Walmart, not backing Dems... Whats your take?

[nmballa]

I agree with Walmart 100%. I would rather burn my company to the ground than let it be unionized.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_bi_ge/wal_mart_politics

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, denied a report Friday that it had pressured employees to vote against Democrats in November because of worries that a bill the party supports would make it easier for workers to unionize.

The measure, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. It was co-sponsored by Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential candidate, and opposed by John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee.

A report in The Wall Street Journal said the Bentonville, Ark.-based discounter — which has rigorously resisted being unionized — had held mandatory meetings with store managers and department supervisors in recent weeks to warn that if Democrats take power in November, they would likely push through the bill, which the company says would hurt workers.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar told The Associated Press that the company did discuss the bill with its employees, including what it sees as the negative impact, and noted that the company's stand on the legislation is no secret.

"We believe the Employee Free Choice Act is a bad bill and we have been on the record as opposed to it," he said.

But he said the company wasn't advocating that its employees vote against backers of the legislation.

"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression... they are wrong and acting without approval," said Tovar. In fact, he said that Wal-Mart has been working with both Republicans and Democrats.

"Half of our (political action committee) contributions are to members of each party," Tovar said. "We regularly educate our associates on issues which impact our company, and this is an example of that."

The Wall Street Journal cited about a dozen unidentified Wal-Mart employees who had attended such meetings in seven states as saying they were told that employees at unionized shops would have to pay big union dues while not receiving any benefits in return.

Furthermore, workers said they were told that unionization would mean job losses as costs rise, according to the report. The report said the Wal-Mart human resource managers who held the meetings didn't specifically tell the employees how to vote, but made it clear that a Obama victory would mean unionization.

Wal-Mart Watch, a union-backed group that has criticized the company for what it calls skimpy pay and benefits and poor treatment of its workers, said in a statement that the article "demonstrates once again that Wal-Mart intimidates its workers." The group, which supplied some of the sources to The Wall Street Journal, said the stories cited in the article are "consistent" with numerous reports it has received in the past week.

The development deals a blow to Wal-Mart's reputation just as the company has started seeing its image improve and criticism diminish as it works to improve benefits and push through its "Save money, live better" campaign.

In a session with reporters after the company's annual shareholders meeting in June, Wal-Mart President and CEO Lee Scott said Wal-Mart was comfortable working with either presidential candidate. In the past, Wal-Mart had lined up with the Republicans. But the company's message of environmental sustainability, its program to offer $4 prescription drugs and improved benefits for workers helped move the company to the political center.

"We stand ready to work with the new Congress and whoever is elected (president)," Tovar said Friday.

[chavez]

Walmart is free to endorse whomever they like.

BUT

They cannot, and should not, engage in tactics to sway the votes of their employees.


I am no more a fan of unions than you. But you can't tell people they cannot unionize. You certainly can entice them to not unionize.

It's a free market. Compensate the employee well and they will not need to unionize.

You need not look farther than Costco to see a shining example of how this should work. Only their Butchers are union.

[nmballa]

chavez, I agree with that you can't tell them where to place their vote but you can definantly let them know what the managements stance is. I think it would be on the same field as inviting a candidate to address the employees, I believe that is legal.

The only place I have ever seen as large of a lack of efficiency as unions is in government, namely the DOT. Now keep in mind I live pretty close to chicago and the difference between organized crime and unions is a real grey area.

[intotheflats]

Anything walmart is for, I am against

[nmballa]

intotheflats, don't me wrong, I hate Walmart but I hate Unions much more.

[chavez]

nmballa, it's a gray area. Somewhere in there is the line where mgmt is telling them who would benefit the company most, and telling them how to vote.

If I read the various stories on the subject right, it is not permissible to engage in this tactic with hourly employees. Which they did - the department managers from the stores are hourly, not salaried.

Here is a snip from a WSJ article on the issue:

[nmballa]

chavez, that interesting. Why would they allow for one but not the other?

[DRAGON88]

We should do away with the secret ballot, that way Walmart can figure out if you've betrayed the mothership. Otherwise how are they going to know?!

[nmballa]

DRAGON88, actually they should do away with the right to unionize. It's not a right to work for a company its your privilege. Thats why you can get fired. Unless you hold some sort of interest in the company then what right do you have to make demands of them. Go somewhere else if you don't like it. Work your way up the ladder from company to company. Unions were founded due to a lack of labor laws, today we have OSHA and labor laws (minimum wage, etc.) to govern the private sector.

[Neognosis]

Unions are a product of the free market. Why shouldn't workers have the right to collective bargaining? Why should the company be free to utilize every method at their disposal to get the most out of workers for the least, but workers aren't allowed to do the same thing?

If it's that bad for business, fire everyone and hire new workers.

nmballa has a point about unions not being as necessary as they were before OSHA and labor laws though.

But if you think workers shoudl not have the right to unionize, what gives companies the right to exist in the first place?

[boardordie]

[nmballa]

cameraboy, an employee can ask for certain concessions and benefits. A union demands it. The power these unions hold over the companies is absolutely rediculous. If I performed my job poorly I would rightfully loose my job. A union employee dosn't have that threat to encourage him to perform. Perhaps it's not that I don't believe in the basic principle of unions its more the abuse of the system.

I maybe way off on this one but my guess why the airline industry and US car manufactures are taking such a beating at the moment is the unbelievalbly high cost structure embeded in these industries due to years of being unionized. It's definantly not oil becouse most non domestic airlines and car manufactues are doing just fine. These guys are loosing their jobs and possbily pensions but still looking for pity. It's their push for absorbant salaries and redicolous pensions that are sinking their collective companies.

[nmballa]

boardordie, well said...

Here another shining example of how unions work. I often work convention center for trade shows. You are forced to use unions. They are below average workers. Slow and clumsy. But they do get the work done. It just takes alot longer and costs a stuff load. But Chicago exhibitions are on a whole different level. To plug in and extension cord requires hiring a union electrician for a minimum of one hour at about $150 per hour. Don't even think of doing anything your self. I have gotten in screaming matches with them and their usual response is you can do it your self but everything in the booth will be destroyed when you get in tommorow. Typically we hire a few union guys and give them chairs to sit in while we do the work. Atleast they are getting their cut and we can get the work done. Effen rediculous.

Oh and take a look at this article. A little dated but sums up how they conduct themselves fairly well.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=183408

[Neognosis]

the "BIG THREE" never stood up to unions because they could afford to shell out that type of money for years and years. Then an unfair trade balance, tariffs on american cars overseas, and stupid, stupid american automakers failing to make a more fuel efficient car in the 1970's fuel crisis lead to the inability of the big three to keep shelling out to the unions what they could in the past.

The big three didn't get "railroaded" by unions, they simply failed to anticipate the popularity of japanese and foreign cars, and they failed to adjust for the fuel crisis. Then, when fuel became cheap again, they failed once more, when they banked on SUVs and big trucks, which are now going to finish them off. Has the "big three" not been run by incompetent morons, the stress put on them by unions would not be as bad as it is.

My point is that unions made their bargains when the big three could afford to pay whe they demanded. That's no longer the case. But it's not ALL the fault of the unions.

Just like we all agree that business exists to make money, people have jobs to get as much as they can for themselves and their families.

nmballa, I used to be a union member. A union doesn't "demand" anything. They work out a contract through collective bargaining. The only difference between a union bargaing for more days off and an individual bargaining for more days off is the power of the collective.

Contrary to popular belief, you can fire a union employee. I've see 4 people fired for incompetence, sexual harassment, and crashing a company vehicle. And they were all union members. It might be harder to fire a union worker, but it's a myth that you "can't" fire a union member. And I can tell you that the jobs at the union shop I worked at were FAR better and more sought after, thus bringing in a bigger pool from which to pick the best people. So in this case, where the work involved a measurable skill, the union shop attracted better workers.

Clearly, there is abuse. If what you say about plugging in an extention cord (are you sure this isn't an exaggeration? The unions I dealt with only required an electrician to rewire anything or plug in a multi-socket power strip...but ok) is true, then clearly that's going too far.

But, if we accept that business can do whatever it can get away with to make a profit, shouldn't the same thing be true for individuals?

[boardordie]

nmballa, I've also experienced the Chicago trade show nazi's! Unfortunately our higher ups have to carry around a pocket full of money. Pay the guys off to get our crates, pay the guys off to get electric, pay the guys off to get carpet rolled out, pay the guys off to keep the booth from getting destroyed, etc., etc...

I wouldn't have believed this if I didn't actually seen the results. I work in plastics... injection molding specifically. One of my customers is unionized and have certain "amounts" of work for each shift. No more... less is ok. Anyway one of the technicians had already changed his "quota" of tools for the day and he refused to change anymore tools over. The supervisor threatened his job, blah, blah, blah and the guy is changing the tool. Supervisor walks away... technician drops a 1 3/4" box end wrench into the tool and closes the tool up with all 1100 tons of clamp pressure. I know it was a 1 3/4" wrench because it was pressed completely into the tool steel! Approx. value of tool = $250,000. Damage exceeded $50,000 and shut down production for 3 weeks on that part. Long time employee and union protected him... technician still works there today!!!

[nmballa]

cameraboy, the power plug is not exaggerated. You plug it in but just don't want to be caught doing it. Every trade show at the mccormick center that we have ever attended has required an electrician for simple electrical hook up. Plugging in lights, etc. The McCormick center is probably the exception to the norm. Freeman is regarded as the most difficult exhibition union to deal with. Especially the Chicago division. We have been screamed at moving objects that required more than one person to lift. According to them they should be forked in. Chicago really helps in maintaing the long standing notion that unions are corrupt.

Union jobs are always sought after more than non union. Typically they pay better. But in the flip side the production often costs more and non union members are paid less. I know several companies that basically advertise the fact that they are non union. This means the individual/company seeking manufacturing/product often pay less, brings in more buisness. One could easily argue that unions drive inflation.

[Neognosis]

That's nonsense. A whole union isn't going to strike over ONE douchebag, unless it's a very strong union and very weak employer.

I don't think you are lying, but considering that I was in a union and saw 4 people fired personally, and you are getting this second hand from a customer, I have to conclude that either things are very, very different there, or there is some embellishment going on by someone along the chain of the story.

Sure, people are greedy. Both people in management, and people in labor. Why do we accept the greed of management, but are SO outspoken when the greed is on the part of labor?

Answer: because most of us either are management, or hope to be sometime, I hypothesize.

The way I see it, labor organizing for collective bargaining is no different than managment meeting to decide how far they strip labor benefits without causing a mass exodus.

[nmballa]

[pet575]

Unions have their place, and they also exist in places in which they abuse the power they have been given by the employer or management. nmballa's Chicago example is a great example of abuse of union power, but it should not be construed as "typical union" across the board or across the country. They still have their place in many occupations and locations today.

The following statement, though, is completely unfounded:

[lcap]

Democrats have always been big supporters of unions.

This country was built by union hands.

On the most critical of commercial, military and industrial projects they are all union. Your planes are all built and then controlled by unions.

Companies rarely fail because blue collar wages. They fail because they have more managers and consultants than workers.

Show me anyrthing made by union hands vs rats and ill show you the difference immediately.

[nmballa]

[booby bunny]

[booby bunny]

[Neognosis]

Actually, it's not management's company. It's the stockholders company, and if not public, it's the owner's company.

If we accept that management can do what they want to make their money, we have to accept that labor can do what they want and make as much money as they can without getting fired.

You have a job to make a living, not to sacrafice yourself for a business. Make the best living you can, the best way you can. Unions cross the line when they start to erode a company, but like it's been said, companies rarely fold becaues of labor's wages.

The big three autos are a perfect example. Inept leadership and political policy coming straight from the top of the gov't killed the big three.

[nmballa]

cameraboy, I agree with you points... Why havn't the big three cut wages? I can't recall which airline, but it was a prime example of unions crossing the line. They refused a wage cut. So the only alternative was, if memory serves me correct, to fold the airline. Maybe it was that they laid a ton of employess off, I can't recall and too lazy to do a search now.

[booby bunny]

Why would a union cut a wage if the executives are getting bonus?

[lcap]

nmballa

Actually those projects being awarded to union only companies have nothing to do with "lobbying." It has to do with "best value." And having "trained, skilled" workforce."

The cost to pay someone a living wage to a consumer is almost nothing. An extra $0.10 per $100 spent. The argument has more to do with not being able to take advantage of workers.

Look at Boeing as an example. They tried to get out of the parts building business. They could get parts made in the any part of the world and they tried. Didn't work--parts had over 90% rejection rate. And with "just in time" any part that arrives with 9 out of 10 bad--well that isn't a path to profitability. Now they are back into parts building and come September 1st it'll be interesting to see how far the union members bend them over.....

Look at our automakers... GM/Ford/? went to Canada and Mexico to exploit "cheap labor." They did that and Toyota moved into the U.S. They paid more for labor than GM/Ford/? but who is profitable?

[Dragonlady8]

[Neognosis]

All union contracts are different. Keep that in mind. Just because one union has a contract with a long procedure to fire someone, doesnt' mean they all do.

It took us almost a year to fire a white transexual woman at my last non-union job.

[criminally_minded]

[JoeyJojo]

Unions are great, otherwise there wouldn't be so many plants going up in the south

[Dragonlady8]

criminally_minded, It's up to $6 and some change. A few states have a higher minimum wage than federal standard though.

[pyrocasto]

[Neognosis]

Anyone know what Golden parachute the Delphi execs got when the company went down? Anyone know the other reasons Delphi folded? If union wages are the reason your company went under, you must have a pretty horrible business model, or be making something nobody wants.

pyrocasto, that's your perogative. Are you telling us that you pay your employees the absolute best you can? If so, that's admirable. IN the US today, the pay difference between the lowest paid worker and the highest paid executive in the average business is many, many times higher than anywhere else, and much, much higher than since the depression. If you really run your company with the idea that you are going to treat your workers the best you can while still keeping the business profitable, I don't see any reason why you would ever have to fear a union.

[pyrocasto]

cameraboy, I dont think unions are the reason businesses go under, but they are one more thing hurting it many times. I'm just throwing out examples from experience, I dont know what the execs got from that(problem doing pretty well).

I pay my employees exactly what I think they earn. Problem is some days they work like $25+/hour workers, and sometimes they arent worth $8. People have no drive and determination to make something of themselves anymore yet still feel they are worth so much. Truth is if half the people at my business wanted something more for themselves, and were willing to work their ass off for it, I'm be very happy to pay them more than myself, and to one day have them take my job.

People get into business with hopes using people efficiently and making the business work for them. Anyone that owns one quickly finds the owner often works to keep everyone else's jobs, while getting squat in return.

I had a manager quit last year because we were making bank and not sharing it with her and the other employees. Yet no one seems too check the records to see she made more money the last year she was there than the Pres of the company.