Huffington Post: The Wal-Mart Dictatorship: Vote McCain or Else?

[Omaha Steve]

For those that like to shop at this chain of stores.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/the-wal-mart-dictatorship_b_116681.html

Posted August 4, 2008 | 02:46 PM (EST)

It's got Karl Rove written all over it. It smacks of the lowest form yet of sleazy Republican intimidation tactics to disenfranchise voters and influence the outcome of the November election. And it's got right-wing spinmeisters whipped into a mouth-foaming frenzy. We're talking about the behemoth retailer Wal-Mart's alleged threats against its employees if they vote for the Democratic presumptive nominee for president, Sen. Barack Obama. It's all about jobs. So is the world's largest retailer really trying to scare the bejesus out of its 1.4 million workers? "Vote for Obama and you could be fired." Is this what it's all coming to?

What apparently has Wal-Mart executives' panties in a snit is the belief that if Obama becomes president it's more likely that its employees will unionize, which is something the notoriously stingy employer fears. Wal-Mart's reputation as a lousy employer is legendary. Charges of low wages, poor benefits and overall workplace mistreatment have plagued the company for years.

At issue now is a bill, co-sponsored by Obama and opposed by the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, that could force the retail giant's hand and serve to appreciably lighten its pocketbook. The measure, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow unions to organize workplaces without secret ballot elections, thus making it much easier to turn companies from non-union to union. Should this happen at Wal-Mart, it would cost the company bazillions, eating into its sizable earnings. Wal-Mart recently reported first quarter 2008 profits of over $3-billion, a 6.9% increase over last year. Our collective hearts bleed for them, huh?

So what exactly is Wal-Mart up to? The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the company has been holding mandatory Chicken Little meetings with store managers and department supervisors warning that the bill would likely pass in an Obama administration and that that would negatively impact its workers. To what degree the warnings were issued is not confirmed, but many Wal-Mart employees anonymously have said that the company's message is quite clear: "a vote for Obama could mean a loss of jobs." And while the company may not have specifically instructed any of its employees -- be they management or rank-and-file -- to vote specifically for McCain, the intention is obvious: "We don't like Obama. We don't like Unions. Obama will unionize us. That will hurt business and result in massive layoffs. We do not want Obama to be president." They don't need to finish this with, "and if you vote for Obama you will lose your job." The perceived threat is already there. Of course, Wal-Mart denies that it's threatened or intimidated its workers.

As expected, right-wing spinheads are rushing to Wal-Mart's defense. On his national Sirius Satellite Radio program Friday, The Wilkow Majority, Andrew Wilkow emphatically and repeatedly asserted that Wal-Mart, or any company for that matter, not only has the right to maintain whatever size workforce it so desires, but that it would be well within their right to warn employees outright that "If you vote for Obama you will be fired."

In an email exchange, I pointed out to Wilkow that not only is his suggestion unconscionable in terms of voter intimidation, but that it was convoluted in its enforceability. How would Wal-Mart know who their employees voted for? And how, therefore, could they fire only those who voted for Obama? It's moronic no matter how you slice it.

FULL story at link.

[anonymous171]

1. Isn't that illegal or something?

[Beregond2]

2. I really don't see the problem with this. And I hate WalMart.

First, they didn't say anyone would be fired if they voted for Obama. That would be ridiculous, since they can't know how anyone votes. They said that if he were elected, and that billed passed as a result, there would be cutbacks. So?

Is it a shock to anyone that they aren't on the side of the workers? They are a company, and their purpose is to maximize profits; period. That's why unions exist: to counterbalance the motives of the company with the motives of the employees. Of course they are going to do everything they can to prevent unionization. That's their job. Just as it is the job of the unions to fight to get companies unionized. It is, by definition, an antagonistic relationship.

Back in the seventies, my mother went to work for Montgomey Ward.. There was a meeting for people who wanted to talk about unionization. The company sent a spy, and everyone who showed up was fired the next day, including my mother. That's the way business works. "Business ethics" is an oxymoron.

Capitalism is a state of perpetual war, and you don't win by thinking the enemy is going to be nice.