Handshake With Sam
While Wal-Mart’s founder, Sam Walton, steered his company’s growth over its first thirty years, he never let anyone forget that with such tremendous success come certain moral responsibilities. He led by example, and he did business with a handshake.
Today’s Wal-Mart has lost Sam’s way. That’s why we’ve proposed a new contract with Wal-Mart’s current leadership—to help Wal-Mart take its place as a responsible business leader for the new century.
Friday Blog Round-Up: Jet Set Edition
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt
WORKERS’ RIGHTS DEFENDANTS ASK FEC TO INVESTIGATE WAL-MART
Anyone who reads our blog regularly has undoubtedly already seen this article. Here are some reactions to it from the blogosphere.
Tell the FEC to Investigate Wal-Mart for Electioneering [ZP Heller on the Huffington Post]
Wal-Mart must be forced to set a better example regarding labor practices. And here’s our chance to make them by signing American Rights at Work’s petition. If Wal-Mart broke the law by threatening and scaring employees about which candidates to vote for this November, compel the FEC to hold the company accountable.
Unions strike back at Wal-Mart [BloggingStocks]
Why is Wal-Mart set to pick a fight with the Democrats? Don’t the folks in Bentonville read the political tea leaves? Odds are pretty good that the country will go Blue in a big way. Maybe the company is worried that the good times reflected in today’s results won’t last.
Wal-Mart: Political Bully [Alternet]
For years, Wal-Mart has been plagued by bad press. Now it has to fend off a Wall Street Journal report that it’s been politically bullying its employees. ANP headed over to a Wal-Mart in Virginia to ask shoppers what they think.
Wal-Mart busted on video for lying to employees about their rights [The G Spot]
It’s unclear whether Wal-Mart will face any legal consequences for the lies they told. But the Journal article notes that action has been taken on another front: labor groups have filed a complaint against Wal-Mart with the Federal Elections Commission. They’re asking the commission to investigate whether the meetings Wal-Mart organized around the country warning thousands of employees about the consequences of electing a Democratic president violated the law (you can find the complaint here). Will the F.E.C. take action? It seems like there’s a decent shot they might.
After the jump, life as a Wal-Mart pharmacist, Sam’s Club’s dubious green claims and design wonks hold their own Wal-Mart redesign contest.
Read the rest of this story ...
The Differences Between Wal-Mart in the U.S. and China
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt
The Daily Show’s Rob Riggle, on assignment in Beijing, takes a trip to one of the country’s “home-grown success stories,” Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart: Always Low Wages, Always
Posted by Research Team
Earlier today Wal-Mart, the largest company in the world by revenue, announced its earnings figures for the second fiscal quarter of 2008. Between April and June, the company earned a whopping $3.45 billion, and sold an almost unfathomable $101.6 billion worth of merchandise. Prospering as American consumers are forced to downgrade, Wal-Mart has been enjoying a rare window of prosperity in a declining economy.
The Walton family, which holds a majority share of the company’s stock, stand to profit greatly from Wal-Mart’s sales. The company’s stock rose $17 a share between November 2007 to June 2008, and with 43% of the company’s stock in its possession, this means the Walton family made around $29 billion off the stock price increase alone. Also standing to benefit is CEO Lee Scott, who earned a total of $59.8 million last year - 1646 times what an average Wal-Mart hourly employee earns annually.
Despite the company’s massive profits, Wal-Mart’s wages remain shamefully low. In fact, when accounting for inflation, wages for Wal-Mart’s hourly employees has actually fallen since 2004. Our newest fact sheet - “Wal-Mart: Low Wages, Always” - provides more details about the company’s efforts to keep wages low.
Wal-Mart depends on low wages to keep profits high, and the company is willing to go to extreme lengths to keep it that way. Wal-Mart’s recent anti-union propagandizing is just one such example, but it’s part of a larger, cohesive company policy to keep benefits poor and wages low. Learn more in our fact sheet: click here to download “Wal-Mart: Low Wages, Always.”
Did Wal-Mart violate federal law?
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt
According to the Wall Street Journal’s recent story, corporations are permitted “to advocate for specific political candidates to its executives, stockholders and salaried managers, but not to hourly employees.” By many accounts, hourly employees were present in Wal-Mart meetings advocating against voting for the Democratic presidential nominee in November, and the company may have violated federal regulation if this is the case. Several groups have lodged formal complaints with the FEC, asking for an investigation
To help us sort through the nuanced finer points of federal election regulation, we turn to the bloggers of the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal, all of whom have written on the matter. The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog notes “Companies aren’t permitted under federal election law to expressly advocate to hourly employees the election or defeat of specific candidates,” but goes on to say Wal-Mart may have violated federal labor regulations as well:
According to a digital recording of a Wal-Mart meeting made by a Wal-Mart employee and reviewed by the WSJ, the meeting leader told employees that their wages may be reduced to minimum wage for up to three months before a contract is negotiated, that union authorization cards violate workers’ right to privacy by including their Social Security numbers on them and that if a small unit within a store votes to unionize, the entire store will be unionized.
“The statements are not correct representations of what the law would require even under the current law,” said Jeffrey Hirsch, a labor lawyer in Boston. “It would be a violation of the national labor relations act to say those things.”
Steven Greenhouse at the New York Times Politics Blog goes farther with this argument, pointing out that Wal-Mart’s behavior in this case is only the latest example of a company-wide anti-union policy:
Wal-Mart, which has 1.4 million employees nationwide, has a reputation for fighting fiercely against unionization efforts. Wal-Mart officials say that store managers are told to comply with the law when they battle against unionization drives, although labor leaders cite numerous National Labor Relations Board decisions finding concluding that Wal-Mart had improperly fired union supporters or engaged in other illegal anti-union tactics.
“For years, Wal-Mart has been intimidating and harassing its workers who want to form unions,” said Mary Beth Maxwell, executive director of American Rights at Work, a union-financed advocacy group. “Now they’ve adapted their union-busting tactics to influence our federal election system.”
And finally, the Washington Post’s “The Trail” Blog helps explain why its important to address these issues, especially at Wal-Mart:
“Wal-Mart may be the world’s largest retailer, and America’s number one private employer, but it is not above the law,” said Meghan Scott, spokesperson for WakeUpWalMart.com. “Wal-Mart has intimidated its workers and attempted to scare them into voting against a particular party and candidate, and from what workers tell us, these meetings haven’t stopped. This behavior proves that Wal-Mart is willing to go to any lengths to put profits ahead of its workers.”
Read Wal-Mart Watch’s Complaint to the FEC
Posted by Media Team
Today, several labor groups asked the FEC to investigate Wal-Mart. Last week, Wal-Mart Watch submitted a formal complaint to the Federal Election Committee last week, requesting an investigation of Wal-Mart’s political intimidation. From the letter:
As reported in the Wall Street Journal on August 1, 2008, in a piece entitled “Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win,” Wal-Mart has been mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors across the country to warn them of a Democratic victory in the November general election. More specifically, it has been reported that Wal-Mart has been informing its employees that a Democratic victory in November could lead to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which in turn would allow workers to form unions without the fear of being fired and allow a simple majority of employees to certify a union to act as their representative.
Wal-Mart representatives deny any wrongdoing, and only an FEC investigation would answer this question for sure. Meanwhile, controversy still remains over Wal-Mart’s fear-mongering insistence that unions will bring fewer jobs and yet lower wages to the company’s employees. Its attempt to intimidate employees out of standing up for their rights is doubly shameful, and while we await an FEC investigation, the company’s anti-union misrepresentation and propagandizing should not be overlooked.
Wal-Mart Should Be Probed Over Political Meetings, Group Says [Bloomberg News]
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. should be probed by federal regulators over reports that company officials broke the law by advising employees against voting Democratic in the November elections, a worker advocacy group said.
Wal-Mart Watch has requested the Federal Election Commission investigate media reports that Wal-Mart managers advised employees against voting for Democratic candidates, according to a letter to the FEC dated Aug. 6. Managers told employees that a Democratic victory could lead to the formation of a union, which might impose fees on workers, the letter said, citing a Wall Street Journal story.
“These are serious actions taken by Wal-Mart which are in violation of federal election law, and we request that you investigate them to the fullest extent possible,’’ wrote David Nassar, executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, in the letter.
Wal-Mart denies breaking the law.
Read the rest of this story ...
Labor Groups Request FEC Investigation Of Wal-Mart’s Tactics
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt
Representatives from some of the nation’s largest labor organizations will be a formal letter to the FEC today requesting an investigation of Wal-Mart’s political meetings with employees. Along with the letter are the names of thousands of activists who signed a petition endorsing the request.
While Wal-Mart’s political involvement here might have been illegal - an FEC investigation would determine that for sure - the company’s message in its meetings was indisputably anti-union and anti-worker. The specter of unionization at its U.S. stores has Wal-Mart executives nervous, and the company’s actions reveal its intent to keep employees paid poorly and too afraid to speak up. The most important thing that could come out of this discussion of Wal-Mart’s practices is for store employees to realize federal law protects their right to speak out and band together.
Unions Seek Probe of Wal-Mart Over Election Law [Wall Street Journal]
Prominent labor groups are seeking an investigation into whether Wal-Mart Stores Inc. violated federal election laws by telling employees that electing Democrats would lead to passage of legislation making it easier to unionize companies.
In a letter to be delivered as early as Thursday, the labor groups are asking the Federal Election Commission to determine whether the company “made prohibited corporate expenditures” by organizing meetings across the country to warn employees that a Democratic president would back legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which the company opposes. The groups say such statements amount to advocating the defeat of Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in the November election.
Companies aren’t permitted under federal election law to expressly advocate to hourly employees the election or defeat of specific candidates. The complaint cites as its source an Aug. 1 front-page article in The Wall Street Journal that reported the Bentonville, Ark., retailer held meetings with thousands of store managers and department supervisors across the country to discuss the legislation.
Read the rest of this story ...
Site Fight of the Week: Granite City, IL.
Posted by Media Team
The town of Granite City, Illinois, takes great pride in putting people first. Now its residents are putting people before corporations by rallying against a proposed measure that would allow Wal-Mart to expand.
Recently, the Granite City Planning and Zoning Commission granted Wal-Mart’s request to rezone agricultural land for commercial use. Now, the world’s largest corporation will take the measure to the City Council on August 19th. If it passes, Wal-Mart will be allowed to expand its current store on to agricultural land. To add insult to injury, Granite City taxpayers will help subsidize Wal-Mart’s expansion because the project is located in a Tax Increment Financing District.
Wal-Mart hurts communities in many different ways. One Collinsville, Illinois resident wrote to the Press-Record, saying:
“We had a nice, quiet little store before the supercenter took over. Many, many life-time associates—I am talking 20 plus years—have been cut to part time… We are tired and our spirit is broken, don’t do this to your town. Glen Carbon said no, you can too!”
Granite City’s local businesses will feel the brunt of the expansion, as Wal-Mart edges in on their market share. Citizen action group Granite City First explains Wal-Mart would not provide increased sales tax revenue for the town, but rather would simply transfer existing sales away from local businesses. This is hardly compatible with Granite City’s plan for a revitalized downtown.
Granite City does not need unchecked growth; it needs sustainable development. Help make sure Wal-Mart isn’t allowed to super-size its store in Granite City. Use our simple email tool to write a letter to Mayor Hagnauer and the Granite City Council and tell them to stand up to Wal-Mart:
http://action.walmartwatch.com/granitecity
Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton once wrote, “If a community does not want us there, we will go somewhere else.” On May 8, Granite City First delivered 3,000 letters to City Hall from community members protesting Wal-Mart’s expansion. There can be no clearer sign of a community’s opposition. In communities across America, residents have stood up to Wal-Mart and won. Now it’s Granite City’s turn.
Activists Call On the FEC to Investigate Wal-Mart for Electioneering
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt
If you haven’t already, we encourage everyone to sign American Rights at Work’s petition asking the Federal Election Committee to investigate Wal-Mart’s possible electioneering. More than 24,000 people have already signed on, and the more support for the petition, the better. In a post today on the Huffington Post, Michael Whitney from American Rights at Work takes a look at why Wal-Mart’s political involvement in this case should be considered illegal, as well as why the Employee Free Choice Act is so important.
Time To Investigate Wal-Mart’s Anti-Democrat Electioneering [Huffington Post]
When the news broke earlier this month that Wal-Mart started organizing its store supervisors against Barack Obama and other pro-worker candidates who support the Employee Free Choice Act, there was widespread outrage—and rightly so.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
“The meeting leader said, ‘I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won’t have a vote on whether you want a union,’” said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. “I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote,” she said.
Yikes! This obviously raises a lot of questions, but let’s start with two I want to specifically address: Is this legal? And what is Wal-Mart afraid of?