Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update For Elected Officials

Here’s a current story regarding WalMarts Political Action Committee~~~~~~~~Walmart expands political activityMonday, August 11 (updated 8:09 am)
By Mark Binker

Walmart PAC donations
Walmart’s Political Action Committee has given $54,000 to state-level candidates this election cycle. Among the recipients:

* Hugh Holliman, D, Lexington: $1,000
* Nelson Cole, D, Reidsville, $500
* Harold Brubaker, R, Asheboro, $250
* Jerry Tillman, R, Archdale, $1,000
* Kay Hagan, D, Greensboro, $250
* Phil Berger, R, Eden, $500
* Roy Cooper, D, attorney general candidate, $1,000
* Janey Cowell, D, state treasurer candidate, $500
* Pat McCrory, R, candidate for governor, $3,500
- Walmart may be the world’s largest retailer, but until recently its footprint in North Carolina politics has been anything but big box.

That is changing as the company’s federal political action committee expands its donations to candidates seeking state office, including $54,000 to state-level candidates during the current election cycle, which began in December 2006 and will continue through November.

Before 2004, the company’s PAC gave no money to North Carolina legislative candidates.

“The point of being involved in the PAC process is to build relationships with these individuals, to help them understand what Walmart is doing to be a solution provider,” said E.R. Anderson, a company spokeswoman who returned phone calls placed to the PAC’s treasurer.

She listed transportation, health care and environmental regulation as issues about which the company is concerned.

Officially known as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. PAC for Responsible Government, the retailer’s political arm is getting national media attention. In April, the Center for Public Integrity revealed how the company induced managers to give to the PAC by matching their donations to one of the company’s charitable arms. Last week, the Wall Street Journal detailed how the company was encouraging its employees to vote against Democrats in U.S. Senate campaigns because of concerns over pro-labor union legislation.

In North Carolina, the PAC seems to support candidates with business-friendly reputations.

“I cannot recall any particular issue they’ve approached me about,” Berger said. Rather, his best recollection is that company lobbyists have come by for get-to-know-you meetings, while more specific concerns were handled by industry trade groups.

Still, the company has good reason to take a greater interest in state policy.

Walmart is the state’s largest nongovernment employer, according to the N.C. Employment Security Commission. It has five distribution centers in North Carolina and, according to the company, more than 52,700 workers.

Between Sam’s Clubs, supercenters and other stores, Walmart has 151 retail locations in the state.

All of that, say legislators and other political observers, gives the company ample interest in state laws.
Earlier in the company’s history, Walmart was welcomed into most states and communities as an economic engine.

But during the past decade, resistance to the company has grown in some circles. In particular some state legislatures have tried to impose restrictions on the size and appearance of big-box retailers. In another example, Maryland in 2006 passed a law that required Walmart to spend more on employee health care.

It’s the legislatures that determine zoning laws. They’re the ones that write the right-to-work laws.~~~~~~~~Note: And that’s WHY WalMart is lobbying for influence.

:

The actual title of the PAC is:  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. PAC for Responsible Government; 575 7th St, NWSte 350 Washington, DC 20004

PAC for Responsible Government

Sounds great, but responsible to whom? Business? I think we’ve had enough of that. Time for citizens,(workers, consumers) to catch up.

There is a fundamental and inevitable conflict between the interests of corporations, to whom wages are a cost, and most human beings, to whom wages are a means of survival. ~ Stan Cox

THE UFCW:

Basic Facts

Total Assets: $ 149,534,747
Members: 1,304,061
Employees: 494
Employees earning over $75,000: 135
Decertification Petitions Filed: 300

United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW)
National Headquarters
1775 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006

The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) represents approximately 1.3 million U.S. employees in industries ranging from meatpacking and food processing to manufacturing and retail grocers. In July 2005, it broke away from the AFL-CIO to join the new Change To Win labor coalition.
Striking Out For Its Members

In 2004, UFCW leaders led 60,000 members in a disastrous strike against southern California grocery chains. UFCW members collectively lost 4.58 million days of work, with terrible consequences for workers. The environmental publication High Country News described it as “a brutal strike that cost millions in lost wages, and resulted in broken marriages, lost homes and cars, and even suicides.” Even then, the publication noted, when the strike was settled, “some workers have had their wages and benefits slashed.”

Pro-Member Or Just Anti-Business?

“If we can’t organize [nonunion supermarkets],” says Tom McNutt, president of Local 400 of the UFCW, “the best thing to do is to erode their business as much as possible.” This is the slash-and-burn theory driving UFCW’s political-style PR offensive against Wal-Mart. Because the union has failed to organize workers at the chain, its leaders want to harm the company’s bottom line and its employees.

“Organizing is war,” according to longtime UFCW leader Joe Crump, and that means harassing nonunion employers and “costing them enough time and energy and money to either eliminate them or get them to surrender to the union.” He added that employers must be made to “pay for operating nonunion.” In an article titled “The Pressure is On: Organizing Without the NLRB,” Crump wrote: After a three-year struggle, the battle with Family Foods is over. Do we represent the employees? No. The company went out of business ... Perhaps even more important is the message that had been sent to nonunion competitors: There is no “free lunch” in our jurisdiction.

Speaking about the same campaign, former UFCW president Doug Dority argued that his union “must either reduce these chains’ market share ... or we must put them out of business. There is no other option.”

UFCW’s Well-Funded Officers

In 2004, a longtime leader of UFCW Local 1776 said, “I think salaries are a problem. They’re too low for too many people, but too high for a few.” That same year: The International union headquarters paid former president Doug Dority more than $700,000 in salary and benefits.  The International paid $309,000 to retired executive vice president Sarah Amos and another $256,000 to retired International executive vice president Michael Leonard—again, as salary. 262 UFCW officials across the country made more than $100,000 in salary.

(con’t)

Historical Low Points

UFCW leaders have faced allegations of extorting businesses and misusing their members’ dues for lavish lifestyles:

In late 2005, the former assistant to the president of UFCW International, Joseph DiFlumera, was sentenced for mail fraud, racketeering, and extorting more than $1.5 million from a grocery chain. DiFlumera told prosecutors that he would offer an “insurance policy” that allowed a company to “come under the umbrella” of protection from union organizing. DiFlumera “repeatedly advised these individuals that the monies paid to him were handed over to the president of Local 1445 and the UFCW. The defendant insisted that if these monies were not paid by the company the company would suffer extreme economic harm.”

Former UFCW International secretary-treasurer Joseph Talarico pled guilty to his role in embezzling $2 million from Local 1. He was ordered to pay $1.1 million in restitution. In related indictments for defrauding UFCW, his son was sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to repay $81,000 in embezzled funds; his daughter was sentenced to a year of probation and ordered to repay $26,000; and his brother pled guilty to embezzling $650,000 from the union. Together, the four family members made more than $1 million in salaries from the local in 1996.

In 1993, Newsday reported that UFCW founder William Wynn traveled in a $5 million union-owned jet plane and sold his house to the union for $620,000 (nearly twice the appraised price)—and continued to live there for at least three years. The paper reported that in addition to Wynn’s salary of $263,000 ($346,000 adjusted for inflation), he was reimbursed for $80,000 in expenses the previous year. It further noted that a reformer seeking to unseat Wynn “said that Wynn’s salary and perks are a disgrace when put in the context of the incomes of the workers he represents” and had research that showed “Wynn’s salary rose 122 percent from 1980 to 1992, while the average meat packing worker’s wages went up 3 percent over that period.” ~ unionfacts.com

Exposing the Opposition: The Facts on the Critics of the Employee Free Choice Act
While pretending to protect the well-being of U.S. workers, anti-union corporate special interests are tripping over each other and sparing no expense to bully lawmakers, misinform the public, and oppose free choice for workers. Here are a few facts on who’s behind the attack on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act

Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW)
The deceptively-titled astroturf group claims a workers’ rights agenda and a grassroots base representing “rank-and-file workers from across the country” who are opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act.

MEMBERSHIP: Grassroots claim conceals corporate agenda.  CDW masquerades as a workers’ rights group, mimicking the rhetoric and even logo of legitimate organizations.  Not surprisingly, no workers are named as members on CDW’s website, but hundreds of national, deep-pocketed groups and their affiliates are—including the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Retail Federation.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The nation’s most powerful business lobbying organization co-chairs the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.

RESOURCES: The Chamber’s war chest.  In 2006, the Chamber spent a record $72 million on lobbying.  VP for labor policy Randel Johnson told The New York Times, “We’ve targeted [The Employee Free Choice Act] as our No. 1 or No. 2 priority to defeat.”

TACTIC: CDW and Chamber join forces to make “people feel pain.” Operating from the same playbook and talking points, both CDW and the Chamber have launched extensive media campaigns in target states to shame and reprimand House Representatives who voted to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, and intimidate Senators out of following suit.  In a Congress Daily article about the expensive ad buy, a Chamber spokesperson said, “We’re making people feel pain.”
Center for Union Facts
This PR-focused front group creates lavish ads and relentless spin to try to damage the public image of unions and further an anti-union business climate.

LEADERSHIP: Alcohol, tobacco, and fast food industry hired gun Rick Berman.  The group is a creation of notorious industry lobbyist and PR flak Richard Berman, who has mounted campaigns for his corporate backers to relax drunken driving laws, discount public health concerns about obesity, and prevent increases in the minimum wage.

TACTIC: Over-the-top radio, TV, and print ads.  In August 2006, Montana’s Attorney General Mike McGrath called the Center’s $1 million ad campaign attacking public employees “inaccurate” and “demeaning.” Similarly, a number of television stations refused to air commercials produced by the Center in 2006.

TACTIC: Playing loose and dirty with the facts.  Berman routinely misinterprets data, grossly exaggerates, and offers dubious statistics to further the agenda of his corporate clients.  For example, as the Senate launched hearings and introduced the Employee Free Choice Act in March 2007, the Center released misleading figures based on National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) data that minimized the number of illegal firings during union election campaigns.  Both Republican and Democratic Senate staff requested clarification on the group’s claims from the NLRB.  Staff at the NLRB swiftly responded to report Berman’s data cannot be substantiated.~~~~~~~~American Rights at Work

It may be surprising for some to see a government agency working with Berman.  In spite of its duty to protect workers, the Bush Department of Labor (DOL) appears to be a close supporter of the Center for Union Facts and Richard Berman, raising questions about possible impropriety by agency officials.  The Washington Post leaked that Lynn Gibson, a DOL public affairs employee, sent an email to all DOL staff recommending that they visit the Center’s website.  Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued the DOL to disclose any contact that may have occurred between Berman and DOL staff.  DOL has now released some documents revealing that Gibson had frequent correspondence and a meeting with Sarah Longwell of the Center, as well as Berman’s ties to DOL Secretary Elaine Chao.  In 2004, Chao participated in a PR campaign for one of Berman’s projects, the First Jobs Institute.  Chao also wrote Berman a letter thanking him for sharing the Employment Roundtable’s position against raising the minimum wage. 
The Center for Union ‘Facts’?  The Center for Union Facts’ website features a searchable database of the ‘facts’ it proclaims “union leaders don’t want you to know.”
The Center claims to have 12.5 million of these facts, but much of the data presented on its website range from misleading to downright false.  .
Questions Raised about Berman’s Operations and Methods
Corresponding with a dubious, selective use of facts, Berman’s methods have raised questions over the years: 

Berman under scrutiny for alleged Enron-like shell game.  Berman’s suspect role running both the non-profit CCF and for-profit Berman & Company—which has received millions from CCF—prompted CREW to request the IRS revoke CCF’s tax-exempt, ‘non-profit’ status.  CREW charged that Berman privately benefited from CCF, and that the front group had no charitable purpose.45 CREW’s request is still pending and its investigation continues. ~~~~~~~~~~~American Rights at Work

Wal-Mart Lover George McGovern Throws Unions Under the Bus For His Lobbyist Friend, Rick Berman
By: Ian Welsh Monday August 11, 2008~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, in case you were wondering why George McGovern decided to go off the deep end on the Employee Free Choice Act, it turns out he’s already been swimming in it for some time. It’s safe to say George McGovern is a patsy for anti-union lobbyist Rick Berman, the leader of a $30 million front group interfering in key Senate and House races this cycle. McGovern sits on the board of FirstJobs, another pro-business Berman front group, alongside the likes of Bush Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, the editorial page director of the Washington Times, and the head of Sam’s Club. ~~~~~~~~~Firedoglake

If we must break the rules, I like RDS’ version, better…

Don’t Trust the Facts at the Center for Union ‘Facts’
Richard Berman is routinely questioned in the media about his agenda, his funders, his tactics, and his claims.  His firms often dispute solid science, grossly exaggerate, and offer dubious or erroneous statistics to further the agenda of his industrial clients, whether by claiming there isn’t much evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer, or by disputing the existence of a public health crisis linked to obesity.  Therefore, it should be of no surprise that the “union facts” presented on the Center for Union Facts’ website range from misleading to downright false.  Take a look at our closer inspection of some of its supposed 12.5 million ‘facts’ it proclaims “union leaders don’t want you to know.”

Dubious ‘Facts’ on Union Operations and Leadership

The Center claims:
“Total Union Officials and Staff Compensation in 2004: $3.7 billion.”70

»These figures are bloated – either deliberately or because the Center does not understand government data.  Further, the figures are dwarfed in comparison to CEO pay:
The above figures are derived from the total ‘compensation’ data issued by the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor Management Standards, which strangely lumps together both salary and reimbursements for such expenses as business-related travel.  It is atypical for anyone to measure out-of-pocket travel expenses as part of any employee’s salary.  The figures the Center uses are therefore bloated and misleading.  Other analyses of union leader compensation—which explicitly separate salary from business expenses—exist, such as the Bureau of National Affairs’ compilation. 

Berman’s discussion of union leader compensation is conveniently silent about the growing wage gap between CEOs and the U.S. workforce.  Berman’s selective use of facts here is an apparent attempt to shift the debate about what really matters to America’s workers: unfair, excessive CEO pay.  In considering the salaries of union officials, it’s important to place them in context.  In 2004, the median salary for a union president from the 20 largest unions was $246,000.72 In stark contrast, CEOs of the 350 largest public companies earned a median of $975,000 in base salary, and $7 million in total direct compensation in 2004.  Salaries for union presidents are also dwarfed by the salaries paid to directors of NONprofit trade associations.  The National Journal cited such top earners as Jack Valenti, former head of the Motion Picture Association of America, whose 2004 exit package exceeded $11 million; Thomas Donahue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who earned nearly $7 million in pay and benefits in 2004; The Journal also noted 14 directors of trade associations who earned more than $1 million a year and who received generous payouts upon exiting the organizations. 

It is important to note that the government only tracks the compensation of union officials, but not CEO pay.  It would be interesting if the government required such financial disclosures from Richard Berman and his network of front groups.  But it’s not likely to happen considering Berman’s close ties to the Department of Labor.

The Center claims:
“Total Union Political Action Committees Registered in the 2004 cycle:  368
Union PAC Money Spent on Political Candidates (2003-2004): $84.8 million”

»Yet corporations spend dramatically more on politics than unions:
In 2004, there were 1,756 corporate PACs, more than five times the number of labor PACs, and these corporate PACs spent more than twice as much as labor PACs.  When combining PAC money with soft and individual donations, business far outspends labor.  According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data, businesses spent nearly 25 times the amount spent by labor in the 2004 political cycle. ~~~~~~~American Rights to Work

New York Times
Published: July 18, 2008
It should surprise no one, at this point, that an arm of the Bush administration charged with protecting Americans’ rights or safety is not doing its job. Even so, a government report and a Congressional hearing this week painted a disturbing picture of a Labor Department that simply is not standing up for workers.

President Bush has filled top posts across his administration with people who do not agree with the missions of their organizations. His Environmental Protection Agency has failed to protect the environment; his Justice Department has promoted injustice.

To lead the Department of Labor, Mr. Bush appointed Elaine Chao, who took office in 2001 arguing that states should be able to opt out of the federal minimum wage — a terrible idea that would drive down wages for the lowest-paid employees. For more than seven years, Ms. Chao has run a department that has tilted toward employers and failed to properly enforce labor laws.

In a report released this week, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office took a close look at a sampling of cases handled — or, rather, mishandled — by the Wage and Hour Division of the Labor Department. It found that the division failed to adequately investigate complaints that workers were not paid the minimum wage, were denied mandatory overtime or were not paid their last paychecks.

In one case, a delivery truck driver complained that he was not being paid for overtime that he had earned. The complaint languished for more than 17 months before an investigator was assigned. Then, the case was soon closed because the statute of limitations was about to run out.

The division dropped another case, in which disabled children were allegedly being paid cash by a trucking company to operate large machinery in violation of child-labor laws, because its investigators could not locate the employer. The G.A.O. had little trouble finding a company that appears to be the one cited in the complaint.

The G.A.O.’s findings suggest that the government is not doing its job of going after employers who “cheat their employees out of their hard-earned wages,” said Representative George Miller, the California Democrat who chairs the committee that held this week’s hearing.

The Labor Department responded, as The Times’s Steven Greenhouse reported, that the “Wage and Hour Division is delivering pay for workers, not a payday for trial lawyers.” The department has it exactly backward. By failing to enforce the law, it is creating more work for trial lawyers, who can turn what should be simple administrative procedures into full-blown lawsuits.

Attacking trial lawyers is a classic Republican talking point. Its use in response to complaints from hard-working Americans that they are being cheated is a giveaway that the real problem at the department is not one of competence, but of ideology.

The first step in getting the nation’s laws enforced again will be entrusting enforcement to people who believe in them. We hope the next president will do that~~~~~~~~AMEN!

If we must break the rules...

You and Mary are two peas in a right-wingnut pod.

nomomaniac: someone completely obsessed with rules.

To paraphrase The Treasure of the Sierra Madre..

Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ RULES!

You and Mary are two peas in a right-wingnut pod.

Yeah, yeah, I know this is an election year and you people have to work to get your guy elected.

If that be the case, why don’t you and “the lady from Google news” go join some political website, where you might feel more at home?

bb: Are you not allowed political commentary?

bbrd,

And they complain about Wal-Mart informing their employees, while they are campaining FOR Obama!!  Also, how many times has the anti side said, “This is a Wal-Mart site”, guess now, it’s an anti conservative - OBAMA site too!!

ddrb can complain about the article I posted and say it is not factual, I say, PROVE it is false, don’t just post something from someone else, SAYING it is false!!  I know one thing for sure, she can’t dispute the Cal. grocery strike results!!

I don’t think Wal-Mart employees really want a union like the UFCW!!

..how many times has the anti side said, “This is a Wal-Mart site”...(?)

Um...NEVER!

This is an anti Wal-Mart site. :o)

Ken V,

“Um...NEVER!

This is an anti Wal-Mart site. :o)”

Sorry, I left out the ‘anti’, but, my point was, that it is a UNION anti Wal-Mart site, not a pro-Obama site!!

““If we can’t organize [nonunion supermarkets],” says Tom McNutt, president of Local 400 of the UFCW, “the best thing to do is to erode their business as much as possible.””

““Organizing is war,” according to longtime UFCW leader Joe Crump, and that means harassing nonunion employers and “costing them enough time and energy and money to either eliminate them or get them to surrender to the union.”...In an article titled “The Pressure is On: Organizing Without the NLRB,” Crump wrote: After a three-year struggle, the battle with Family Foods is over. Do we represent the employees? No. The company went out of business.”

Wal-Mart employees should heed the above statements by the union officials!!

And they complain about Wal-Mart informing their employees, while they are campaining...

Funny thing how things work, around here, RDS—it’s all good, so long as it goes their way...anything different happens - watch-out!

Also, how many times has the anti side said, “This is a Wal-Mart site”...

RDS, I don’t think even the powers-that-be who operate WMW even know which way they want to operate (one week, it’s “play nice”; a week later, it’s back to the same old bag of tricks).

Bottom line - this is an election year, and these people would vote for a wet dish rag* if they knew it would further their cause…

*Anti-Ken-twisting Disclaimer - I was speaking (literally) of a dish rag, which can be had for under a buck at fine stores, everywhere - not the two major presidential candidates.

Speaking of “old rags”...nah, I’d best not go there (in the interest of playing by the rules)…

*Anti-Ken-twisting Disclaimer

Are you still here?

Sorry, I left out the ‘anti’, but, my point was...

No matter what you call it, pro-candidate/anti-store, it’s all the same thing to this reader.

...costing them enough time and energy and money to either eliminate them or get them to surrender to the union.

Recent, ongoing attempts which come to mind is the family-owned Basha’s chain in Arizona and UK/Tesco-owned “Fresh & Easy” on the West Coast.

I’m sure there’s even more, out there...like the lower-profile union needling of Target Corp., since that company recently enetered the grocery business.

I don’t think even the powers-that-be who operate bbrd even know which way they want to operate (one week, it’s “play nice”; a week later, it’s back to the same old bag of tricks....................

Ken V,

“This is an anti Wal-Mart site. :o)”

Let’s look at the WMW mission statement, to see what they claim this site to be, shall we:

“Our aim is real change—transparent and lasting—to benefit Wal-Mart communities.”

That sounds more Pro Wal-Mart’s future through change, than being anti Wal-Mart and trying to put them out of business!! I think if you want a true Anti Wal-Mart site, you need to go to WakeUpWalMart.com !!

Between you and me, if Wal-Mart employees wanted a union, they would be better off with the SEIU, than the UFCW!!

Our aim is real change-

If you’re pro “real change”, then it stands to reason you would be anti the status quo and in this case the status quo is Wal-Mart.

...than being anti Wal-Mart...

Once again you confuse the mission statement of this blog and the motivation of those who comment here. There are a handful of pro Wal-Mart regulars, how come the comment section of this blog isn’t known as pro Wal-Mart?

Rather than risk disobeying Ms Alex’s strict rules, I won’t tell you what I think.