Getting Away With It

I'm pretty sure the behavior Wal-Mart is engaged in here, pressuring employees to vote for John McCain, is illegal. But the real scandal is what's unquestionably illegal. There's an awful lot companies can do perfectly legally to block union organizing drives. But some of the most effective tactics are illegal. That doesn't, however, mean that following the law is smart business strategy:

On June 30 the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Wal-Mart illegally fired an employee in Kingman, Ariz., who supported the UFCW and illegally threatened to freeze merit-pay increases if employees voted for union representation. The decision came eight years after the organizing campaign failed, and four years after the case was originally heard.

Under these circumstances, union organizers have no effective legal recourse to violations of labor law and employers have no incentive to actually follow the law. And since employees know the laws won't be enforced if broken, employers only relatively rarely need to actually break the law in order to get the correct intimidating threat. Like the mafia, a company like Wal-Mart only needs to be seen to break a few kneecaps and get away with it for there to be an adequate intimidation effect to de facto deny a vast workforce its rights.

Photo by Flickr user wetwebwork used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Kudos to the WSJ for breaking this story and putting it on the front page.

Posted by Dan | August 1, 2008 11:12 AM

That story makes me want to kneecap some Walmart execs.

Posted by Francisco The Man | August 1, 2008 11:18 AM

I'm pretty sure the behavior Wal-Mart is engaged in here, pressuring employees to vote for John McCain, is illegal. But the real scandal is what's unquestionably illegal.

Paging an editor.

Editor to the white courtesy phone.

Any editor but that dimwit McArdle.

Posted by Editor, Please | August 1, 2008 11:27 AM

This kind of story -- which is absolutely typical of how the Board deals with unfair labor practices -- always reminds me of Frederick Douglass's famous statement about power conceding nothing without demand. "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground."

This country will change our outrageously anti-worker legal regime only after lots and lots and lots of agitation. Not just voting and pressuring Congress, but strikes, factory takeovers, etc. Capital has so much power, and absolutely no incentive to compromise.

Posted by Pesto | August 1, 2008 11:29 AM

I hate WalMart, My grandparents wont even shop there, Now More and More I see why. Companys should stay out of there empolyees voting booths. Walmart should get back lash for this. Let there stock take a good hit so they can figure out where the line is in employee / employer realations. I am torn, do I vote for Obama, who I dont think
is really the change that he claims, and the
change he is going to bring might be for the worse. He is sooo
arrogent too. Bush was very arrogent. I think weve learned our
lesson for voting for someone who wont admit when they are
wrong. Stay the course is a scary Motto. I dont want that any
more. Obama is a bit scary. OH, did you see the video of
Obama losing his temper., I had never saw that before. They
have that video of http://www.TheObamaPlan.com
and McCain isnt the same candidate as he was in 2000
I think everyone thought they were getting 2000 McCain,
Instead we got a much more confused and cranky McCain.
Did you seem him knock the stuff off the shelf in the grocery
store., Or him blowing up on the reporter. His Campaign has
become a punch line. You can see both mentioned train wrecks
at http://www.mccanes.com

Posted by Peter | August 1, 2008 11:32 AM

I hate WalMart, My grandparents wont even shop there, Now More and More I see why. Companys should stay out of there empolyees voting booths. Walmart should get back lash for this. Let there stock take a good hit so they can figure out where the line is in employee / employer realations. I am torn, do I vote for Obama, who I dont think
is really the change that he claims, and the
change he is going to bring might be for the worse. He is sooo
arrogent too. Bush was very arrogent. I think weve learned our
lesson for voting for someone who wont admit when they are
wrong. Stay the course is a scary Motto. I dont want that any
more. Obama is a bit scary. OH, did you see the video of
Obama losing his temper., I had never saw that before. They
have that video of http://www.TheObamaPlan.com
and McCain isnt the same candidate as he was in 2000
I think everyone thought they were getting 2000 McCain,
Instead we got a much more confused and cranky McCain.
Did you seem him knock the stuff off the shelf in the grocery
store., Or him blowing up on the reporter. His Campaign has
become a punch line. You can see both mentioned train wrecks
at http://www.mccanes.com

Posted by Peter | August 1, 2008 11:33 AM

Now now.

The people who are philosophically opposed to the existence of unions, and believe that they perform no social good whatsoever while harming the economy and bullying workers, are really just concerned about making sure the procedures for establishing these satanic bastions of freedom- and prosperity-robbing socialism are conducted properly.

Yeah, that's it.

Posted by joe from Lowell | August 1, 2008 11:40 AM

Wow, it's the Gilded Age again, only without the economic growth.

Posted by Medium Dave | August 1, 2008 11:51 AM

not surprisingly, "Peter" has been copy/paste-posting the same shit all over the place. sometimes using the handle "Peter", sometimes "Paul", sometimes "Pastor123"

Posted by cleek | August 1, 2008 11:53 AM

That is so screwed up. We really need better labor laws.

Posted by Swan | August 1, 2008 11:59 AM

You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

Posted by atom smasher | August 1, 2008 12:18 PM

Yeah, but the savings from illegally fighting off union organization is passed on to the consumer right?

Just kidding. We've been bitching about this sort of thing for years. I'm glad to see it discussed outside of a roomful of desperate union lawyers.

The pro-Mac campaign is kind of amazing when you think about it. They've basically taken their outstandingly successful anti-union campaign strategies and expanded them to a presidential campaign.

Posted by laborlibert | August 1, 2008 12:25 PM

It seems like it might be counterproductive for Wal-Mart to tell its employees "If Democrats win then we won't be able to unionbust anymore." I know everyone doesn't like unions as much as I do but the employees seem to know when they're being browbeaten.

("Editor, Please," I do believe Yglesias actually meant that -- what's scandalous is that they do stuff that's unquestionably illegal and suffer no consequences for it.)

Posted by Matt Weiner | August 1, 2008 12:52 PM

Does Walmart want to be in urban areas?

Yes. They're the only places left they can expand into domestically.

Posted by Hustler | August 1, 2008 1:15 PM

As a matter of logic, perhaps Matthew can explain how party A can "pressure" party B, to engage in behavior C, when A has no way to determine what B's behavior has been? Is Wal Mart going to fire all these people if Obama wins the election? Do tell! Hyperbole, thy name is Yglesias!

By the way, I'm not anti-union, as long as expressing one's preference whether to form one or not can be kept as secret as one's preference for President, if one desires such privacy.

Posted by Will Allen | August 1, 2008 1:22 PM

Does Walmart want to be in urban areas?

Actually, Wal Mart has a pretty good urban-model store, designed to go into a big storefront in an urban area with lots of foot traffic. They've got a few in NYC, as I understand it.

Posted by joe from Lowell | August 1, 2008 1:52 PM

Speaking of Wal-Mart

Check out this absolutely amazing animated graphic map that shows the spread of Wal-Mart across the country starting with a single store in Arkansas

http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/

Posted by Kent | August 1, 2008 2:00 PM

They've got a few in NYC, as I understand it.

From what I've seen, Target is the one with the urban-model stores in NYC. I don't think Wal-Mart has yet been able to overcome organized opposition to open a New York City location.

Posted by mds | August 1, 2008 2:10 PM

I think Wal-Mart is making a mistake with card check.
They should make a deal with the union that they will unionize all of Wal-Mart's competitors before coming to Wal-Mart.
The costs are just going to be passed along to the consumer anyway, and Wal-Mart has the economies of scale to still under-price competitors if they all basically have the same union contract.
I believe many underestimate the fact that it is good to big in a social democracy.
It is even better if you are the biggest.
Also, who is to say that Wal-Mart could not receive a better union contract than their competitors. They are the prize, 300+ million in annual union dues. That buys a lot of TV time for Democrats.

Posted by cfpete | August 1, 2008 2:19 PM

I think Wal-Mart is making a mistake with card check.
They should make a deal with the union that they will unionize all of Wal-Mart's competitors before coming to Wal-Mart.
The costs are just going to be passed along to the consumer anyway, and Wal-Mart has the economies of scale to still under-price competitors if they all basically have the same union contract.
I believe many underestimate the fact that it is good to big in a social democracy.
It is even better if you are the biggest.
Also, who is to say that Wal-Mart could not receive a better union contract than their competitors. They are the prize, 300+ million in annual union dues. That buys a lot of TV time for Democrats.

Posted by cfpete | August 1, 2008 2:23 PM

By the way, fire your entire IT staff.
Because this comment will probably also be posted twice.

Posted by cfpete | August 1, 2008 2:27 PM

I know I'm going to be in the minority here.... but I think it is perfectly appropriate for a company to inform its employees how different candidates would affect the company and therefore its employees. I work for a large corporation that often informs its employees how different party platforms/candidates' positions on issues might affect my company negatively. Sometimes I take it into account when voting, sometimes I don't (the way a candidate's policies would affect my company being only one issue in a portfolio of many that I consider when voting--and generally a very minor one).

PRESSURING an employee to vote a certain way is an entirely different matter, but wouldn't it require some threat (explicit or implicit) of retaliation against the employee to be considered presure? I don't see that in the WalMart article.

And BTW, I have never and will never shop at WM, but for entirely different reasons.

Posted by Pippi | August 1, 2008 3:20 PM

I know I'm going to be in the minority here.... but I think it is perfectly appropriate for a company to inform its employees how different candidates would affect the company and therefore its employees. I work for a large corporation that often informs its employees how different party platforms/candidates' positions on issues might affect my company negatively. Sometimes I take it into account when voting, sometimes I don't (the way a candidate's policies would affect my company being only one issue in a portfolio of many that I consider when voting--and generally a very minor one).

PRESSURING an employee to vote a certain way is an entirely different matter, but wouldn't it require some threat (explicit or implicit) of retaliation against the employee to be considered presure? I don't see that in the WalMart article.

And BTW, I have never and will never shop at WM, but for entirely different reasons.

Posted by Pippi | August 1, 2008 3:23 PM

I think it makes good sense to tell employees how political changes could affect the company they work for. After all, this is a free country, right? Notice, it is just the unions that are screaming about this. The unions need the dues and Walmart is a big prize. In fact, it is the biggest prize they can get. If you think mafia has powers, just wait till the union gets all the Walmart dues.

Posted by barbara | August 3, 2008 1:16 PM

I think it makes good sense to tell employees how political changes could affect the company they work for. After all, this is a free country, right? Notice, it is just the unions that are screaming about this. The unions need the dues and Walmart is a big prize. In fact, it is the biggest prize they can get. If you think mafia has powers, just wait till the union gets all the Walmart dues.

Posted by barbara | August 3, 2008 1:16 PM

I think it makes good sense to tell employees how political changes could affect the company they work for. After all, this is a free country, right? Notice, it is just the unions that are screaming about this. The unions need the dues and Walmart is a big prize. In fact, it is the biggest prize they can get. If you think mafia has powers, just wait till the union gets all the Walmart dues.

Posted by barbara | August 3, 2008 1:17 PM

This is part and parcel of how capitalism operates. The owning class writes laws or has them written on their behalf. What kind of capitalism do liberals propose would fix this? How will we live in a grotesquely unequal society and check the gargantuan power of capital? How is it possible under capitalism?

Posted by Kai | August 3, 2008 4:29 PM