the workplace.” Many other companies, some of the largest in the world, have explicitly Christian and Muslim and Jewish ERGs that are quite popular.
Labor: Well, we’re about inclusion, not exclusion. We don’t want ERGs that exclude people.
Me: You have a Pride ERG. You don’t have a general sexual orientation ERG in which gay people and straight people and people of all sexual orientations gather. Pride represents a specific set of groups. That’s not exclusionary, it’s just specific.
Labor: But you don’t have to be gay to join Pride, allies can join too.
Me: What about non-allies?
GC, ESG, Labor, IR: (Long silence)
Labor: Anyone can join.
Me: Then what’s the point of having a Pride ERG? What’s it for, if it’s for everybody?
GC, ESG, Labor, IR: (Much longer silence)
Labor: Because you have a specific group of people with specific history and specific concerns and Pride gives voice to those concerns.
Me: Good. Christians are like that too. They have distinct history and concerns and they, too, should have a distinct voice.
GC: We just disagree. Our faith ARG has been successful.
Me: Does it have a lot of members?
GC: Yes, it’s one of our largest.
Me: Well then, that seems to imply that there was a demand for people to bring their religious selves to work. I don’t see how that is an argument that offering more specific faith groups would not be more successful.
GC: But it’s already successful.
Me: How do you know it couldn’t be more successful? When other firms have offered Christian ERGs, they often become the largest. Have you benchmarked the success of your ‘airport interfaith chapel’ approach against those of companies that offer specifics? Religions are not all the same. If religious people are bringing their whole selves to work, that means bringing their specific faith.
IR: It’s obvious that we’re not going to agree and that the proponent is not going to withdrawal the proposal.
Me: I’m not so sure about that. The proponent is an investor, not an activist. He doesn’t need to give a speech to the annual meeting. He doesn’t need the attention. We want to see progress. If you would do something as simple as moving from “respecting” the viewpoints of individuals to protecting them against discrimination, this proposal might well be dropped. That’s something you say is already implied in your language and culture. Making that explicit is really a small thing for us to ask.
IR: Please send us that language from ADF.
To those of you reading this report, thank you for letting us advocate for your worldview in corporate America.
