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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/nyregion/24un…

If the state or city causes a true crisis later, they deserve no federal intervention.

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.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2…

What is good for the goose (corporations) is good for the gander (unions).

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

ust when you think the Bush administration's corrupt dealing with corporate America can't go any lower, they achieve the seemingly impossible and surprise you. Not content to just slap Wal-Mart on the wrist with a tiny $135,540 fine for violating child labor laws (a fine equivalent to about 15 seconds of sales for the company), the Bush Department of Labor (DOL) entered into an unprecedented sweetheart deal with the giant retailer to essentially exempt it from ever having to pay government fines for wage violations again.

The Sweetheart Deal: Here are the key provisions:

1) All local DOL investigations of Wal-Mart will be put on hold, and any wage complaints by workers will be sent to the Little Rock DOL office.

2) That Little Rock DOL office will then turn over the complaints to Wal-Mart corporate headquarters without further investigation.

3) Wal-Mart will then have fifteen days to “fix” the problem.

4) If DOL then goes in and still finds a labor violation, Wal-Mart will still have ten days to pay any wages owed and avoid any financial penalty.

5) Oh yeah, one last fun provision. The deal was initially kept secret and Wal-Mart retained the right to okay how the DOL talked about the agreement to the press. How Hollywood of Wal-Mart to retain creative control on Bush's press operations.

The bottom line is that no corporation has ever been given this kind of comprehensive “get out of jail free card” by the Department of Labor. Wal-Mart will have every incentive to violate the law recklessly. Even if they are caught underpaying a few employees, they can simply pay back the wages owed with no fine, while pocketing the profit from underpaying the many workers who will inevitably never challenge the employer's illegal activity. But then that's the point of this kind of “notice” provision; it guts wage laws and discourages enforcement.

USA Today – Wal-Mart widens political reach, giving primarily to GOP

Wal-Mart (WMT), the USA's biggest company, is beefing up in a new area: politics.
Wal-Mart is No. 2 among top campaign givers in the 2004 federal elections.
By Robert E. Klein, AP

It has rocketed to No. 2 among top campaign givers in the 2004 federal elections. Four years ago, it didn't rank in the top 100, says the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan watchdog group.
Republican candidates are the big winners in this year's election. They received about 85% of the company's contributions, including those of its political action committee, employees and children of founder Sam Walton.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Prove it.

The odds that Democrats would pass card check — which would make it so workers would have a vote on whether they want a union, as opposed to the current situation where they can't even get an election called before they're fired — always struck me as remote.

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.

On June 30 the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Wal-Mart illegally fired an employee in Kingman, Ariz., who supported the UFCW and illegally threatened to freeze merit-pay increases if employees voted for union representation. The decision came eight years after the organizing campaign failed, and four years after the case was originally heard.[emphasis added by me]

Who really has the power to illegally coerce employees?