11 comments

---

Over the summer, we heard from many employees that Wal-Mart was in many ways openly opposing the candidacy of Barack Obama for president. When the Wall Street Journal published a front page story on August 1st on the allegations of manager meetings where workers were no-so-subtley urged to vote for John McCain, the issue became a national news sensation.

We’d assumed that the story was mostly over, but the Mississippi Clarion-Ledger today makes a new allegation that we haven’t seen printed before:

Wal-Mart, in response to reports that it had banned employees from speaking Obama’s name while at work, said it is discouraging its employees from engaging in certain political discourse on the job.

“One of the basic beliefs of our company is respect for the individual,” Wal-Mart corporate spokeswoman Ashley Hardie said in an e-mail statement.

“We are a bipartisan company and our associates reflect the wide range of attitudes and political diversity of this country. We prefer to maintain a politically neutral working and shopping environment in our stores,” Hardie said. “As such politically charged discussions are discouraged in order to ensure individual beliefs are respected.”

Any of our employee friends want to comment on this? We’ve heard stories hinting at this sort of thing, but not (to my knowledge) alleging an outright ban on mentioning a presidential candidate’s name in the store. One would assume that the story is true - given that Wal-Mart actually responded to the allegations, and didn’t even try to deny it.

Needless to say, it’s not a policy that jives well with Lee Scott’s recent love letter to our new President-Elect. 

2 comments

---

Despite its best efforts, Wal-Mart could not hold off Barack Obama and the incoming Democratic wave hitting our nation’s capital. When asked about the election results, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, in a letter to associates, said Wal-Mart was committed to working with either party.

“A number of associates asked me how our company viewed the election and what our post-election plans were. I told those associates that this is clearly a time of great opportunity for our country, and also a time of great challenge. I reminded them that last June I said that Wal-Mart looked forward to working with the new President and Congress, regardless of party, to find solutions to our challenges. We are even more committed to that objective today.”

Talk about revisionist history. Wal-Mart, since the beginning of the campaign, made it clear to everyone that the company would rather deal with John McCain. While disappointment is in the air in Bentonville, regular associates around the country should rejoice. Now workers have an advocate in the White House!

So where does Wal-Mart go from here? It looks like Wal-Mart has decided to hire a new set of “reputation warriors” and other government relations personnel to mislead inform Congress about two key issues – health care and sustainability. These new directors will beg for mercy advocate for Wal-Mart’s interests on Capitol Hill.

I think we are all familiar with Wal-Mart’s benefits package and green campaign. Good luck to the brave souls who fill these positions, you will need all the help you can get.

24 comments

---

Hey, Wal-Mart?  Do you feel the winds blowing today?  Ah, yes, the winds of change. Indeed, that key demographic of Wal-Mart women across the country surely voted their pocketbooks and their consciences - and helped the electorate hand a decisive victory to Senator Barack Obama.

You can bet the Walton family and CEO Lee Scott weren’t doing a victory dance last night when the election was called for Obama.  Oh, sure the company’s pr and gov relations guy, Leslie Dach has tried really, really, really, really hard recently (especially as things were looking really promising for Obama) to convince everyone that Wal-Mart was “non-partisan” – even going so far as to air infomercials for both candidates in the company’s stores.  But, those “non-partisan” activities, like so many things Wal-Mart does are mere distractions from what the company was really up to.

In August, the Wall Street Journal exposed Wal-Mart’s mandatory meetings to attempt to instruct its employees to vote against Democrats and Senator Obama – oh, sure they nuanced the message in some settings, but the point was clear.  And, the company implemented a plan at the beginning of 2008 to train all of its managers how to fight the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) should Obama be elected.  During the presidential campaign, we saw anti-EFCA ads (and anti-Obama – walking the legal line in various forms) from several different organizations - including (but, not limited to): the Workforce Fairness Institute; Center for Union Facts; The Center for Consumer Freedom and of course, the Employment Policies Institute.  Since these groups don’t disclose all of their contributors, it’s hard to prove that Wal-Mart gave them money, but we have a pretty good idea that Wal-Mart invested a nice chunk of change in their efforts. Maybe someone should ask Wal-Mart.

For the past eight years, Wal-Mart has had a free pass to trample workers’ rights - in part due to the ineffectiveness of the NLRB – and in part due to a system that has favored employers.  The company’s business model of paying appallingly low wages, offering catastrophic, unaffordable health care plans, forcing employees to forgo overtime pay, manipulating employees’ schedules as punishment for standing up to the company, discriminating against employees and a host of other issues – evident from a multitude of lawsuits - and from the mouths of employees themselves - is finally in jeopardy. 

Yep, change is coming.  With an Obama presidency and the Democratic gains in Congress, average Americans – including Wal-Mart workers - will once more have a say and stand a chance of getting a fair shake.  Wal-Mart knows it – and fears it.

Expect to see the company increase its lobbying expenditures in the next few months and ramp up its efforts to mislead its employees about EFCA – which by the way, could finally give its employees the ability to stand up to the company.  And, expect to see even worse treatment of employees to send a clear message to them about who is still in charge (and Wal-Mart just doesn’t ever seem to learn on this front). 

35 comments

---

So, apparently there’s an election going on right now?

It seems there’s only a few hours left for Obama and McCain to make a run at the Wal-Mart vote.

Undoubtedly, talk in recent weeks about Wal-Mart Moms has cooled down a little bit - but it’s still there. From Wednesday on (hopefully), we’ll start to know whether this year’s new hot political demographic really made a difference in the results, or maybe even whether it exists at all. We’ll know whether the candidates Wal-Mart supported won or lost. And we can start to discuss on the blog how a new administration might affect the world’s biggest company.

If election mania is leaving you any time to read Wal-Mart news, here’s a rundown of Wal-Mart mentions in recent political coverage:

**And don’t foget to vote tomorrow!

Counting On Wal-Mart Women [Newsweek]:

Just about every poll shows Barack Obama ahead in key battleground states, yet an internal McCain campaign memo, conveniently leaked to the media, calls the race “functionally even.” The memo’s author, highly regarded pollster Bill McInturff, argues that McCain’s salvation will be “Wal-Mart women” without a college degree making below $60,000 a year. These are the voters the politicians overlook and who have found their voice in Sarah Palin and their gender counterpart in Joe the Plumber—or so the theory goes.

William Safire: ’08-isms [New York Times]:

This year, Gov. Sarah Palin modernized the soccer mom with the hockey mom and the Wal-Mart mom. (That chain has a great euphemism for the guy on the way out who makes sure you’re not stealing stuff: the exit greeter.)

McCain to face close fight in Indiana [Financial Times]:

Even then, the main local topic of discussion was not al-Qaeda or the invasion of Iraq, which still lay six months ahead – but the new Super Wal-Mart planned for the edge of town. Nothing has turned out quite as the optimists imagined, including the Wal-Mart. Prices are said to be higher here than at neighbouring branches, because there is no competition.

Read the rest of this story ...

51 comments

---

Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.

This week’s issue begins on Wal-Mart and the economy, and whether Wal-Mart sales statistics can be used as a new barometer for the U.S. economy. You’ll also find stories on changes in shopper behavior, now that consumers are faced with less disposable income. And, you’ll find stories on Wal-Mart’s slowed growth, and the switch to smaller store formats by retailers across the country.

In addition to the economy, you’ll find stories related to next week’s election. Barack Obama highlighted the story of a 72-year-old man forced to go back to work for Wal-Mart in his half-hour special this past Wednesday night. Meanwhile, according to Reuters Wal-Mart vows to remain non-partisan in the 2008 election season, while the Financial Times reports on the candidates attempting to woo the so-called “Wal-Mart Moms.” Plus, there are suspicions that Wal-Mart is behind a new grassroots group recently set up to fight the Employee Free Choice Act, as reported in The National Journal.

Also: Find out whether a Wal-Mart case in Montana could lead to changes in that state’s campaign finance law.

And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe. A California ballot measure could lead to increased demand for more humane animal products, while citizens in Virginia continue to fight Wal-Mart’s attempt to build near an historic Civil War battlefield.

Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [October 31, 2008]

24 comments

---

If you happened to catch Democratic Presidential Candidate, Senator Obama’s infomercial last night, you saw a retired couple who couldn’t afford to pay for their medications so the 72-year old husband had to take a job at Wal-Mart. Instead of enjoying their retirement and what should be their “golden years,” this man like many others in these tough economic times had little choice but to join the forces of low-paid Wal-Mart workers. Go in any Wal-Mart and you’ll see many folks just like him – folks working as Wal-Mart sales associates, greeters and stockers.

But, with Wal-Mart’s average hourly wage of around $10 – not the starting wage, which is much lower - this family and others like them are struggling.  An average full-time employee earns about $19,200 a year – that’s living in poverty for a family of four. And, what about those medications and doctor bills?  You can bet this family is still paying them out of pocket – with Wal-Mart’s lousy health care plans and waiting periods.

Part-time workers have to wait a year before they are eligible for health care plans while full-timers still have a six-month wait. And even for eligible employees, the decent plans are too expensive to afford on a meager hourly wage. Most end up with high deductibles and very little coverage, which is why only about half of Wal-Mart’s employees are even covered under the company health care plan. 

As Senator Obama pointed out, this couple’s situation is not an isolated one. But, the sad thing is that so many of these folks who find themselves working at Wal-Mart in these desperate times, find themselves subject to bad treatment, low wages and poor health care plans. The stories we hear from employees every day show a disturbing pattern of Wal-Mart’s willingness to take advantage of these hard-working employees - who are just trying to support their families and make ends meet. All you have to do is read a few of them to understand working at Wal-Mart isn’t always a good option.

We hope that the mention of Wal-Mart in this political infomercial puts the company on notice. People are paying attention: it’s time for a change, Wal-Mart.

13 comments

---

Allegations of campaign violations are rising in the Big Sky State, and a recently-released decision on a 2006 complaint might lead to changes in Montana’s campaign finance law.

Complaints of violations flowing in at the rate of about 30 per day to the state’s Commissioner or Political Practices, have of which are coming from Ravalli County in southwestern Montana. According to the Ravalli Republic:

The state’s most pressing investigation in Ravalli County concerns the Higher Ground Foundation, a nonprofit group that is urging voters to repeal the county’s growth policy in an effort to prevent zoning and streamside setback regulations from being adopted later.

The group formed as an “incidental committee,” which are defined as a group that makes political contributions but whose primary purpose isn’t to influence elections. But it has become clear to many that Higher Ground has a higher purpose than simply contributing funds, and is instead directly promoting the repeal of the county’s growth policy. Complainants are urging the state to force the group disclose the sources of its funding, and its expenditures.

So how does this tie into Wal-Mart? Well, just over a week ago, Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth released his opinion regarding a 2006 complaint against a group called Ravalli County Citizens for Free Enterprise. The group supported construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter and the successful repeal of a zoning ordinance that blocked big-box stores. Unsworth ruled that RCCFE was nothing more than a Wal-Mart front-group that violated financial reporting and record-keeping laws. He said that Wal-Mart appeared to have bought a campaign in order to influence an election, and that the case could lead to Third party campaigning is growing in the state [The Missoulian]” title="changes in Montana’s campaign finance disclosure laws">changes in Montana’s campaign finance disclosure laws. It turned out that only $90 of the PAC’s money came from local residents, whereas $115,000 came from Wal-Mart.

“It’s absolutely critical,” Unsworth said, “that voters know who’s behind these groups, in order to make informed decisions.”

Read the rest of this story ...

6 comments

---

Yesterday, Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president of corporate affairs, told reporters that Wal-Mart is “relentlessly non-partisan.” His claim does not make sense when you look at the facts.

While it is true that in the latest election cycle, Wal-Mart’s PAC is giving more money away to House Democrats than House Republicans by a $456,700 to $418,500 margin, Wal-Mart overwhelmingly supports conservative causes and groups. Released just a few weeks ago, our Walton influence website clearly shows how the Walton family and Wal-Mart both support a right wing agenda. In fact, Wal-Mart’s PAC is giving more money to Senate Republicans and more money to conservative PACs by a significant margin. In addition to PAC giving, Wal-Mart’s lobbying skews conservative. By lobbying against port security to save money on shipping costs, lobbying against country-of-origin labeling to shroud its supply chain in secrecy, and lobbying against the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act, Wal-Mart shows its true colors.  After the release of the 3rd quarter lobbying numbers, Wal-Mart’s in-house lobbying expenditures jumped to $5.22 million dollars – a 3629% increase since 1999. And let’s not forget the Employee Free Choice Act. An August story in the Wall Street Journal shows just how far Wal-Mart will go to prevent an Obama victory and unionization in its stories.

The Walton family is no different. The family, which controls 43% of Wal-Mart’s stock, is consistently pushing a right wing agenda. Worth over $100 billion dollars, the Walton family is free to spend their billion on causes like the school voucher movement. Public school supporters worry that the Walton family exerts a disproportionate level of influence in this area. Since 2000, the Walton Family Foundation donated over $47 million to the Children’s Educational Opportunity Foundation, a lobbying organization devoted to weakening the public school system in America by “providing research and publications to school choice groups and submitting amicus curie briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court on voucher issues.” The Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO), which promotes the voucher movement to African-American families, received over $3.8 million from the Walton Family Foundation since 2002. 

Sounds like Wal-Mart and the Walton family are relentlessly partisan to us. 

13 comments

---

We’ll take this news from the Financial Times as proof that Wal-Mart Moms agree with our post last week: they’re worried about the kinds of economic problems caused by Wal-Mart.

The FT article makes it seem a bit like working class white women have been responsible for the outcome of every election in the last ten years. We might not go that far, but it’s certainly true that millions of people shop at Wal-Mart’s stores each week, and they all have a vote come November. So what are Wal-Mart Moms thinking now?

Ms Palin’s fading star is only part of the reason why Democrats see a fresh opportunity to go after working class, white women. At least as important is the return of “kitchen table” economic issues to the heart of the campaign, eclipsing the debate over values and culture that Ms Palin helped ignite.

Wal-Mart moms have been hit harder than most by America’s economic storm as their household budgets come under pressure from the rising cost of food, energy and healthcare, while wages stagnate.

A big part of this is Wal-Mart’s role in our economy. Though the retailer claims its low prices help working class families, Wal-Mart reps are less eager to discuss the company’s depressing effect on wages, its tendency to ship well-paying jobs overseas and putting its private health care needs on the public tab. Wal-Mart moms are concerned with the forces that drove them to shop at Wal-Mart in the first place, and the forces which keep them there, too.

Wal-Mart moms beginning to buy Democrat’s message [Financial Times]

111 comments

---

An article in today’s Wall Street Journal reports Wal-Mart recently conducted a survey to “test the voting preferences of men and women who are shopping at its stores.” Wal-Mart asked shoppers which candidate they’ll most likely vote for in November, and which issues facing the U.S. today are most important. The move not only gives politicians a look at a sought-after demographic - “Wal-Mart Moms” - it also places Wal-Mart at the heart of American politics.

Not surprisingly, the economy takes center stage for many of Wal-Mart’s shoppers. Like so many people living in the U.S. right now, Wal-Mart’s customers are trying harder than ever to make ends meet. And as the economy gets worse, many people are “trading down” to shop at Wal-Mart, even if they disagree with the retailer’s business practices.

Low wages, poor health care, and job losses are a major part of this picture. Despite Wal-Mart’s recurring suggestions that its low prices are a solution to our economic crisis, the retailer is actually a big part of the problem. By paying its workers so little and failing to provide health coverage for many of its workers, Wal-Mart is making it even harder for many families to stay afloat.

Congress is searching for answers to the economic problems we now face - whether they be emergency bailout measures or more long-term solutions like passing the Employee Free Choice Act. In the mean time, if Wal-Mart really wanted to help its shoppers with the issue they care about most, the company would start improving conditions for the lowest-earning members of its work force. That’s something Wal-Mart Moms on both sides of the political spectrum could support.

‘Wal-Mart Women’ Vote Remains in Play [Wall Street Journal]

59 comments

---

Wal-Mart stockpiles massive amounts of information about its customers. The retailer’s databases are enormous - bigger than the internet - and the information contained on its servers includes everything from which aisles shoppers choose to go down to the time of day chocolate milk sells quickest.

Now, the statistics firm ACNeilson (best known for its TV viewership ratings) is taking Wal-Mart’s data and helping the retailer understand its shoppers even better. At a recent conference of Wal-Mart suppliers, Neilson reps broke down how many cartons of eggs, car parts, and bags of dog food Wal-Mart customers buy each year. The study also revealed the average household incomes of Wal-Mart’s shoppers, the average number of trips each shopper makes and how much shoppers spent at the stores, on average. Ultimately, Wal-Mart hopes to use this information to customize store inventories and increase profits.

The study comes at a time when political analysts everywhere are desperately trying to understand Wal-Mart’s core demographic. “Wal-Mart Moms” may be the key to November’s election, some pundits say. Political alignment might not have been on Neilson’s questionnaire, but the study does provide some insight. According to Neilson, the average Wal-Mart shopper is a “pet-loving, pasta-eating, car-driving, gadget-obsessed dieter who either doesn’t care for cheese or buys it elsewhere.” (That part about the cheese may or may not impact the election directly.)

The data in the study doesn’t provide a complete picture of Wal-Mart’s shoppers - and it certainly doesn’t encompass all of the middle-aged women being wooed by politicians - but Wal-Mart is trying harder than ever to win over “the core female head of household” i.e., the “Wal-Mart Mom.” The retailer isn’t alone in catering to this powerful group not alone, and who knows - maybe quality dog food actually is the secret to winning the presidency in November.

Marketing firm looks at Wal-Mart shopper, trends [NW Arkansas Morning News]

5 comments

---

Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.

This week’s issue begins with reports from two states that Wal-Mart is undercutting high school activity and athletic fundraising by selling merchandise bearing the logos of local high schools. In both cases, the schools in question were never contacted by Wal-Mart about whether sales of the items would hurt the school’s efforts to raise funds.

In addition, you’ll find Time and The New York Times delving into the topic of Wal-Mart moms, and the role they’ll play in the November election. Plus, check out our section on Wal-Mart and the environment to find out more about the unethical behavior of Wal-Mart’s sustainable mining supplier, and from California read about how the retail giant fought (unsuccessfully) a port-truck plan that would require tougher environmental and security standards.

And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe.

Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials

34 comments

---

Last month, the Wall Street Journal exposed the fact that Wal-Mart was telling its employees to vote against the Democrats in November - fearful that a Democrat in the White House would pass legislation making it easier for workers to unionize. Today, an op-ed by Congressman Rahm Emanuel in the Wall Street Journal suggests that Wal-Mart’s potentially illegal activities may even be misguided. Emanuel suggests that Wal-Mart is ignoring the economic facts in advocating for Republicans, and has actually fared better under a Democratic administration. 

The piece explains that the American middle class - Wal-Mart’s core demographic - has always done better under Democrat administrations. Supporting measures that bolster the working class - such as the Employee Free Choice Act, which the company warned against - would mean better living for Wal-Mart’s employees AND its shareholders. Such support might mean thinking outside the box for this notoriously Republican company, but Wal-Mart stands only to gain from such innovations.

Opinion: Wal-Mart Thrives When Democrats Are in Charge [Wall Street Journal]

Last month, reports surfaced indicating that Wal-Mart managers and department heads were holding meetings with associates and warning of dire consequences if Barack Obama is elected president.

Wal-Mart may have its political reasons to vote Republican, but if economics are the criteria, Wal-Mart should be rooting for a Democratic administration. Instead, the company whose television ads encourage you to save money and live better is ignoring the economic facts and backing Republican economic policies that have resulted in families losing money and living worse.

Read the rest of this story ...

16 comments

---

Today we received a letter from Jeff Jordan at the Federal Election Commission responding to the formal complaint Wal-Mart Watch filed against Wal-Mart for holding meetings warning employees not to vote for Democrats.

Wal-Mart will be notified with our official complaint within five days, and the FEC has promised to notify us when “final action” is taken. We’ll let you know when we hear more.

Read the full response letter here, and read the original complaint letter here.

83 comments

---

Yesterday, the New York Times’ editorial rebuked Wal-Mart for its worker intimidation during this federal election cycle.  The NYT editorial refers to the front page WSJ story on Wal-Mart mobilizing its managers to vote Republican in the upcoming elections.  The Times chastises the company not only for its relentless anti-union efforts, including numerous citations by the National Labor Relations Board, but also for its blatant violation federal election laws.

According to the Times, “Telling workers who are paid by the hour — Wal-Mart department supervisors are hourly workers — how to vote is prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act…The Federal Election Commission should investigate the allegations swiftly and aggressively. The ‘rogue executive’ defense is a well-trodden excuse that should fool no one. Providing workers with a list of members of Congress who, in Wal-Mart’s view, support bad legislation that would worsen workers lives seems indistinguishable from telling them who to vote against.”

Recap:  “indistinguishable from telling them who to vote against.” This type of coercion has proved an integral part of Wal-Mart’s business practices.  One can only hope that the FEC will fulfill its duty to investigate, particularly when the nation’s largest private employer has attempted to silence one of the few measures its workers have to speak out against it.

Read the full reprimand below.  Well done New York Times…bravo.

Mixing Politics and Wal-Mart [New York Times]

It is hardly news that Wal-Mart will do whatever it takes to keep unions out of its stores, from closing down a unionized outlet to firing pro-union workers. The National Labor Relations Board has already ruled several times that Wal-Mart has violated the law by retaliating against workers for supporting a union.

Facing the prospect that union-friendly Democrats could win both the White House and Congress, the retail giant is now turning its attention to this year’s election.

Last week, several labor groups filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, accusing Wal-Mart of violating election rules. They acted after The Wall Street Journal reported that thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads had been called to mandatory meetings and told that if Democrats won in November they would likely pass a law to make it easier to unionize companies. According to The Journal, Wal-Mart executives warned that could force the company to cut jobs, while workers would be forced to pay union dues and might have to go on strike.

Telling workers who are paid by the hour — Wal-Mart department supervisors are hourly workers — how to vote is prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Read the rest of this story ...

33 comments

---

If you’ve read our FEC complaint by now, you’ll be familiar with our contention that at its training sessions, Wal-Mart was explicitly advocating against the election of Democratic candidates this coming November because of its fear of possible unionization in the future. You’ll also be familiar with our contention that Wal-Mart is limited, under both the United States Code and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, from directing its political meetings or “trainings” at anything beyond its stockholders and executive or administrative personnel. Certainly, the issue is serious enough to warrant a looksee from the Federal Election Commission - now that multiple labor groups have sent a complaint of their own, similar to the one submitted by Wal-Mart Watch last week, we’ll see if the FEC decides to initiate an investigation.

If that does happen, attorney Bob Bauer has been helpful enought to give a brief guide on the federal regulations involved - you might want to read it in shifts, as staring too long at federal regulatory language has been known to cause eyes to bleed, etc. Bauer is the Chair of the Political Law Group of Perkins Coie LLP, and the author of numerous books including: United States Federal Election Law (1982, 1984), Soft Money Hard Law: A Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2002) and More Soft Money Hard Law: The Second Edition of the Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2004).

The Wal-Mart Matter [posted August 14, 2008]

The Wal-Mart controversy, now headed toward the Federal Election Commission, presents interesting questions about how the campaign finance laws treat coercive political conduct by a corporate employer.  As the allegations have been framed in press reports, Wal-Mart is claimed to have breached two requirements for lawful corporate political action:  (1) it spent corporate funds outside the limited allowances for election-related speech, and (2) it did so through coercive means, subjecting employees to job-related pressures to support one candidate or party rather than another.

FEC rules specify in fair detail when and how corporations may spend resources in relation to federal elections without breaking the core campaign spending prohibition.  11 C.F.R. Part 114.  The most liberal of the allowances is for “partisan” communications to the “restricted class,” of executives and shareholders, and a corporation may also repeatedly solicit them for contributions to the company’s political action committee.  It can arrange for the candidates favored by the company to address this defined group.

Read the rest of this story ...

2 comments

---

Today, several labor groups asked the FEC to investigate Wal-Mart. Last week, Wal-Mart Watch submitted a formal complaint to the Federal Election Committee last week, requesting an investigation of Wal-Mart’s political intimidation. From the letter:

As reported in the Wall Street Journal on August 1, 2008, in a piece entitled “Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win,” Wal-Mart has been mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors across the country to warn them of a Democratic victory in the November general election. More specifically, it has been reported that Wal-Mart has been informing its employees that a Democratic victory in November could lead to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which in turn would allow workers to form unions without the fear of being fired and allow a simple majority of employees to certify a union to act as their representative.

Wal-Mart representatives deny any wrongdoing, and only an FEC investigation would answer this question for sure. Meanwhile, controversy still remains over Wal-Mart’s fear-mongering insistence that unions will bring fewer jobs and yet lower wages to the company’s employees. Its attempt to intimidate employees out of standing up for their rights is doubly shameful, and while we await an FEC investigation, the company’s anti-union misrepresentation and propagandizing should not be overlooked.

Wal-Mart Should Be Probed Over Political Meetings, Group Says [Bloomberg News]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. should be probed by federal regulators over reports that company officials broke the law by advising employees against voting Democratic in the November elections, a worker advocacy group said.

Wal-Mart Watch has requested the Federal Election Commission investigate media reports that Wal-Mart managers advised employees against voting for Democratic candidates, according to a letter to the FEC dated Aug. 6. Managers told employees that a Democratic victory could lead to the formation of a union, which might impose fees on workers, the letter said, citing a Wall Street Journal story.

“These are serious actions taken by Wal-Mart which are in violation of federal election law, and we request that you investigate them to the fullest extent possible,’’ wrote David Nassar, executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, in the letter.

Wal-Mart denies breaking the law.

Read the rest of this story ...