|
The New York Times
Mixing Politics and
Wal-Mart
Sunday Opinion,
nytimes.com Posted August 17, 2008
E-mailed gaypasg.com
August 19, 2008
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.
Wal-Mart acknowledges that it summoned employees around the country to warn them
about the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow unions to organize
companies if more than half the workers signed cards agreeing to join,
dispensing with the need for a secret ballot. But in a memo to managers, Bill
Simon, the chief operating officer, said that any executive who might have
appeared to be suggesting how to vote was “acting without approval.” Employees,
a spokesman said, were merely told which members of Congress supported the
legislation.
The vast majority on that list are Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama,
who co-sponsored the bill.
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.
Even if the F.E.C. eventually rules against Wal-Mart, the case underscores what
a paltry deterrent election law provides. According to legal experts, the rules
call for fines of only a few thousand dollars per violation. Even if thousands
of violations were committed, the fine would amount to pocket change for
Wal-Mart.
|
