« Next WB Seminar: April 18 & 19 | Main | Trial Subscription: MTW Newsletter »

Comments

Mike Behr

This campaign is good but could be better. They should tie in charity like a rebuilding New Orleans Fund or Habitat for Humanity. If your story is selected for an add $xx will be donated to that charity in your name. It also adds to the message in the advertising. This promo is hard to find from the home page. This campaign has potential to be much better.

An Opinion (Opinion Only) from a former Female Employee

This ad and promotion campaign was crafted in response to the filing of a gender discrimination and retaliation case with the Atlanta branch of the EEOC in July, 2007 by a female director-level merchandising employee located the Atlanta Headquarters of Home Depot. The claim concerns not only gender discrimination, retaliation for making a claim for gender discrimination and sexual harassment of female employees at their HQ but also the hostile work environment for female employees there.

Home Depot's ads are becoming more "female friendly" only to "prime" the public for the fight that they'll have once all of the other women who don't yet know about the EEOC claim start adding their experiences working for Home Depot in their headquarters. THE HOME DEPOT DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR WOMEN EMPLOYEES NOR DO THEY CARE ABOUT WOMEN AS BUYERS OF THEIR MERCHANDISE IN STORES. Home Depot is only afraid that the 76% of women v. men who make DIY buying decisions will stop shopping at Home Depot if they don't prepare women for the negative aspects of the EEOC claim early in the game.

So far, most gender discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation claims and cases against Home Depot have been made by store employees. Women and the public in general need to know that the discrimination, harassment and retaliatory behavior in the stores only MIRRORS what is a much more severe and systematic pattern of practice at Home Depot's Store Support Center in Atlanta.

In fact, Home Depot Headquarters' mostly male (87%) merchandising division are loathe to offer opportunities to women and often block women from equal pay and promotion opportunities within the merchandising organization.

In addition, MANY VPs of this company have actively pursued trainees and subordinate employees for sexual favors in a quid pro quo fashion. Many women employees submit to verbal, sexual, physical and psychological abuse in order to avoid termination, retaliation or reduced opportunities within the organization. The EEOC case filed in July was made by a woman whose car was rigged to wreck in the employee parking lot, was called on a pay phone from the lobby of the HQ and physically threatened by a VP with whom she endured quid pro quo sexual harassment and was denied the opportunity of interviewing for better paying jobs ultimately filled by men.

Instead of addressing the female employees gender discrimination, the sexual harassment or the retaliation (threats of violence, turning her phone off and removal of the resources necessary to do her job), the HR group decided to terminate her. She was not terminated as she had only that morning filed the EEOC claim and her employer was discouraged from retaliating further against her by terminating her employment.

Even Home Depot's Chairman of the Board, Ken Langone, stated in a "Directorship" magazine article that the Home Depot has had issues when he stated that Home Depot has been known as "a good ol' boy network".

The MO of Home Depot is to give female employees lesser job functions, lesser dollars under management and less pay than male employees, especially in the male dominated merchandising organization (you know, the people who make the buying decisions!). Then female employees systematically have the rug pulled out from under them as resources are slowly taken away from them, insuring failure.

If Home Depot cared about women or women buyers, then they would 1) show a higher percentage (more than 13% female) of women in their merchandising organization; 2) place and support women as buyers for products outside mainly decor items, for which women merchants are systematic funnelled into; 3) stop systematically sexually harassing and discriminating against women, especially in their merchandising organization; 4) submit gender and race employment information as promised in 2002 to the shareholders (owners) of the company; 5) comply with federal and state regulations on contraception coverage, wage discrimination and civil rights issues (especially since they are federal contractors two times over); 6) stop encouraging and allowing claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation to go ininvestigated or unchecked; 7) and hold the perpetrators of these actions accountable to their moral turpitude contract clauses and their largely ignored Code of Ethics and HR SOPs.

heather

this ad is so true i am currently employed here and have so many issues with this company because of discrimination they always give men promotions and barely any women in fact in our store now there are only 2 female supervisors rest are men and i have been there 5 years they always have me train my male supervisor to be a supervisor and never offer me the postion or even ever get interviewed only few months ago there were no women supervisors at all in the store i work in in fact 1 female garden former associate asked a manager for a hat to block some sun and he said women dont need hats they have hair there should be a class action suit on them like walmart had if i could even just get 1 lawyer to help that would be great thanks

MJ

In May of 2007, I made a formal complaint to my store manager regarding a customer who had grabbed my shirt, admitted to trying to grab my butt, and pantomimed grabbing my breasts. Not one thing was done, and over the course of the next 7 weeks, I was followed through and out of the parking lot by this customer, who also would come into the store and stand and watch me for long lengths of time, point me out to friends he'd bring in, and laugh at me. Over and over I was told that this customer wasn't doing anything wrong, that I had "asked for it", and that THD would NOT ask this cutomer to leave me alone. I was granted a Protection from Stalking Order by the District Court, and was told by HR, Regional HR and Regional Loss Prevention that THD would not honor it, and would continue to allow this customer in the store, and that if I called 911 if he came in (as directed by the Sheriffs Office)I would be fired for violating company policy. I am the second woman that I know of that this has happened to in this store alone. Same manager, same HR. If this is in one store alone, I am terrified of what is happening nationwide. What will it take for THD to finally be held accountable for the safety of their employees???

The comments to this entry are closed.