0 comments

---

Bloomberg is reporting today that Wal-Mart and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among those opposing legislation that would allow the U.S. to cut off duty-free imports from factories in Pakistan and Afghanistan, if they fail to adhere to international labor standards on matters such as prohibiting forced labor and child labor. The bill, titled the Afghanistan-Pakistan Security and Prosperity Enhancement Act, is meant to help strengthen democracy in the two countries by creating “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” and increasing their ability to export goods to the U.S. - and in return, it only requires that the countries make sure their factories are providing adequate working conditions.

Wal-Mart, however, is among those arguing that such labor restrictions would reduce any beneficial effect the legislation might otherwise have - and besides, if factories in Pakistan can’t export products to the U.S. because of labor and human rights abuses, Wal-Mart can’t then turn around and sell those products at their everyday low prices, right?

“Pakistan doesn’t have a good record in terms of child labor and the employment of women,” [Susan Aaronson, a professor at George Washington University in Washington who has written on trade and human rights] said. “This ensures the rule of law will be followed.”

The House bill states that each country “shall continue to receive duty-free treatment under this Act only if the President determines and certifies to Congress that Afghanistan or Pakistan, as the case may be has implemented the requirements set forth” - said requirements including insuring the following:

(A) compliance with core labor standards; and
(B) compliance with the labor laws of Afghanistan or Pakistan, as the case may be, that relate directly to core labor standards and to ensuring acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational health and safety.

We’ve already documented Wal-Mart’s sourcing issues in other international locales, so it shouldn’t be all that surprising that they would oppose such regulations here. Links to summaries of both the House version of the bill (with labor requirements) and the Senate version can be found after the jump.

Obama’s Bid to Boost Exports From Pakistan Hits Snag Over Labor [Bloomberg]

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

The U.S. International Trade Commission has made an announcement, and that announcement is one we shouldn’t be surprised by at this point. The ITC has ruled that U.S. tire companies are being harmed by cheap products from China, and as a result President Obama will have to decide whether to impose tariffs or quotas on the country that, thanks to Wal-Mart, is now America’s largest source of imports.

Of course, Wal-Mart’s tire business isn’t the only factor behind the ruling, but it certainly is one of the biggest. China sent 21 million tires to the U.S. in 2005, and that more than doubled to 46 million by last year. For its part, Modern Tire Dealer reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has close to 3,200 outlets selling tires, although most of those sales are concentrated in its approximately 2,435-store Tire & Lube Service Centers nationwide.

The (United Steelworkers) union said China has more than tripled its tire exports to the U.S. between 2004 and 2008, ending jobs for 5,100 American workers. The union said another 3,000 workers would lose their jobs by the end of the year.

The next move for the ITC will be to come up with come up with recommendations on what the President should do to help U.S. companies, including a couple familiar names based in Ohio - Akron-based Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Findlay-based Cooper Tire.

The case is the first test for Obama on trade with China, after he vowed during his presidential campaign last year to help unions or domestic industries seeking relief from foreign competition. Since the election, he also has pledged to avoid protectionism so as not to exacerbate the global recession.

U.S. agency rules for tire producers in China case [Bloomberg News]

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

By this time we should all be aware of the controversies surrounding credit companies - in addition to increasingly complex and confusing options for credit applicants, credit card issuers have been raising interest rates and fees for many current borrowers, many of whom were in complete compliance with their card holders’ agreements when their rates were raised. This is a major reason behind the call for continuing credit card reform.

What many people might not be aware of is the struggle between credit companies and the retailers at which their cards are used. As Bloomberg explains, this could end in a giant Visa vs. Wal-Mart rumble:

Lawmakers are promising new rules to bring down the interchange fee, a charge on purchases sometimes topping 3 percent that’s split by the two banks serving the customer and merchant. Supporters of the legislation include the biggest retail chains, restaurants and small businesses, which say the fees erode profit and inflate prices...Interchange is the second-biggest cost after payroll, Target said, and merchants want to negotiate lower payments collectively without running afoul of antitrust law.

The issue has become such a hot topic, the Government Accountability Office has been ordered to study the effect interchange fees have on both consumers and merchants. The “interchange fee” is the fraction of every credit card transaction that the card’s issuer retains. When combined with additional smaller fees levied by a retailer’s own bank (to which the retailer first submits the transaction), interchange fees can cut into retailer revenue - especially important for those retailers with slim profit margins.

Interchange fees have risen over time - interesting, since technological advances would suggest the cost of such transactions should go down - and the result is a growing battle between retailers and card issuers. Wikipedia provides a surprisingly simple example of how the fees work:

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

WAL-MART NOT GIVING UP ON CHICAGO
    

• Wal-Mart Not Giving Up on South Side [Chicago Public Radio]
  Chicago got its first Wal-Mart store, on the city’s West Side, just three years ago. Unions and grassroots activists fought the controversial big box coming within city limits.
  

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus acknowledges he sees in the retiring Justice David Souter a jurist with a “moderate or restrained record” – one which plaintiffs’ lawyers and unions would hope to avoid in a replacement. Earlier today President Obama announced his nominee to replace Justice Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court – Sonia Sotomayor, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – and the question now: Is this a good thing for businesses like Wal-Mart?

The primary reason for asking this question at this time is because there exists the very real possibility that at some point in the relatively near future, Wal-Mart’s lawyers will be defending their client before the very Court that Judge Sotomayor is being nominated to.

Just two months ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals re-heard en banc arguments in the well-traveled Dukes v. Wal-Mart sex discrimination case – plaintiffs are hoping the full court will affirm a previous Ninth Circuit decision that upheld the lawsuit’s ability to proceed as a class action. If that happens, Wal-Mart will have two options – accept the decision and proceed to trial, or appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Should Wal-Mart come out on the short end of the Ninth Circuit and find itself in front of the Supreme Court, Sotomayor could be the newest of the nine justices the company will have to convince in order to have Dukes’ class action status removed. Judge Sotomayor’s voting record is now being parsed, and certainly as the vetting process moves forward, we’ll learn more about what kind of effect she could have on a potential Dukes decision. Most view her record as decidedly moderate, though she has implied in the past that the gender and ethnicity of judges should and does influence their judicial decision-making.

As a woman and a minority, could this be a bad omen for Wal-Mart? We’ll see...until then, however, we’ll have to make do with some of her career highlights, which you can find after the jump…

Read the rest of this story ...

34 comments

---

Wal-Mart workers from across the nation are converging today on Capitol Hill for a National Organizing Meeting to brief Senators about wages, benefits and the Employee Free Choice Act. We have Wal-Mart Watch peeps down on the Hill, and will have more updates as the day goes on.

Wal-Mart Workers Holding Historic National Organizing Meeting [UFCW Release via EarthTimes]

WASHINGTON - (Business Wire) Walmart workers from across the nation are converging today on Capitol Hill for a National Organizing Meeting to brief Senators about wages, benefits and the Employee Free Choice Act. Nearly 100 Walmart workers from 17 states are participating in the event. As part of their campaign for a union voice on the job, they will urge lawmakers to level the playing field for working people by supporting the Employee Free Choice Act.

“I made the trip into Washington DC to stand with my fellow Walmart workers and to urge my Senators to pass the Employee Free Choice Act,” said Dominique Sloan a Dallas, Texas, Walmart worker. “We need change in this country. All you have to do is look at how all the money goes to CEOs. But when it comes to workers, it’s always the same, no health care or health care that’s too expensive and low wages. We need to change that.”

The National Organizing Committee is made up of Walmart workers from Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

Read the rest of this story ...

14 comments

---

Workers at a North Miami Beach Wal-Mart Supercenter are hoping to make their store one of the first Wal-Marts in the United States to unionize. The Miami Herald is reporting that workers have gathered signed pro-union cards from 150 of the store’s 476 employees.

If a majority of workers were to vote to join the United Food and Commercial Workers union, Wal-Mart would have to negotiate a contract setting pay, work rules, complaint procedures, health insurance and other benefits for the workers.

The Miami store is the most impressive example of card-signing activity, the movement occurring despite the fact that the Employee Free Choice Act movement remains in neutral in Washington. It isn’t the only unionizing target, however, as the UFCW admitted the North Miami Beach store is only one of about 100 Wal-Mart stores it is working to organize in 17 states, according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

Meghan Scott, a Food and Commercial Workers spokesman in Washington, said the union increased its organizing efforts after the election of President Barack Obama and the reintroduction this year of federal legislation that would make it easier for workers to gain union representation. “We’ve seen a pretty significant uptick in calls from Wal-Mart workers across the country,” Scott said. “The workers just seem to be emboldened in a way that they have not been in the last few years.”

The Miami store is a continuation of a trend that began earlier this month, when the Wall Street Journal reported on organizing efforts in Texas and Illinois.

‘’If we vote and we get it [union certification], they can’t do nothing but go along with it,’’ (Miami employee) Cheryl Guzman said. ``That’s my hope and prayer.’’

Read more after the jump:

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

At 5 p.m. this afternoon, Eastern Standard Time, Wal-Mart will try for a third time to halt the Dukes v. Wal-Mart sex discrimination lawsuit, as a panel of 11 judges from the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear Wal-Mart’s latest attempt to stop this case from moving forward as a class action.

On initial review, the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to allow the case to proceed to trial as a class action. Wal-Mart appealed, however, and just about a month ago the federal court agreed to rehear the case en banc - that is, a hearing where all judges of a court will hear the case, rather than just a panel of three. In this Marketplace story, attorney on each side give their opinions as to why the case should (or should not) proceed:

Ted Boutros (Wal-Mart): We have a tradition in this country that individuals get their day in court. Class actions are an exception to that that need to be used carefully so as not to defeat people’s rights.

Debra Smith (Equal Rights Advocates): It’s exactly the type of case that the federal judiciary envisioned being a class action. It’s David versus Goliath, you know, it’s classic.

As of right now you can check out the en banc status page of the Ninth Circuit for updates. A California Legal blog, the UCL Practitioner, is providing updates as well, and has provided this nice tip:

This morning’s Daily Journal reports on the upcoming argument and provides the names of the eleven judges on the en banc panel...According to the article, seven were appointed by Democratic presidents.

So there you go, seven out of eleven judges on the panel appointed by Democrats...take that for what you may. And we’ve already learned which side the EEOC and the Obama Administration are pulling for. We’ll keep you updated as we find out more on the hearing.

20 comments

---

THE Wal-Mart lawsuit - Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the largest discrimination class action in U.S. history - now has a new advocate. And let’s just say, it’s kind of a big one.

The federal government (through the EEOC, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) had to this point elected not to get involved in the Dukes lawsuit. Yesterday, however, despite retaining many holdovers from the Bush Administration, the Commission finally threw it’s opinion into the ring. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, saying it was filing the brief because “this court’s resolution of issues relating to punitive damages and back pay in class cases may directly affect the commission’s enforcement of Title VII” of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, “particularly its systemic litigation.” The staff in charge of deciding whether to intervene in the Dukes case is currently made up of two Democrats and two Republicans.

“If Wal-Mart’s arguments were accepted, it could effectively preclude a claim for punitive damages in most if not all Title VII pattern-or-practice cases including those brought by the Commission,” the EEOC wrote.

The EEOC isn’t actually taking a stand on the merits of the case itself - the Commission is only supporting the class action moving forward, deeming the issue important enough to its functions to intervene and assert its voice.

“If Wal-Mart’s arguments were accepted, it could effectively preclude a claim for punitive damages in most if not all Title VII pattern-or-practice cases including those brought by the Commission,” EEOC Attorney Barbara Sloan wrote. “It would be ‘nonsensical’ to prevent victims of particularly egregious discrimination from proceeding collectively.”

Needless to say, attorneys for plaintiffs welcomed the news, while Wal-Mart’s legal team and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were less than pleased. The EEOC news comes about a month after the Ninth Circuit announced it would re-hear the class action certification decision en banc - when one party requests an hearing en banc, it means they are requesting a hearing where all judges of a court will hear the case, rather than a panel of them. That hearing is currently scheduled for March 24.

Obama Administration Sides With Wal-Mart Workers [Bloomberg]

Read the rest of this story ...

4 comments

---

According to the NY Times, “Wal-Mart is striding into the market for electronic health records, seeking to bring the technology into the mainstream for physicians in small offices, where most of America’s doctors practice medicine.”

Based on this Wall Street Journal story from 2006, Wal-Mart has been poking its nose into this issue for a while now. With the Obama White House trying to jump-start the adoption of digital medical records by including $19 billion of incentives in the economic stimulus package, Wal-Mart is jumping back in.

The company plans to team its Sam’s Club division with Dell for computers and eClinicalWorks, a fast-growing private company, for software. Wal-Mart says its package deal of hardware, software, installation, maintenance and training will make the technology more accessible and affordable, undercutting rival health information technology suppliers by as much as half.

There are some, especially those physicians working in smaller offices, that doubt the wisdom of switching to electronic health records because of the cost and complexity involved. The New England Journal of Medicine has noted that only 17% of physicians are using computerized patient records currently.

Wal-Mart Plans to Market Digital Health Records System [New York Times]

Read the rest of this story ...

3 comments

---

In case you forgot, the President of the United States has taken a stand against Wal-Mart, saying he will not shop there due to the company’s anti-union tactics. The full story is below:

Opinion: Shop at Wal-Mart? Not Barack Obama [Associated Content (Colo.)]

You may have noticed that President Barack Obama did not campaign at Wal-Mart stores. In fact, President Obama personally chooses not to shop at Wal-Mart. This was not an issue that Obama spoke about during his campaign, given Wal-Mart’s popularity with so many millions of Americans, but he is among critics who perceive that Wal-Mart is anti-union and treats its workers shabbily.

Read the rest of this story ...

1 comments

---

In the State of Washington, proposed legislation called the Worker Privacy Act would give workers the option of refusing to attend mandatory meetings where employers tell their side on issues of personal conscience, including politics or unionizing. Actually, the bill being considered in both the Washington House and Senate also mentions religion and charitable giving as protected issues, but politics and unionization are the ones getting all the media love. Yesterday, the Washington State Labor Council pointed out the following in arguing in favor of the bill to the House Labor and Commerce committee:

Under current law, companies can force their employees to attend such meetings to discourage union organizing or to press political views, as Wal-Mart did last year when it urged employees to vote against Barack Obama and Democrats.

Indeed, Wal-Mart Watch was intimately involved with the development of an August 2008 story in the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story of Wal-Mart’s “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.”

The actions by Wal-Mart—the nation’s largest private employer—reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership. That could lead to higher payroll and health costs for companies already being hurt by rising fuel and commodities costs and the tough economic climate.

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.

In addition to those stories in the WSJ piece, some of the reports Wal-Mart Watch received were even more egregious - in one example, a worker said they were shown a slide that said “Obama = union” while being told why unions were bad. The Washington legislation would allow workers to elect not to attend such gatherings, without fear of reprisal.

Read the rest of this story ...

25 comments

---

Labor officials are praising ol’ President Obama’s first signed piece of legislation.

“We are heartened that this legislation was made a top priority of the new Congress and administration, because it demonstrates a return to the common-sense values of hard-working Americans,” AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in a written statement.

The legislation, titled the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, focuses on Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., [550 U.S. 618 (2007)], a Supreme Court decision holding that regardless of when a worker discovers a pay disparity, any legal action needs to be filed within 180 days of the initial decision to pay the worker less. For Lilly Ledbetter, an employee at Goodyear Tire and Rubber for over 19 years, she didn’t realize she was getting a lower salary and lower pay raises then her male counterparts until after she left the company - and only then because an anonymous note was left in her mailbox.

The court said Ledbetter couldn’t sue under the 1964 Civil Rights Act because the alleged discrimination occurred more than 180 days before she filed her claim. The law signed today restarts the clock for bringing claims each time a worker’s job is affected by a discriminatory act. In Ledbetter’s case, that would be each time she receives a pay check.

Corporate labor lawyer Lawrence Lorber (say that 3 times fast) pointed out that the Lilly Ledbetter Act may be just a prelude to what Labor is really interested in - passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to form unions.

“The Ledbetter bill is the lowest-hanging fruit of all the items on labor’s agenda,” Lorber said. “The victory is not necessarily a harbinger of what will happen on Employee Free Choice, which could be World War Four between labor and business.”

You can read President Obama’s statement on the legislation, and check out Lilly Ledbetter’s Obama campaign ad here…

Obama Signs Lilly Ledbetter Act [Washington Post]

Read the rest of this story ...

1 comments

---

The Boss apparently WAS born to run…

Run far, far away from the exclusive sales deal his management team signed with Wal-Mart on a “Greatest Hits” album that hit store shelves earlier this month. The New York Times shares this:

On Jan. 13 a $10 collection of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band’s “Greatest Hits” — 11 songs from a 1995 hits anthology, as well as “Radio Nowhere” from “Magic” — went on sale exclusively at Wal-Mart. Since Wal-Mart has been accused of anti-union practices by Human Rights Watch, among others, and has paid large fines for violating labor laws, the announcement prompted online criticisms like the one from asroma on the fan site backstreets.com: “Bruce is doing biz with Wal-Mart? Kind of goes against everything he stands for.”

Springsteen certainly isn’t the first to sign such an exclusive sales deal - AC/DC released its new Black Ice album late last year exclusively through Wal-Mart, a decision that racked up huge number for the slightly aged rockers. In fact, Black Ice nearly went platinum in just one week.

Still, fans of The Boss understandably have a high opinion of the legend and those things that he stands for (hello..."Born in the U.S.A.” anyone?), so let’s give Mr. Springsteen some credit for acknowledging the fact that he went into business with the Devil - or a giant multi-national corporation rife with labor law violations, discrimination, an allergy to American-made products, etc., etc.

Mr. Springsteen said the decision was made too hastily. “We were in the middle of doing a lot of things, it kind of came down and, really, we didn’t vet it the way we usually do,” he said. “We just dropped the ball on it.” Instead of offering the exclusive collection to Wal-Mart, “given its labor history, it was something that if we’d thought about it a little longer, we’d have done something different.” He added, “It was a mistake. Our batting average is usually very good, but we missed that one. Fans will call you on that stuff, as it should be.”

So forgive him, check out his new album Working on a Dream (NOT a Wal-Mart exclusive), enjoy Bruce this Super Bowl Sunday, and go Cardinals.

The Rock Laureate [New York Times]

Read the rest of this story ...

9 comments

---

Following on Obama’s signing yesterday of a law to make it easier for workers to file and win pay discrimination lawsuits, organized labor took another step forward today when the President signed three executive orders meant to increase protections for employees of government contractors, ensuring they have jobs when contracts change and making it more difficult to fire them.

In addition to saying he “disagreed” with Bush Administration labor policies, Obama yesterday took a shot at Wall Street’s excesses, calling the exorbitant spending behavior of top bankers “shameful”. And the bankers aren’t the only ones, considering outgoing Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott’s total compensation amounted to $31.6 million last year (not including the value of his stock options) while many of his employees are living in poverty.

Obama Moves To Reverse Bush’s Labor Policies [New York Times]

On yet another morning of grim economic news, President Obama on Friday sought to further distance himself from his predecessor as he announced steps that he said would strengthen organized labor and improve the lot of middle-class Americans.

At a White House ceremony, the president signed three executive orders that he said would “reverse many of the policies towards organized labor that we’ve seen these last eight years, policies with which I’ve sharply disagreed.”

Soon afterward, Vice President Biden drew applause when he flung another dart at former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney (on Mr. Cheney’s 68th birthday) as he told labor officials in the audience, “Welcome back to the White House.”

Read the rest of this story ...

5 comments

---

A little bit dated, but an interesting tidbit nonetheless. The most recent issue of the National Journal, which hit the stands late last week, notes that Wal-Mart has hired a new director for federal government relations.

It isn’t necessarily surprising that Wal-Mart will be upping its federal presence, as Politico points out:

And with Barack Obama vowing to make health care a top priority, there’s little doubt Wal-Mart — with its vast employee network and popular $4 generic prescription drug program, among other interests — wants to be part of the debate.

Jason Hill is the new hire. And where, you ask, does Jason come from? Well its funny, because it just so happens that Hill, prior to joining Wal-Mart, worked for the Obama campaign. Hill was stationed in Ohio as a regional voter-protection coordinator. He’ll now be focusing on health care for retail’s Goliath.

In addition to working on the Obama campaign, Hill worked on health care policy for Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) for nearly six years. He’s also lobbied for the American Medical Group Association.

So, are we surprised that Wal-Mart is dipping into the Obama campaign for its “federal relations” staff?

0 comments

---

The first piece of legislation that President Obama signs could be a major step forward for pro-labor groups. Senate Bill 181, a wage discrimination bill that will reverse a 2007 Supreme Court decision narrowing the time period during which a worker can file a wage discrimination claim, cleared the Senate yesterday and is not expected to have much difficulty passing in the House. That would be because the House passed a nearly identical bill two weeks ago that, for reasons we won’t worry about for the moment, was not considered by the Senate.

The legislation, titled the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, focuses on Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., [550 U.S. 618 (2007)], a Supreme Court decision holding that regardless of when a worker discovers a pay disparity, any legal action needs to be filed within 180 days of the initial decision to pay the worker less. That means if you didn’t discover that you were being screwed within the first 6 months of your employment, you were pretty much up the creek. For Lilly Ledbetter, an employee at Goodyear Tire and Rubber for over 19 years, she didn’t realize she was getting a lower salary and lower pay raises then her male counterparts until after she left the company - and only then because an anonymous note was left in her mailbox. A statute of limitations is not uncommon in the civil law system, but often they begin to toll once the perceived wrong is discovered. Forcing an employee to sue within 180 days of a decision they might not discover for years - if ever - is fairly, well, wrong.

It has been a priority for women’s groups seeking to narrow the wage gap between men and women. “We feel free at last,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., the chief sponsor of the legislation. She said the strong vote, which included all 16 female senators — including four Republicans — was “a sign of what Democratic leadership means.”

The AP story points out another point regarding the legislation...that is, the effect it might have on other labor legislation, including the Employee Free Choice Act:

The bill paves the way for considering more controversial labor measures, including one that would take away a company’s right to demand a secret ballot when workers are seeking to organize. (Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid said that could come up this summer.

Senate passes wage discrimination bill [Associated Press]

Read the rest of this story ...

64 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 a new study from the group Good Jobs First, which reveals that cash-strapped states are forgoing a total of roughly $1 billion annually in tax revenue because of little-noticed laws that permit retailers to keep a slice of the sales taxes they collect for the government. In fact, the study finds thirteen states do not cap the amount that a retailer can receive as vendor compensation for collecting sales tax, resulting in millions of lost tax dollars.

A large focus this week is also on Wal-Mart’s announcement that Lee Scott will step down as CEO in February 2009, to be replaced by Michael Duke, Wal-Mart’s Vice Chairman of its International Division. In addition to the CEO change, you’ll find stories on the battle over the Employee Free Choice Act, how Wal-Mart will deal with the Obama Administration from a labor perspective, and related news on Wal-Mart’s labor battles in Canada.

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 has founded a new consumer group in New England geared towards fighting Wal-Mart opponents, and has purchased its own wind-energy supply based out of Odessa, Texas

Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [November 21, 2008]

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.