Wal-Mart Warns Store Managers Of Democratic Party Win
Wal-Mart is reportedly holding mandatory meetings warning its store managers that a Democratic victory could be bad for the stores since it could lead to unionization — news that that is likely to stir up a hornet’s nest of political trouble for the world’s mega-retailer.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
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.
It’s mandatory, which means the move is going to come under fire in what is shaping up to be a close, bitterly-fought election contest.
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.
(See UPDATE below since an AP story has a more extensive corporate denial.)
Two things about this:
1. The Journal got confirmation from employees in several states, so the story should be considered to be journalistically solid.
2. From the corporate standpoint, these concerns are real, valid and definitely out there. That part isn’t what will get Wal-Mart in trouble with those who want to see a change in the party administering the federal government and more Democratic Congressional victories. Unionization would mean higher costs for the corporation. Fact. BUT it’s the mandatory nature of the meetings — and what seems to be a not-quite stated instruction:
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.
The story has been denied by a Wal-Mart spokesman, that the corp. was telling anyone how to vote and that if that was the case it would be “wrong and without approval.”
But it’s harder to make the case that this story is merely misunderstanding or run due to a political axe to grind since (1) it appears in the Wall Street Journal, which has never been confused with The Nation magazine and (2) the story involved multiple sourcing.
The likely impact?
It’ll become a big story on progressive talk radio (an increasingly hard-to-find entity in broadcasting) and most likely a huge issue on progressive blogs. And although Wal-Mart is unlikely to be seriously hurt by it, some who don’t want to see the GOP in power will decide their money might better be spent visiting a local Target store.
Another likely impact: it’ll spur on those within Wal-Mart and outside the company who are clamoring for the company to unionize or pay better benefits because the story shows at least some corporate messages basically urging a holding-pattern voting in November — and a corporation that feels deeply enough about what November could bring to send out bigwigs to talk to store managers.
UJPDATE: An AP story has a stronger denial from the company. Here are the key quotes:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, denied a report Friday that it had pressured employees to vote against Democrats in November because of worries that a bill the party supports would make it easier for workers to unionize.
….Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar told The Associated Press that the company did discuss the bill with its employees, including what it sees as the negative impact, and noted that the company’s stand on the legislation is no secret.
“We believe the Employee Free Choice Act is a bad bill and we have been on the record as opposed to it,” he said.
But he said the company wasn’t advocating that its employees vote against backers of the legislation.
“If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression… they are wrong and acting without approval,” said Tovar. In fact, he said that Wal-Mart has been working with both Republicans and Democrats.
“Half of our (political action committee) contributions are to members of each party,” Tovar said. “We regularly educate our associates on issues which impact our company, and this is an example of that.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
31 Responses to “Wal-Mart Warns Store Managers Of Democratic Party Win”
[...] Original The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… [...]
I wonder if it's even legal to do this. I have no idea what the laws are on electioneering in the workplace. I know there are supposed to be laws restricted anti-union intimidation.
This should be a vote-getter for union members in Ohio, though. Nothing reminds them more of the stakes in politics than anti-union activities. It takes the attention off culture issues and back on economics.
WalMart opposes the union backed bill that would eliminate secret ballots for union certification votes.
This bill would allow union thugs to coerce workers into signing cards that appoint the union to represent them. No vote – no secret ballot. If you don’t sign the card when three or four of your union “brothers” show up at your door, you are on your own.
Tony Soprano wasn’t this blatant.
This is fascinating . . . and bizarre. Yes, like Elrod, I wonder whether this is even legal.
I know many progressives despise Wal-Mart, as do many Democrats on the Hill, but for a corporation to declare open war on a major party like this.
As Joe says, the reporting seems solid. Otherwise, I would believe this to be a fantasy.
Inexplicable. Illegal? Insane.
“union thugs”? Too funny. God forbid the people who work at Walmart should have any sort of authentic advocacy.
Jwest said: “WalMart opposes the union backed bill that would eliminate secret ballots for union certification votes.”
All well and good. But it is one thing to lobby and spread the bucks around to stop a bill . . . another to take on one of the two major parties that will inevitably – at some point in time – be in real power in Washington.
Defense lobbyists dole the bucks out on both sides of the aisle. Thus, when progressives howl about military spending . . . it falls on a deaf ear in Congress.
Bad business move. Stunning even. I expect to see more on this. Good find by Joe.
I'm sure Wal-Mart is against increasing the minimum wage, which is necessary since essentials like food and energy are soaring through the roof. Can you imagine that one hour of your take home pay is roughly equivalent to a gallon of gas?
And yet I don't recall Wal-Mart doing such shenanigans when the increased minimum wage was being discussed in Congress by the Dems. What is Wal-Mart suppose to say in meetings with employees, “We're against paying our employees fair wages”? Putting the debate as anti-Union and framing it the way that Wal-Mart has is more palatable and an easier sell for employees- especially because of the threat of those employees paying ” hefty union dues while getting nothing in return”.
The bottom line is that it means higher costs for Wal-Mart (and less profit for shareholders). But higher wages in this economy is essential, especially for those who earn the minimum wage or a little higher. I'm not putting forward a pro-Union argument here, simply a higher wage argument.
Leaving the actual issue (eliminating secret ballots) behind and concentrating just on the point of WalMart advocating for a particular candidate, people are asking “is it even legal”.
Of course it’s legal. It’s their right and duty to speak up for the interest of their company.
What is illegal and immoral is for unions to use member’s dues (without the member’s permission), under the guise of “issue advocacy” to blatantly support a candidate. Using their status as non-profit organizations, they are specifically prohibited from this type of activity.
They're afraid they won't be able to sue injured and disabled people back for money, after providing zero healthcare for minimum wage earners.
Walmart is not capitalism, it's rampant corporate oligarchy.
Walmart is shooting themselves in the foot. A Walmart big wig telling me how to vote is the equivalent of listening to my 80 year old brother-in-law. I'll pay attention out of respect for my sister, but I'll damn well do what I want to. Probably, out of plain spite, I'll do the opposite.
I'm not a union fan and agree that the bill is not a good idea. However, my brother went through a union vote one, the businesses was the “Tony Soprano” in that case, ANYONE who they found out supported it got fired or demoted.
I surprised that Walmart, and business in general, doesn't want them to make the unionization votes public so they could take tally of who votes yes.
“Walmart is not capitalism, it's rampant corporate oligarchy.”
… And I for one, welcome our new Corporate masters.
Quoting the WSJ article:
Who really has the power to illegally coerce employees?
Rambie,
Your brother’s union vote must have occurred around 1957. The NLRB has strict rules about demoting or firing anyone who was involved with a union drive.
99% of the time, the union is trying to organize in small to medium sized businesses. The unions have teams of lawyers not only looking for, but trying to promote incidents that they can use in lawsuits. Unions know that if they can cause enough trouble, the management will cave and certify the union.
I must say, it’s hard to believe that commenters who normally scream at any perceived loss of individual rights are not up in arms about this travesty of legislation.
From Ezra Klein:
But of course with jwest's hero running things the NLRB hasn't been enforcing much when it comes to protecting the rights of union organizers or other employees for a few years now.
Prove it.
Let's all agree that unions and corporations aren't 100% evil. Whew!
Chris,
Obviously, Ezra doesn’t understand the bill.
Read it. Right now, if 30% of the eligible workers sign a card the NLRB mandates a vote. The vote is a secret ballot, conducted directly under the supervision of the NLRB. If more than half the workers vote for the union, it is certified.
During the time between when the NLRB mandates the election and the actual election day, the company can’t make any statements or actions which could be perceived as retaliatory against any employee. After the election, regardless of outcome, demoting or firing without iron-clad, video taped, dozen-witness backed proof of an offense warranting such action is an invitation to an expensive lawsuit and possible criminal action.
Under the card check bill, the union can just show up at the worker’s house, strong-arm them into signing, and when they have 50% the union is certified.
Does that sound like a good idea to you?
I guess that management at Wal-Mart is smart enough to start thinking about what is going to happen after the election instead of worrying about television ads and poll numbers.
Wal-Mart will have to run a constant anti-union campaign. The union organizers will have to find a store that will be very hard to close. If the unions try to organize a Wal-Mart in a metropolitan area with lots of Wal-Marts, Wal-Mart will try to close the first store that using check card to certify a union. Such an action will send a clear message and be covered nationally.
Unions will have to be reminded that there is no way to force a private sector business to stay open. The unions are too used to organizing public sector employees.
[...] on the topic — all much more “thoughtful” and “civil” than my own: The Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman; Donklephant; Wake up [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… Copyright © internet sc_project=3641399; sc_invisible=1; [...]
Wal-Mart actually supported an increased minimum wage.
Believe it or not, but they actually pay well above the federal minimum wage.
They also support universal health care.
However, their support is not out of a sense of altruism.
They know that an increased minimum wage will hurt small businesses much more than their company. Thus, an easy way to increases market share.
They also know that most plans for universal health care involve passing the cost to higher income consumers. Not their target market. Plus no one will be able to complain about their health care plan anymore.
I think they are making a mistake with card check.
They should make a deal with the union that they will unionize all of Wal-Mart's competitors before coming to Wal-Mart.
The costs are just going to be passed along to the consumer anyway, and Wal-Mart has the economies of scale to still under price competitors if they all basically have the same union contract.
I believe many underestimate the fact that it is good to big in a social democracy.
It is even better if you are the biggest.
When jwest speaks, it's child's play to guess the sources of her one-sided information. and lack of ablity to see beyond the interests of that one side. Anything outside the box is suspicious evil, etc. etc.
Unions, in their heyday, became corrupt and overstepped the bounds of what is equitable and now corporations are doing the same, in spades. But after all the broohaha, we are back at he age-old struggle between labor and management.
Because labor is currently week, this just points to the need for unions. There have to be two parties at the negotions table in order to have our economy make sense to more than the privileged and wealthy. Without upward mobility, our democracy is destroyed, and we become a banana republic.
So, let's stop with the rants and accept that we need more equitable agreements between labor (via unions) and management (via their money power).
Interestingly, universal health care would take much pressure off both sides.
On the subject of the post, I would give credence to the denials by Wal-Mart brass, but not more so than to the original leaks.
This wouldn't be the first time Wal-Mart played fast and loose with what it divulges about its behind-the-scenes activities.
I would also note, that Wal-Mart, like all corporaitons, knows extremely well how to work the system to their benefit. They get tax breaks and subsidies to do the 'righ thing', and that good fortune is funded by taxpayers, even their own employees.
Many a fortune has been built on the backs of the workers who want to unionize for self protection.
Google News – Walmart & “labor violation”
Google – Walmart & “labor violation”
If there ever was a company that was a walking, talking advertisement for Unionization, Walmart is it.
Bush's Valentine to Wal-Mart: A Sweetheart Deal with its Department of Labor
USA Today – Wal-Mart widens political reach, giving primarily to GOP
jwest – I know you are against Unions spending members money without their explicit permission on candidate and issue advocacy. Do you feel the same way about Corporations spending my money as a stockholder on candidate and issue advocacy without my permission? Dpn't fall back on the old line I can vote with my feet and sell the stock because the same is true of a union member who can look for another job if he doesn't like what the union is doing.
What is good for the goose (corporations) is good for the gander (unions).
The rather uninformed kneejerk anti-union attitudes among some folks nowadays is getting stale. They have quickly forgotten (or perhaps didn't know in the first place) how much unions historically have kept the middle classes from being the lower classes in this country. Unions haven't been perfect, but neither has congress or the white house eh? The anti-union and deregulation beginning with the Reagan administration has NOT served this country well. Obsidian Wings has a good commentary on the bizz:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2…
I can't help but wonder if Wal-Mart's opposition to the Dems winning isn't so much their policies (and the Dems palms, as Marlowecan pointed out, can be greased) but rather Wal-Mart really doesn't want Obama to be prez.
There's been some question about the legality of Wal-Mart discouraging employees from voting for unionization… I think Wal-Mart is well within their rights to make their non-unionization preference known and to offer a balance to the union's efforts by trying to sell their employees on the benefits of voting against unionization. I believe it is illegal for Wal-Mart to intimidate employees from voting for unionization, or for Wal-Mart to take punitive measures (in whatever form) against those employees who do support unionization.
I heard about this on lefty radio. The lefty in question proceeded to make a fool of himself by overdoing it with his response, repeating his tiresome laughable position that we need to back to the days of the Big Three with no competition and (grossly overpaid) UAW-like jobs and benefits for workers. But he was right (only) insofar as he said that perhaps Wal-Mart could be held up as a model for the way things now are in this country (and use it as an enormous club against the GOP this November). “Back then, we used to have a GM Economy. Then, ever since rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrReagan came along, now we have a Wal-Mart economy!”
Well, New York, with its financial ruin coming once more (the city bankrupted itself mainly at the heel of the unions, by the mid-1970s, along with other liberal politics and policies), has “progressed” once more. Albany strikes again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/nyregion/24un…
If the state or city causes a true crisis later, they deserve no federal intervention.
Stockster: Wal-Mart probably sees danger in “progressives” coming to Washington as well as similar types flexing their muscles in a heavily Dem Congress next year, and overreaching to do things like pass laws that clearly have Wal-Mart in mind (this should in fact be unconstitutional, but the Dems don't and won't care), doing throught the USA what some playpen folks did in Maryland, for example.
More generally, there would be pushes for improved employee health benefits or other new impositions on business to make it “contribute its fair share” [sic] or in reality to do what Washington wants to see done with people but may be reluctant to do openly through federal programs. (Mandate on business instead, is the way to keep it quiet and less obvious.) As Wal-Mart is such a large employer, you can imagine that it would fear any Dem administration who would be responding do Barbara Ehrenreich-like complaints about the plight of working people in this country.
They're stupid to campaign openly (even if the media are doing that for Obama and that's okay as far as liberals are concerned).
Meanwhile, Obama continues to obscure or lack details of his agenda once he is inaugurated. More business- and economy-related details would be welcome, even if at worst case it resulted in prompt business and business-organization lobbying and advertising against it.
Walmart management just fears the likely outcome that Obama will win and this is a desperate attempt for them (the Walmart management) to try to put the BLAME on Obama in advance, for some big downsizing that's they know is coming whether or not Obama is our next president, union or not.