Wal-Mart mobilizes against Democrats: report

[BenPanced]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080801/us_nm/walmart_democrats_dc

(Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc is mobilizing U.S. store managers to lobby against Democrats in November's presidential election, fearing they will make it easier for workers to unionize, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=WWIN00wNc1hyOYUTSJMSVAuEDKNhSkiTEuYACSZq&T=19h3db0dp%2fX%3d1217598182%2fE%3d96281111%2fR%3d news%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d1 063890232%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PS JlbGVjdGlvbjtpdDtEZW1vY3JhdGljO3JlZnVybF93d3dfeWFo b29fY29tIiByZWZ1cmw9InJlZnVybF93d3dfeWFob29fY29tIi B0b3BpY3M9InJlZnVybF93d3dfeWFob29fY29tIg--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d23730D4C&U=13f45etul%2fN%3dIpczAUwNBlM-%2fC%3d674272.12804986.13083878.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d5406809%2fV%3d1
In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if store workers unionize, the paper said.
Apparently, when you work for Wal-Mart, you forfeit your free will.

[kuwisdelu]

God-dammit! Now I can't shop there anymore.

[Don]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080801/us_nm/walmart_democrats_dc


Apparently, when you work for Wal-Mart, you forfeit your free will.
I didn't see anything that resembled forcing the workers to forfeit their free will.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who have run the meetings didn't tell those attending how to vote in the November elections, but made it clear that voting for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, would be tantamount to inviting unions in, the Journals said.

They weren't told how to vote, but they were warned that an Obama administration will probably lead to unionization. Do you think that's inaccurate?

[shawkins]

They weren't told how to vote, but they were warned that an Obama administration will probably lead to unionization. Do you think that's inaccurate?

Well, I guess he's more likely to swing in the direction of unionization than McCain, but I don't recall it being a big part of his platform. Am I missing something?

Anyway, shouldn't Wal-Mart be more worried that he's going to fix the economy? Their stock always skyrockets during recession--no one can afford to shop anywhere else.

[kuwisdelu]

Oh, Wal-Mart... Since when are worker's not supposed to unionize? Did we just go back a hundred years and no one told me?

[Don]

Anyway, shouldn't Wal-Mart be more worried that he's going to fix the economy? Their stock always skyrockets during recession--no one can afford to shop anywhere else.
No, they shouldn't be worried he'll fix the economy. Universal healthcare and reparations will prevent that from happening.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I don't know - considering the number of preachers I see every election cycle preaching from the pulpit on who to vote for and who NOT to vote for, this doesn't surprise me.

[donroc]

And the unions will tell their membership how to vote ... and so it goes.

[robeiae]

And the unions will tell their membership how to vote ... and so it goes.
Now, now. That's different. Union leaders are only concerned with the welfare of their members...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
You buyin' that? ;)

[rugcat]

Oh, Wal-Mart... Since when are worker's not supposed to unionize? Did we just go back a hundred years and no one told me?Wal-mart is renowned for their union busting tactics. Their business model is simple; to sell stuff cheaper than anyone else, and it's suceeded brilliantly. One of the ways they manage that is to pay substandard wages and below average healh benefits to their employees.

A while back, whenever Wal-Mart employees tried to unionize, Wal-Mart simply closed the store in question and everyone lost their jobs. It didn't take long for the message to get across to those in other stores thinking about forming a union. And the unions will tell their membership how to vote ... and so it goes.That's a bit of knee jerk conservative "unions are bad" think. Many unions have indeed gotten out of hand over the years, but the fact is, when you have a powerful corperation on one hand (the Wal-Mart family fortune stands at some 98 billion dollars) and minimum wage workers on the other, the only way for the workers to improve their lot is through organizing.

There is a reason Wal-mart is so aggresively anti union, and it has nothing to do with the welfare of their workers.

[InfinityGoddess]

Not surprised, and glad that there are no Wal-Marts around here.

[Don]

Many unions have indeed gotten out of hand over the years, but the fact is, when you have a powerful corperation on one hand (the Wal-Mart family fortune stands at some 98 billion dollars) and minimum wage workers on the other, the only way for the workers to improve their lot is through organizing.
Yep, when one gang of thugs gives special powers to another gang of thugs to conduct business in ways that negatively impact their workers, the only practical thing to do is give additional special powers to yet another gang of thugs that can pretend they represent the workers.

Novel idea: take away all the power from all the gangs of thugs.

[oswann]

Novel idea: take away all the power from all the gangs of thugs.

Which gang of thugs do you propose has the power to disempower everyone?


Os.

[rugcat]

Now, now. That's different. Union leaders are only concerned with the welfare of their members...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
You buyin' that? ;)Aren't you the same guy who was defending CEOs, using the few bad apples theory, proclaiming most of them honest hardworking guys?

[kuwisdelu]

Novel idea: take away all the power from all the gangs of thugs.

Just how do you propose we do that without appointing at least one gang of thugs to keep all other gangs of thugs from self-appointing themselves special power?

And I'm not sure unions in their most basic form really have any "special power" other than the right to assembly?

[oswann]

And I'm not sure unions in their most basic form really have any "special power" other than the right to assembly?

:roll:Come over here to France. "Special power" is pretty much the only thing they have. They have no real power and represent only a tiny percentage of workers (mostly public servants who can't be fired anyway so the percentage of real workers who need representation still don't) and yet they manage to make governements tremble as soon as the weather is nice enough to organize a few protest marches.

Os.

[Don]

Just how do you propose we do that without appointing at least one gang of thugs to keep all other gangs of thugs from self-appointing themselves special power?
Yeah, that approach has worked out so well in places like central LA. Our current gang of thugs doesn't even promise to protect us from those other gangs of thugs.
And I'm not sure unions in their most basic form really have any "special power" other than the right to assembly?
There are lots (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp26.htm).

[robeiae]

Aren't you the same guy who was defending CEOs, using the few bad apples theory, proclaiming most of them honest hardworking guys?
I never said "honest."

Regardless, Union leadership directing the membership how to vote is no good. Corporate leadership directing employees how to vote is no good.

But I only see the former...

[kuwisdelu]

Yeah, that approach has worked out so well in places like central LA. Our current gang of thugs doesn't even promise to protect us from those other gangs of thugs.

That doesn't really answer the question.

There are lots (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp26.htm).

Half of those are for workers in general, not unions, and the other half are simply protecting rights that employers should have been recognizing in the first place, not granting power.

[BenPanced]

I didn't see anything that resembled forcing the workers to forfeit their free will.

They weren't told how to vote, but they were warned that an Obama administration will probably lead to unionization. Do you think that's inaccurate?
Using fear tactics and scare mongering? Yeah, I'd say that's an attempt to sway how their employees' are voting, considering how Wal-Mart's have closed stores that have tried to unionize in the past.

[oswann]

I never said "honest."



At least we're "hardworking". ;)

Os.

[robeiae]

Honesty is over-rated. What's it done for me?

[Captshady]

Using fear tactics and scare mongering? Yeah, I'd say that's an attempt to sway how their employees' are voting, considering how Wal-Mart's have closed stores that have tried to unionize in the past.

It's their right to do that, just as it's the employee's right to start and join unions.

The fear tactics work on both sides of the fence. Isn't it unions that have coined the term "scab" to refer to someone that's NOT union? Someone that crosses a picket line? As far as I know, it wasn't a term of affection, and "scabs" have been terrorized in their homes.

[jennontheisland]

Might work out well in the long run for Walmart.

People don't leave union gigs so it would stop turnover, and with unions you don't have to train people for their promotions, you just bump them up after the appropriate amount of time served.

[donroc]

Wal-mart is renowned for their union busting tactics. Their business model is simple; to sell stuff cheaper than anyone else, and it's suceeded brilliantly. One of the ways they manage that is to pay substandard wages and below average healh benefits to their employees.

A while back, whenever Wal-Mart employees tried to unionize, Wal-Mart simply closed the store in question and everyone lost their jobs. It didn't take long for the message to get across to those in other stores thinking about forming a union.That's a bit of knee jerk conservative "unions are bad" think. Many unions have indeed gotten out of hand over the years, but the fact is, when you have a powerful corperation on one hand (the Wal-Mart family fortune stands at some 98 billion dollars) and minimum wage workers on the other, the only way for the workers to improve their lot is through organizing.

There is a reason Wal-mart is so aggresively anti union, and it has nothing to do with the welfare of their workers.

Where did I say unions are bad? I was describing the is of unions.

[rugcat]

Regardless, Union leadership directing the membership how to vote is no good. Corporate leadership directing employees how to vote is no good.It's no different than any other campaigning. No one is directing people. They are making a case of why a particular candidate would be better than another for workers they have been elected to represent.

Special interests on all sides urge people to vote in specific ways on specific issues and for specific candidates. The voter can listen to them or not, as they choose.

[Joe270]

It's no different than any other campaigning. No one is directing people. They are making a case of why a particular candidate would be better than another for workers they have been elected to represent.

Hmmm. So how's it different when the business 'makes a case' and the union 'makes a case'.

Seems to me that the business, which is providing a paying job, is on higher ground than the Union, which takes income from the workers.

[BenPanced]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_bi_ge/wal_mart_politics

Wal-Mart denies that it told employees how to vote

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - 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.

The measure, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. It was co-sponsored by Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, and opposed by John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee.

Apparently, the meetings were only meant to discuss this bill's impact on the hive the company and not to pressure anybody into voting for anybody.

*puts away torches and pitchforks*

[rugcat]

Hmmm. So how's it different when the business 'makes a case' and the union 'makes a case'.

Seems to me that the business, which is providing a paying job, is on higher ground than the Union, which takes income from the workers.There is no difference if the employee isn't threatened with retaliation by either for an "incorrect" vote.

But the line I always hear is how union leaders "dictate" who the members will vote for. That characterization is nothing more than an ideological slant from those who disapprove of the concept of unions.

[clintl]

Seems to me that the business, which is providing a paying job, is on higher ground than the Union, which takes income from the workers.

If the union is doing its job, the deal it gets for its members will pay for the dues several times over. If that wasn't true, certain businesses wouldn't work as hard as they do to keep unions out.

[Joe270]

If the union is doing its job, the deal it gets for its members will pay for the dues several times over. If that wasn't true, certain businesses wouldn't work as hard as they do to keep unions out.

Not all unions get their workers higher salaries than non-union workers. As an example, non-union Exxon pays much higher wages for employees than the union companies pay. It's Exxon's way to keep out the unions.

Unions don't do much for the average worker. With today's labor laws, the job security aspect which unions tout is really just as secure for a non-union employee who knows his/her rights under the law.

In reality, unions can, and have often, cost employees jobs because of their practice of blocking technology in the workplace (ref: UAW and robotics in the auto industry, tech in the US steel industry) because the company becomes less competitive to foreign shops which use the better tech. That leads to decreased sales and fewer jobs. Ultimately, the union could cause the business to fail, losing all the jobs. They've done it before, they'll do it again.

[johnnysannie]

If you have ever worked for Wal-Mart - I did, for about a year, fifteen years ago - then you might better grasp how poorly workers are treated, what few benefits most Wal-Mart employees really have, and might think that a union might be a good thing for Wal-Mart employees.

I'm pro Union, which affects my point of view but as it stands now, most Wal-Mart workers, most especially those in store employees at the Super Centers, get the shaft every day from higher up.