« New Economy Shocker: GM Loses $15.5 Billion In Quarter
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/01/08 »



Wal-Mart Warns Store Managers Of Democratic Party Win

August 1st, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Print Print

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.”



This entry was posted on Friday, August 1st, 2008 at 6:49 am and is filed under John McCain, Consumerism, Republican Party, Newsweek Blogitics, Corporations, Barack Obama, Politics, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Republicans, Business. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 28 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    "union thugs"? Too funny. God forbid the people who work at Walmart should have any sort of authentic advocacy.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v