More On Wal-Mart's Strong Arm Tactics

A little more regarding Wal-Mart's mandatory, anti-union and anti-Democrat themed employee meetings as revealed in today's WSJ. I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me this has to be in violation of, or at least skirting some sort of labor laws, does it not? If not, it ought to be.

If you ask me (and if wishes were ponies and all of that), Wal-Mart (less than affectionately referred to in our household as "The Beast") should be target number one for organized action by all of the ancillary union folks that may be a part of its larger network of vendors/providers/whatnot. Though I wonder if Wal-Mart even deals with outside businesses that do allow unions. Regardless, they should bear the full weight of an organized organized labor action, including the support (vocal, at least, and perhaps as consumers as well) of unions that have no dealings with the corporation at all.

In any case, an email which came in to Wal-Mart Watch a couple of weeks back:

Today’s explosive story from the Wall Street Journal lays bare the scare tactics Wal-Mart uses on its employees, but that story would not have been possible without the several brave Wal-Mart employees who stepped up and spoke out about the company’s practices. One employee wrote in to our website about Wal-Mart’s mandatory political meetings, but was too afraid of the company to write much:



If you or someone you know works for Wal-Mart and has something to say, we encourage you to speak out. All information is confidential and will not be released for any reason without permission.

Marketwatch has this interesting take on the issue:

The company, and a lot of other U.S. businesses, are concerned the bill will pass and be signed into law in the event that Sen. Barack Obama wins the presidency and Democrats make further gains in the Senate.

It's hardly surprising that Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the U.S., would be wary of such a measure.

But whether it can make a plausible case to its employees against it without becoming deeply entangled in the complexities of labor law is another question.
It's not that Wal-Mart can't afford any penalties it might ultimately face for lobbying -- some would argue intimidating -- workers about how to vote. It's simply a question of whether it can afford the fallout of being seen as so directly political.

Presumably its customer base is fairly representative of the overall U.S. population's political beliefs. So the fear of unionization has to be pretty strong to risk alienating half its customers.

Wal-Mart Strikes Out

This is all kinds of messed up. From the Wall Street Journal:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

The actions by Wal-Mart -- the nation's largest private employer -- reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership. That could lead to higher payroll and health costs for companies already being hurt by rising fuel and commodities costs and the tough economic climate.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said....

...Wal-Mart's worries center on a piece of legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which companies say would enable unions to quickly add millions of new members. "We believe EFCA is a bad bill and we have been on record as opposing it for some time," Mr. Tovar said. "We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do."[...]

The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity. The AFL-CIO and individual unions such as the United Food and Commercial Workers have promised to make passage of the new labor law their No. 1 mission after the November election.

First introduced in 2003, the bill came to a vote last year and sailed through the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, but was blocked by a filibuster in the Senate and faced a veto threat by the White House. The bill was taken off the floor, and its backers pledged to reintroduce it when they could get more support.

The November election could bring that extra support in Congress, as well as the White House if Sen. Obama is elected and Democrats extend their control in the Senate. Sen. Obama co-sponsored the legislation, which also is known as "card check," and has said several times he would sign it into law if elected president. Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and voted against it last year.

Wal-Mart's labor-relations meetings are led by human-resources managers who received training from Wal-Mart on the implications of the Employee Free Choice Act....

...Wal-Mart may be walking a fine legal line by holding meetings with its store department heads that link politics with a strong antiunion message. Federal election rules permit companies to advocate for specific political candidates to its executives, stockholders and salaried managers, but not to hourly employees. While store managers are on salary, department supervisors are hourly workers....

...Unions consider the Employee Free Choice Act as vital to the survival of the labor movement, which currently represents 7.5% of private-sector workers, half the percentage it did 25 years ago. The Service Employees International Union said the legislation would enable it to organize a million workers a year, up from its current pace of 100,000 workers a year....

...Through almost all of its 48-year history, Wal-Mart has fought hard to keep unions out of its stores, flying in labor-relations rapid-response teams from its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters to any location where union activity was building. The United Food and Commercial Workers was successful in organizing only one group of Wal-Mart workers -- a small number of butchers in East Texas in early 2000. Several weeks later, the company phased out butchers in all of its stores and began stocking prepackaged meat. When a store in Canada voted to unionize several years ago, the company closed the store, saying it had been unprofitable for years.

A reinvigorated labor movement is absolutely essential to getting better wages and health care benefits for the millions of Americans who are underpaid and under-insured....or, as is the case with the vast majority of America's largest employer, Wal-Mart, have no insurance at all.

UPDATE: More here.

It's Not the Department of Management

It's the Department of Labor. Barack at the SEIU meeting in Puerto Rico:

What I love about this man is his clear understanding that this is a defining moment in American history for the American people. There is so much work to be done, sure, but just as surely there is truly opportunity for real, substantial change unlike any time in my forty years. And he is, without a doubt, the man to bring that change.

This is our time.