Wal-Mart hinting that win for Obama is bad for workers

[Martin Blank]

According to this article, Wal-Mart has been holding meetings for its store managers and supervisors, informing them that if Democrats are able to hold both the White House and Congress, it is likely to pass legislation that will allow workers to unionize more easily. There appears to be an intimation that this would threaten their jobs by forcing Wal-Mart to make job cuts.

I'm not a terribly big fan of unions -- I've seen my family hit by them fairly badly -- but no company should be holding meetings like this. If your employees want to unionize, there's something wrong with how you're doing business. It means that you likely have an adversarial relationship with them, and that's not the right way of handling things.

I don't like it when I see companies fighting legal battles against groups of employees that wish to form or join a union, or suggesting that unions will be the downfall of the economy. Some of them actually do a great deal of good in general for their members, and keep people wanting to join those professions. Police, nurses, and firefighters come to mind on this. Unions are, all things considered, beneficial, and some of the (few) things that I love about California's labor laws were brought about by union pressures.

The only thing that I really buy at Wal-Mart anymore is ammo, and I know how to navigate to and from the sporting goods section quickly. I don't like it because it's too crowded. But this kind of thing makes me like it even less. I can handle them treating their employees poorly because they do it in the open, but underhanded political suggestions are really a new low.

[Hirschof]

I don't like it because it's too crowded. But this kind of thing makes me like it even less. I can handle them treating their employees poorly because they do it in the open

When I go to hell I know its going to be modeled after the Wal-Mart in San Marcos, TX.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

I wonder if Wal-Mart has the balls to punish employees for showing open support to Obama. That would be a PR nightmare.

[Makh]

Martin Blank is a communist.

[Martin Blank]

Huh? What kinda rules do you have now? That the employer must give the ok for the union or what?

All unions have to be federally certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). According to the Wikipedia article on the Employee Free Choice Act:

Under current labor law, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board will certify a union as the exclusive representative of employees if it is elected by either a majority signature drive, the card check process, or by secret ballot NLRB election, which is held if more than 30% of employees in a bargaining unit sign statements asking for representation by a union.

The card check process is one whereby employees sign authorization forms, sometimes called cards. This is not always preferable, as some unions in the United States have a history of using intimidation to get workers to sign cards even if they do not wish to work in a union shop, while some employers have used card records to intimidate employees into retracting their support. Unions have fought secret ballot requirements for some time, while employers sometimes suggest that secret ballots -- which are run by the NLRB -- are the only way of honestly knowing whether the employees want to unionize. Obama supports the EFCA, while McCain has sponsored competing legislation called the Secret Ballot Protection Act, which would do away with the card process entirely and require the NLRB election.

The biggest issue that I have with unions is how they handle certain funding issues. For example, they may use portions of union dues to explicitly support candidates that a union member does not support. While the courts have stated that a member must be provided with a mechanism to opt-out, such mechanisms are often difficult to find, are sometimes arduous to complete properly, and are subject to retaliatory measures by the union. These are all unofficial, of course. The unions' official position is that they follow the requirements of the court, make available the required forms in an easily-used format, and treat all members equally, no matter how they wish their dues to be used.

My father used to be in aerospace. Every few years, a strike would be called and the workers would walk the picket lines. At the negotiations, the union reps would drive up in fancy, chauffeured cars and expensive suits, make a big deal about this or that, and eventually cut a deal with the employer that was little different from the last contract. The union members, meanwhile, were often out a few days (sometimes weeks) of regular pay and returned to annoyed supervisors. Even now, when US automaker contracts come up for renewal with the United Auto Workers, the union picks a company which they publicly target for strike, and the strike almost always happens. This is done as a warning to the other two to keep them in line.

I don't want to be in a union. I don't know that I will ever want to be in one. I respect what they've done to build up the labor laws over the last century and change, but at the same time, I think their era has largely passed for most industries. Barely one in 12 US workers belongs to a union, and that number is still declining.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't situations where unions are needed, and I won't begrudge someone who believes that it's the only way to get a fair workplace. Wal-Mart is afraid of becoming a clone of Target if it has to raise prices to cover union requirements. But that's the effect of being so blindly competitive. An employer has two groups of people to keep happy: customers and employees. Wal-Mart may have forgotten the latter group, and may have to pay for it soon.

[Deacon]

If your employees want to unionize, there's something wrong with how you're doing business. It means that you likely have an adversarial relationship with them, and that's not the right way of handling things.

That's like saying that if your wife leaves you there's something wrong with you, and you're likely not satisfying her in bed. Maybe she's just found someone richer to sleep with. Isn't it possible that people just want more, always? That individuals keen on building their own personal fortunes and power are looking to sweet talk employees with promise of unlimited pay and unending vacations, especially when they can ride the tide of popular opinion that Wal-Mart is an evil, insidious, faceless American corporation? I know a number of people who work or have worked for Wal-Mart for some time, and while rarely are the jobs glamorous, and you always have to deal with idiot customers and jackass coworkers (like any retail job), I've not heard any complaints about how Wal-Mart mistreats employees in general or even just them in particular. I realize that this is anecdotal, but it makes it hard to take for granted the authenticity of loaded statements like the following:

I can handle them treating their employees poorly because they do it in the open, but underhanded political suggestions are really a new low.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that a win for Obama is bad for everyone.

[Dr. Tower]

Personally, I'm pretty sure a win for McCain is worse for everyone.

[adciv]

Personally, I'm pretty sure that a win for Obama is bad for everyone.

Personally, I'm pretty sure a win for McCain is worse for everyone.

And here's what most of us are going to be yelling at each other over the next three months. November 5th can't come fast enough.

[Deacon]

Personally, I'm pretty sure a win for McCain is worse for everyone.

What happened to your previous position? Did something change?

[Dr. Tower]

Yes, something changed. McCain did.

See: torture, NSA spygate, off shore drilling, and his general move to the far right.

My position has changed because many of his have.

[collegestudent22]

his general move to the far right.

"Far right"? Since when did general positions that are typically near the center of the Republican Party become "far right". And I think he is only holding most of those positions to shore up his base, as it were.

[ampersand]

Personally, I'm pretty sure that a win for Obama is bad for everyone.

Personally, I'm pretty sure a win for McCain is worse for everyone.

And here's what most of us are going to be yelling at each other over the next three months. November 5th can't come fast enough.

Quoted for Truth. By the way, the Obama camp has been calling me up every week on Friday, wondering if I'll change my position from undecided. And I'm sure it's the Obama camp because of the way the questions are skewed towards Obama, as in, "If the election were today, who would you vote for: McCain (dramatic pause for about 7 seconds) or Obama?" And the "Obama" is a positive happy sounding Obama.

At this point, I don't know if I'd be better off wasting my vote on a third party candidate than decide between these two losers. And if that third party candidate happens to be Nader, I'm going to elope to Canada.

[Mae Dean]

It sure is weird to be me, I suppose. Here I am, looking at these two guys as people that, while I DO have a preference between them - I think they would both make excellent presidents, and will be pleased no matter the results of the election. Hell - I VOTED for McCain 8 years ago. Doubt I'll be voting for him this time, but still. I know it always seems like picking from the lesser of two evils, but looking at the LAST few elections, I'd say we're doing pretty well.

Christ, I voted for whoever the Libertarian candidate was in 2004, just because I could not in good conscience vote for either candidate. And that's a big deal for me, because I take voting very seriously, and couldn't understand why people would "throw their vote away" on a third party before then.

Am I like... the only person who feels this way?

[Jezebel]

Not at all. I don't understand where all this Obama hate is coming from all of a sudden, though I'm still not entirely sure if I want to vote for him. I certainly wouldn't label either one of the guys as losers.

P.S. I also voted for Badnarik in 2004, Greg.

[Thorsman]

I don't understand where all this Obama hate is coming from all of a sudden,

A touch of racism coming out into the open, methinks.

[BtEO]

I don't doubt some is racism, but I suspect as much if not more is partisan hate as well from either side. We see it often over here too, although not to anywhere near the same level.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to find a not insignificant chunk of Obama hate still coming from Hillary supporters.