http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080801/us_nm/walmart_democrats_dc Wal-Mart Stores Inc is mobilizing U.S. store managers to lobby against Democrats in November's presidential election, fearing they will make it easier for workers to unionize, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. ADVERTISEMENT In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if store workers unionize, the paper said. About a dozen employees who attended meetings in seven states said executives stressed employees would have to pay hefty union dues and get nothing in return, and might have to go on strike without compensation, and warned that unionization could force the company to cut jobs as labor costs rise, the Journal reported. The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who have run the meetings didn't tell those attending how to vote in the November elections, but made it clear that voting for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, would be tantamount to inviting unions in, the Journals said. Wal-Mart could not be reached immediately for a comment.
The average full time Walmart employee makes $17,000 per year. Walmart makes $65,000 in post-tax profit for each and every employee, each year (5 year averages) Sounds like they could use a union. Of course, ExxonMobil makes $400,000 in profit for each employee.... but at least Exxon's workers aren't living in poverty.
Wal-Mart employees are treated just fine. You get more working there then you would if you worked at a grocery store, and equal to what you would make at a department store. I loved working for Wal-Mart. You also had life insurance paid for by the company, although it was only for half your annual pay. Unions have no place at Wal-Mart.
Won't this just make the employees want to vote for Dems? And what about Hillary? Wasn't she on their board? I wonder what they'd have done in that situation. What if she ends up the VP?
I don't know why employees would want to vote for a candidate or party whose bill would result in increased layoffs. Assuming that article is accurate, that's what'll happen if that bill passes.
what bill? did you read the article? obama phobia is strong. Well if you want to give big businesses and corporations all the advantages then by all means vote for mcain. I guess he will carry on bush's policies; big businesses over people
This is crazy because I work for Sams Club (owned by Wal-Mart) and I attended a meeting EXACTLY like this. Im a supervisor in a store and they tell you to even pass the message down to your associates but dont tell them who to vote for etc.. lol this is funny
What bill? It's right there in the 2nd paragraph in the article. I don't want McCain or Obama intentionally f'ing over big businesses just so they can claim the mantra of "fairness". Who the hell do you think gets affected in the end when politicians go after big businesses? The employees, the shareholders, and the consumers. You know? Regular Americans. It's like this absurd windfall profit tax Obama talked about this morning. He wants to hit up the oil companies so he can give $1000 handouts to Americans. Great, so what is his solution when this tax results in the oil companies moving overseas to avoid taxation(which means job losses), higher energy prices passed onto consumers(you think Big Oil is gonna just bend over and take it?), and less investment in exploration(which is the last thing you need in an era of low supply).
Is this a joke? Are you sure this isn't from The Onion or Mad Magazine? Impeach Bush/Nixon... uh, Chain Gang.
That's not really true. It's much harder to get pay increases, they don't like to give any kind of benefits, and getting a holiday day off isn't easy. They are a sweat shop. They need unionization pretty badly.
Wal-Mart is Now Denying the Claim 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 reported actions by Wal-Mart raised concerns among labor groups that the company, the nation's largest private employer with 1.4 million workers, has the power to exert influence in the elections. "They're trying to bully the American political" scene, said Stewart Acuff, assistant to the president of the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor organization. Wal-Mart may also be on thin ice as federal election rules allow businesses to push for specific political candidates to shareholders, executives and salaried managers, while prohibiting such actions for hourly workers, which typically include department supervisors. 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.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this. I'm just not sure my wondering about what Wal-Mart would do if Hillary was on the ticket, or what the employees will do after being told to vote for McCain has to do with your response to my quote.
Alienating and pissing off Democrats in an election they are likely to win at the Presidential level and virtually guaranteed to win at the Congressional level seems like a really dumb move on Walmart's part.
I see where your coming from but how much more do you want pay someone for stacking diapers on a rack,saying hello every time you walk into a wal-mart, or just working a cash register?
