Friday, September 12, 2008

Whoa! Carol, Me, and Wal-Mart: What We Didn't Know


My previous post, up just minutes ago, shouldn't be left an orphan. The Wall Street Journal underscored just how NON-neutral Wal-Mart is about this election in an August 2008 article, "Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win":

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.

Ah. So this book thing my Dearling and I noticed may not be mere paranoia on our part? No sirree!

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.

One Wally World employee told WSJ:

"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.

Yep. Just like they are apparently telling their customers how to vote.

(Related BlueChristian link: Wal-Mart Promotes Anti-Obama Books)

2 comments:

Arwen Mitchell said...

This made me think of something I recently read in Sojourners (link below).

Not only are the Waltons all about telling their customers and employees how to vote, they are also implicit in keeping America economically imbalanced.

I extra refuse to shop there. :)

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0809&article=a-problem-of-riches

bob brown said...

Whether it is the Walton Family or the Dixie Chicks, I think it is just plain dumb to take a polarizing stand on whatever are issues of the day when you have something you are trying to sell. You risk alienating about half your customers. (Note Ms Mitchell's vow.)

Further, I am ignorant of particulars, but might there be federal law about exposing your employees at work to your political views as an employer?

Although I don't believe that you as an employee have any explicit first amendment rights relative to politicking at work, save perhaps union organizing activities, there has to be some kind of intimidation factor relative to contnued employment or promotion when the "Sons of Sam" say thus and so about the Big O.

I think the Waltons, in particular, would have aught against Obama and Democrats in general because they are non-union.

The D's continue to push for the 50%+ card signing method to certify unions and do away w/ the secret ballot for union elections. This, of course, opens the door for union thugs to intimidate individual employees divide and conquer style to gain union certification.

This is something we can look forward to if we have undivided government with an effective super majority in the Senate.

Ms Mitchell:

If you have time, would you expand on how you think Wally World is complicit (I think that's what you meant) in keeping America economically imbalanced?

//bb