Last week, State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced the results of an investigation by his office that found high levels of lead in baby bibs sold at Wal-Mart stores across the state. The retailer is cooperating with Cuomo’s office to remove the product from its shelves, but given the company’s already struggling image, the last thing Wal-Mart needed was a reputation for selling toxic chemicals to infants.
Days before that announcement, Human Rights Watch released a fairly in-depth study titled, “Discounting Rights: Wal-Mart’s Violation of U.S. Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association,” a 210-page volume outlining the many hurdles Wal-Mart has put in place to keep its employees from joining labor unions. Wal-Mart tells its workers that unions are a bad thing. Wal-Mart shows its employees videos and literature illustrating just how bad they think unions are. Wal-Mart even encourages its employees to narc on other employees who might be flirting with the idea of forming a union. The end result is that not one Wal-Mart employee in any of its more than 4,000 retail locations is privy to union representation.
“Wal-Mart workers have virtually no chance to organize because they’re up against unfair U.S. labor laws and a giant company that will do just about anything to keep unions out,” said Carol Pier, senior researcher on labor rights and trade for Human Rights Watch. “That one-two punch devastates workers’ right to form and join unions.” Pier further notes that while Wal-Mart executives have unfettered access to its employees to explain the horrors of unionization, labor leaders are banned from all store property.
“Employers can make their anti-union case loud and clear in the workplace, while banning union reps from company property,” said Pier. “That’s hardly a free and democratic election climate, and it would be unfair in any political contest.”
Those same labor unions that blast Wal-Mart for keeping them out aren’t exactly pining for a fair system, either. The Democratic sweep in last year’s mid-term elections brought with it improved labor influence in Washington. That influence was used to pass the “Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA) in the House, a bill that would effectively eliminate secret ballots in union elections. Instead, unions could be formed through a “card check,” whereby an employee simply signs a card stating that he wants to join a union. Business leaders fear that this new system would lead to a culture of union intimidation, and they might be right. If the union guys approach someone to join the union, is that employee going to be strong enough to say “no” in the face of such pressure? If this system were put in place for legislative office, no one would accept it. In labor issues, dirty tricks are fair game for both sides.
Human Rights Watch supports EFCA, which has not passed the Senate, despite its destruction of the secret ballot system, charging that employers can force union elections and then intimidate its employees during the campaign period to vote against the formation of a union. Human Rights Watch even calls the card check system a “democratic union selection process,” even though it would simply amount to a shift in who gets to do the intimidation, at best. The organization has also called for stricter punishments for companies like Wal-Mart that aggressively move to prevent unions from entering their businesses, equating the current laws with a slap on the wrist.
“Wal-Mart should change its anti-union behavior,” said Pier. “When companies like Wal-Mart can regularly violate U.S. workers’ right to organize, they threaten a fundamental right and one that the government is duty-bound to uphold.”
In its defense, Wal-Mart responded to the report by stating that unions are dying in America anyway and declaring the great love its employees have for keeping things the way they are. “Wal-Mart provides an environment of open communications and gives our associates every opportunity to express their ideas, comments and concerns,” said company spokesman David Tovar in a statement. “It is because of our efforts to foster such an environment that our associates have repeatedly rejected unionization attempts.”
One thing that Wal-Mart has not done a good job with is fighting for its reputation in the public eye. If the company wanted to keep its stores union-free forever, it should take the message to the public: unions mean increased costs, and those costs will be passed on to the consumer. Politicians would eventually have to decide if protecting the interests of a relatively small union workforce iss worth aggravating the much larger group of shoppers who value the company’s low prices and probably care less about the company’s labor practices. It’s nice to point out how much money Wal-Mart makes and demand they kick more to their employees, but that kind of socialism is hard to sell in a country where people pine for their own eventual riches. Just because I make a lot of money means I should give more to you? Take that back to Berkeley, buddy.
