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. 

1 comments

---

This just in: Lee Scott responds to last week’s election results.

It goes something like this: He says that it’s unfortunate that Obama won, despite strong efforts by his company to get associates to vote for John McCain. He rages further: Wal-Mart is lining up its lobbyists and lawyers, and emptying its pockets to ready for an all-out fight with Unions and the Obama Administration over possible labor reforms, which might give his employees a little more of a voice, and might possibly require the company to (gasp!) spend more on its workers and/or treat them a little more fairly.

Ah, just kidding. It’s actually all pretty generic and obvious. We’re going to work harmoniously with the new president, we need to improve health care and decrease energy use (as long as someone else foots the bill for it), solve all of the world’s ills, etc., etc.

Lee Scott Memo Regarding 2008 Presidential Election

Dear Associates,

Last week America elected Barack Obama as our 44th President. In many ways this was a historic election. Our country elected our first African American President, and more Americans voted than ever before. As I travelled to stores and clubs after the election, I saw the desire of our associates and customers to rally behind our new President and make real progress on the critical issues that confront this nation.

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.

Read the rest of this story ...

2 comments

---

This is right from Wal-Mart’s government affairs guru Leslie Dach’s playbook on “How to Appear Nonpartisan and Back a Winner.”

Jake Wagman pointed out on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Political Fix blog yesterday, Wal-Mart ponied up $10,000 for governor-elect Jay Nixon – two days after he won Tuesday’s election. Repeat: after he won. 

Given that Wal-Mart has avoided paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in property taxes in Missouri and no doubt violated every labor law in existence - under the current administration’s oversight - it’s easy to understand why Wal-Mart would want to attempt to curry favor with the state’s new governor. Sure, political contributions often come into campaigns after elections for one reason or another, but Wal-Mart is clearly trying to send a message and buy a little access as it faces the changes that will come with new administrations in Missouri and nationally.  As Wal-Mart girds for a fight over EFCA and undoubtedly a host of other issues, Lee Scott and the Walton family are understandably nervous and willing to drop a few bucks here, there and everywhere to try to keep the status quo. 

Look for more on the Walton family influence here. 

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 ...

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. 

8 comments

---

The National Journal’s Under The Influence Blog brings our attention to a new 501(c)6 group called the “Workforce Fairness Institute,” whose sole purpose is to fight the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

The National Journal tells us:

Packer would not identify the WFI’s funders. But sources familiar with its creation speculate that such big retailers as Wal-Mart and Home Depot—a which are high-profile opponents of EFCA—are likely among the group’s donors. One source says the WFI is trying to raise as much as $10 million for its operations.

Presumably, Wal-Mart and other companies are spending early while preparing for a possible Obama administration and strong Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate - which are expected to make a push for the legislation which, of course, would make it easier for Wal-Mart workers to form unions and negotiate contracts for higher wages and better benefits.

The WFI website is savetheelection.org, and the featured video is a fake news broadcast which for the first minute or so openly implies that the presidential election is being taken away. Halfway through it tells us we’re talking about a possible change in unionization rules.

But - the website reminds us that WFI (just like Wal-Mart!) is “NOT anti-Union.” Which is reassuring.

We’ll do our best to investigate WFI’s funding disclosure laws, and Wal-Mart’s role in the venture. As usual....we’ll be watching. 

5 comments

---

Kim Morrison writes a nice piece in the NW Arkansas Morning News today about Wal-Mart Watch’s new website - waltoninfluence.com.

We’re glad to see that a Wal-Mart spokesman was asked by media to comment on the new site. Unsurprisingly, spokesman David Tovar had no comment. What he did say, however, was that Wal-Mart gives near-evenly to Democrats and Republicans.

That, of course, is laughable.

A quick look through the donation data on waltoninfluence.com (pulled from opensecrets.org) shows that the Wal-Mart PAC has always given the vast majority of its money to Republicans and conservative causes. Wal-Mart likes to brag that in the 2008 cycle, it has given slightly more to Democratic House candidates ($456,700 for Dems compared to $418,500 for Republicans.) But its giving in the Senate more than compensates for this - and according the openssecrets.org the Wal-Mart PAC has given more total to the GOP candidates in the 2008 cycle (47% to Democrats, 53% to Republicans).

And what about this year’s donations to non-candidate political groups? The top 5 and the vast majority are all Republican groups:

Washington State Republican Party: $50,000
Mitch for Governor Campaign Committee: $48,000
National Republican Congressional Committee: $30,000
National Republican Senatorial Committee: $30,000
Republican National Committee: $30,000

But regardless, Wal-Mart’s giving in 2008 is the exception to rule. Kim Morrison quickly points out that Democrats have received 22% of less of Wal-Mart’s support in the previous two elections. And if you look further and further back, you’ll see a company whose giving to Democrats moves closer and closer to zero percent.

The point is that Wal-Mart has seen turning of the political tide, and has decided to make a one-time handout to the party on the rise. What it is, is a shrewd (and probably wise) political move, what it isn’t is a sign of a bipartisan company.

Group tracks Wal-Mart’s political involvement [NW Arkansas Morning News]

12 comments

---

Wal-Mart Watch has launched a new website - http://www.waltoninfluence.com - which analyzes and tracks the Walton family’s and Wal-Mart’s growing influence on American politics.

Although Sam Walton believed his company should stay out of politics and stick to retailing, Wal-Mart’s strategy changed immensely after his death. From 1999 to 2007, Wal-Mart’s lobbying expenditures for outside firms increased 7425%. Although Wal-Mart attempts to tout its bipartisanship, the Wal-Mart PAC has given the vast majority of its over $7.5 million in the past decade to the Republican Party and other conservative groups.

With more than $12 billion in profits last year, Wal-Mart is the biggest and arguably most powerful corporation in America. Sam Walton’s heirs, the majority owners of the company, are worth over $100 billion - making them the wealthiest and certainly one of the most influential families in America.

During the past year, Wal-Mart Watch conducted an analysis of public lobbying and political contribution records for the Walton family and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in order to determine how this influence is used to affect politics and policy. The conclusion is clear: Wal-Mart and the Walton family spend millions of dollars every year to fund an extreme right wing corporate agenda that is often directly at odds with the interests of Wal-Mart’s workers and shoppers.

Read the rest of this story ...

70 comments

---

Blogger Jessica Smith is one of 11 moms Wal-Mart selected for a new campaign targeting female shoppers. As a blogger for the company, Jessica weighs in on everything from diapers to politics.

If anyone deserves to be called a “Wal-Mart Mom,” it’s Jessica. She’s a mom who actually writes for Wal-Mart about many of the issues concerning middle-class mothers today. Why does this matter? From a post on JessicaKnows.com earlier today:

Ever since Sarah Palin was tapped to be John McCain’s running mate, the media classified Sarah Palin’s likely voter-base as being the “Walmart Moms”.  At first I chuckled at this broad generalization.  Then, as more and more assertions of this assumption showed up in my Google Alerts, I started to get a little peeved.  Here I am, my picture and profile on Walmart.com, making it pretty explicit that I’m a “Walmart Mom”.  But…the problem is?

I don’t relate even one iota to Sarah Palin.

“Wal-Mart Moms” are the sought-after demographic in this year’s presidential election, and pundits on all sides are desperately trying to to understand working-class women’s views on the issues. Wal-Mart itself even conducted a political survey of its shoppers last week, injecting itself further into the presidential election. But when one of its own rails against assumptions about “Wal-Mart Moms, “ perhaps that category needs to be redefined. Is there really a “Wal-Mart Moms” demographic? Or are these voters united by something broader?

And perhaps most importantly - if Wal-Mart is right and “Wal-Mart Moms” are primarily concerned with bread-and-butter economic issues this election season, will we see them vote to change Wal-Mart?

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]

5 comments

---

WORKERS’ RIGHTS DEFENDANTS ASK FEC TO INVESTIGATE WAL-MART
Anyone who reads our blog regularly has undoubtedly already seen this article. Here are some reactions to it from the blogosphere.

Tell the FEC to Investigate Wal-Mart for Electioneering [ZP Heller on the Huffington Post]

Wal-Mart must be forced to set a better example regarding labor practices.  And here’s our chance to make them by signing American Rights at Work’s petition.  If Wal-Mart broke the law by threatening and scaring employees about which candidates to vote for this November, compel the FEC to hold the company accountable.

Unions strike back at Wal-Mart [BloggingStocks]

Why is Wal-Mart set to pick a fight with the Democrats? Don’t the folks in Bentonville read the political tea leaves? Odds are pretty good that the country will go Blue in a big way. Maybe the company is worried that the good times reflected in today’s results won’t last.

Wal-Mart: Political Bully [Alternet]
For years, Wal-Mart has been plagued by bad press. Now it has to fend off a Wall Street Journal report that it’s been politically bullying its employees. ANP headed over to a Wal-Mart in Virginia to ask shoppers what they think.

Wal-Mart busted on video for lying to employees about their rights [The G Spot]

It’s unclear whether Wal-Mart will face any legal consequences for the lies they told. But the Journal article notes that action has been taken on another front: labor groups have filed a complaint against Wal-Mart with the Federal Elections Commission. They’re asking the commission to investigate whether the meetings Wal-Mart organized around the country warning thousands of employees about the consequences of electing a Democratic president violated the law (you can find the complaint here). Will the F.E.C. take action? It seems like there’s a decent shot they might.

After the jump, life as a Wal-Mart pharmacist, Sam’s Club’s dubious green claims and design wonks hold their own Wal-Mart redesign contest.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

Wal-Mart could find needed pal on Hernando County Commission [St. Petersburg Times (Fla.)]

When the County Commission denied Wal-Mart’s plans to build a supercenter off Barclay Avenue in May 2007, it was the fall of a Goliath.

Considering the open-armed, even gleeful, welcoming of previous Wal-Marts to Hernando County, such a stunning turnabout was hard to figure. You couldn’t help but wonder how the politics in the county had changed so quickly and drastically.

Wal-Mart fatigue no doubt played a part.

By last year, the retailer operated three supercenters in the county and a Sam’s Club wholesale outlet. More seemed likely as the company pursued a relentless (since abandoned) expansion policy called saturation marketing.

Also, the site on Barclay, though zoned for retail use, was less than ideal — too close to schools and subdivisions such as Pristine Place, the residents of which crammed the commission chambers on the day of the vote.

What else? Well, as I watched that meeting, it struck me that the company had no power base in Hernando County.

Its lawyers were from Tampa. Not a single member of the local business community spoke in favor of the store. The commissioner who may be most closely allied with that community, David Russell, took the unusual step of saying he planned to vote against the store even before the meeting.

Read the rest of this story ...

25 comments

---

Managers could be influencing employees to vote Republican, with Julian Epstein, Democratic strategist and CNBC’s Larry Kudlow. [CNBC]

18 comments

---

In the wake of Wal-Mart’s massive anti-union political scandal that broke late last week, we decided to release a new Wal-Mart All Star Collectible card: Leslie Dach, Executive Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Government Relations.

As Jeffrey Goldberg points out, Dach was hired by Wal-Mart to convince Democrats to like the company. Wal-Mart, the born-and-raised red state company, has traditionally had a hard time with liberals, and Dach was brought in to win them over.

Leslie came to Wal-Mart from Edelman Public Relations, the company still responsible for most of Wal-Mart’s PR work. While there, “he led the Washington D.C. office, the company’s research, advertising, and corporate social responsibility consulting divisions and its global public affairs, crisis, technology, and healthcare practices.” He can spin with the best of them, but more important than his ability to doublespeak, Leslie Dach has serious Democrat cred. From Wal-Mart’s website:

Leslie has been active as a strategist in Democratic politics and worked in senior positions in a number of presidential campaigns, including as a senior advisor for communications for the Democratic National Committee in 2004 and managing the program at the 2000 Democratic Convention. He served the Clinton administration in a variety of project capacities, including special advisor to the National Security Advisor during the Kosovo conflict. Leslie was also a lobbyist for the National Audubon Society and Environmental Defense, and the special assistant to the chairman of the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee.

If Wal-Mart really wants to win over Democratic consumers, maybe the company should stop badmouthing Democratic candidates to its entire workforce. What does Wal-Mart’s recent Obama-bashing mean for Mr. Dach? Will his work appealing to sentimental liberals get flushed down the drain by the retailer’s political bullying? How can a self-proclaimed Democrat work for a company so blatantly un-Democratic? And what will it take for Democrats to look past the hype?

Wal-Mart All Star Collectible Trading Cards: Collect them all!

Mike Duke, Vice Chairman, International Division
Tom Schoewe, CFO
Susan Chambers, Executive Vice President, People Division

31 comments

---

American Rights at Work is joining the coalition of labor rights advocates calling on Wal-Mart to stop its anti-union worker intimidation. Below is the group’s call for signatures on a petition to the FEC, calling for a formal investigation of Wal-Mart’s tactics:

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Wal-Mart has been threatening employees to not vote for pro-worker candidates like Barack Obama in November because they support the Employee Free Choice Act.  If passed, the bill would make it easier to form unions in stores like Wal-Mart.

Telling employees how to vote in a U.S. election is not only morally reprehensible, it’s potentially illegal.

We’re starting a petition to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), asking for an investigation into Wal-Mart’s electioneering to see if any laws were violated.  Can you sign on?

Ask the Federal Election Commission to investigate Wal-Mart.

Read the rest of this story ...

4 comments

---

Change to Win is a coalition of unions and union members committed to restoring the American Dream for a new generation of workers – wages that can support a family, affordable health care, a secure retirement, and the opportunity for the future. They are calling on Wal-Mart to stop its shameful practice of worker intimidation.

Wal-Mart: Playing Politics, Playing Workers [Change to Win Press Release]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A Wall Street Journal article today exposed that Wal-Mart is using mandatory meetings with its employees in seven states to tout its political message, warning them not to vote for Democrats in the November elections for fear of new legislation that would make it easier for workers to organize unions. The WSJ reported that according to those who attended these meetings, the message was that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in. The following is a statement from Change to Win executive director Chris Chafe in response.

“In an election season driven by the desire for change and a demand by working families for better jobs, better wages, pension security and health care for all Americans, it should come as no surprise that Wal-Mart is weighing-in heavily – and possibly illegally – with its employees over the choices they face this November. Wal-Mart’s tactics are designed to intimidate their employees and discourage them from considering choices that would strengthen their voices on the job and bring tangible change for all American workers.

“Wal-Mart’s track record is clear. When workers try to organize a union, they are met with internal intimidation campaigns and illegal firings. Where workers succeed in gaining a voice on job, their departments are eliminated or their stores are permanently closed. It should be no surprise that Wal-Mart would stretch the limits of the law in an attempt to deny their workers’ rights and kill the Employee Free Choice Act. The company knows what all union workers know: workers in unions earn 29 percent higher wages on average, are 62 percent more likely to have employer health coverage, and four times more likely to have a pension.

“Shame on Wal-Mart. The industry leader’s attempts to skirt the law, and use scare tactics to alter the outcome of the election is nothing less than disgraceful.”

52 comments

---

Wal-Mart has been appealing to liberal, Democratic consumers for several months in an attempt to expand its market beyond the rural, conservative shoppers that have traditionally made up its core customer base. Will today’s news of anti-Democratic propagandizing at the company eradicate the gains Wal-Mart has made to win over liberals?

Wal-Mart politics risk customer alienation [MarketWatch]

Wal-Mart is apparently back to its old tricks.

The largest U.S. retailer is coming under scrutiny for its efforts to encourage managers to oppose a bill that would make it easier for unions to organize workers. See related Wall Street Journal story.
Wal-Mart is famously opposed to unions and has moved aggressively to discourage its employees from organizing in the past.

The company and a lot of other U.S. businesses, are concerned the bill will pass and be signed into law in the event that Sen. Barack Obama wins the presidency and Democrats make further gains in the Senate.

It’s hardly surprising that Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the U.S., would be wary of such a measure.

But whether it can make a plausible case to its employees against it without becoming deeply entangled in the complexities of labor law is another question.

It’s not that Wal-Mart can’t afford any penalties it might ultimately face for lobbying—some would argue intimidating—workers about how to vote. It’s simply a question of whether it can afford the fallout of being seen as so directly political.

Presumably its customer base is fairly representative of the overall U.S. population’s political beliefs. So the fear of unionization has to be pretty strong to risk alienating half its customers.

37 comments

---

The blogosphere has come out in full force in response to today’s Wall Street Journal story on Wal-Mart’s unconscionable, intimidating behavior towards its workers. Comments centered on both the egregious nature of Wal-Mart’s overt political posturing, as well as their fierce anti-union rhetoric. Following is a few of the insightful commentaries set forth by bloggers:

Wal-Mart to Employees: Don’t Vote for Democrats [AlterNet]

There’s a stunning story on the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal about how Wal-Mart is freaking out over the possibility of a Democratic win in the fall. So much so, in fact, that they’re calling mandatory propaganda meetings across the nation in which they’re indoctrinating workers about the alleged dangers of a Democratic takeover.

Wal-Mart vs. Their Workers [Political Animal]

This is par for the course. Few companies are as rabidly anti-union as Walmart, and there was never any doubt where their sympathies lie on this issue. They have a habit of firing workers who try to organize their stores, closing down stores that vote to organize anyway, and outsourcing entire departments when multiple stores vote to organize.

Why Are Democrats Taking Money From Wal-Mart? [Daily Kos]

To cut to the chase, Wal-Mart’s PAC spending is aimed at one thing: to make sure EFCA does not pass and, if it does pass, to make sure that the bill that reaches the president’s desk will be weakened (which, by the way, is what happened to labor law reform in the 1970s).

Fearing unions, Wal-Mart tells employees ‘how to vote’ [Carpetbagger Report]

At its core, these election-year efforts are targeting the Employee Free Choice Act, championed by unions and most Democratic lawmakers, which would likely boost union membership through a “card check” system.

Wal-Mart Warns Store Managers Of Democratic Party Win [The Moderate Voice]

The likely impact? It’ll become a big story on progressive talk radio (an increasingly hard-to-find entity in broadcasting) and most likely a huge issue on progressive blogs. And although Wal-Mart is unlikely to be seriously hurt by it, some who don’t want to see the GOP in power will decide their money might better be spent visiting a local Target store.

Read the rest of this story ...

6 comments

---

Today, the Wall Street Journal published the front-page story “Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win,” detailing efforts by the company to intimidate workers and discourage support of a labor-friendly administration. Wal-Mart Watch’s Executive Director David Nassar said of the article, “Wal-Mart wants its workers to believe the company has employees’ best interests at heart, but as workers told us this week when coming to us with these stories, they know better.  The current Wal-Mart culture is good for Wal-Mart executives, good for the Walton family, but very bad for Wal-Mart’s hourly employees.”

Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win [Wall Street Journal]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they’ll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies—including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

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.

Read the rest of this story ...

18 comments

---

Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win [Wall Street Journal]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they’ll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies—including Wal-Mart.