Wal-Mart denies that it told employees how to vote

Message

Bob Juch · #1 Post by **Bob Juch** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:59 pm

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.

Full story: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/08/ ... 81116.html

NellyLunatic1980 · #2 Post by **NellyLunatic1980** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:17 pm

A bill supporting unions would hurt workers. Yeah, because God forbid a company give its workers healthcare, fair wages, and paid vacations. *gasp!* Oh my God! Hide the children! I'll be on the fainting couch.

Wal-Mart is $300B company that makes $9B per year. They can't fork out a couple of billion a year to make their employees' lives a little better? Horses**t.

gsabc · #3 Post by **gsabc** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:26 pm

Now that the denial is out there, when does the YouTube video of one of the meetings show up?

SportsFan68 · #4 Post by **SportsFan68** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:44 pm

Not WalMart, but the issue of unions in general and Right to Work in particular is hot in Colorado this year.

A bunch of people got together and put a Right to Work measure on the ballot, promptly followed by four retaliatory measures put together mostly by unions which sound good on the surface but are punitive toward small businesses. The Denver Chamber of Commerce has denounced all of them.

My worry is that ALL the amendments will fail because so many of them are so awful. It would be a shame if the SAFE Amendment failed because we desperately need it (Savings Account For Education).

silverscreenselect · #5 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:22 pm

To hear companies tell it, they are all, out of the goodness of their hearts, already paying each and every employee the maximum amount possible and that any additional benefits, whether from raises in the minimum wage or union-bargained benefits or whatever, will cause the company to go belly up.

It's amazing that there's anybody left working at all in the country with all those horribly extravagent raises employees have got over the years.

#6 Post by **littlebeast13** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:05 pm

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:A bill supporting unions would hurt workers. Yeah, because God forbid a company give its workers healthcare, fair wages, and paid vacations. *gasp!* Oh my God! Hide the children! I'll be on the fainting couch.

Wal-Mart is $300B company that makes $9B per year. They can't fork out a couple of billion a year to make their employees' lives a little better? Horses**t.

Maybe they should just roll out the red carpet for us and commission limos to bring us to and from work too. Dammit, I deserve to make $25 an hour and take 10 coffee breaks a day like those people with those big time union jobs get while the people who make minimum wage do the work they don't do....

And it would be nice if they'd take the shackles off when we have to stock stuff on the high shelves, because it's awful hard to reach them when we're chained up like that. Dammit, save me from my personal hell Senator Obama!

lb13

ulysses5019 · #7 Post by **ulysses5019** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:47 pm

littlebeast13 wrote:
NellyLunatic1980 wrote:A bill supporting unions would hurt workers. Yeah, because God forbid a company give its workers healthcare, fair wages, and paid vacations. *gasp!* Oh my God! Hide the children! I'll be on the fainting couch.

Wal-Mart is $300B company that makes $9B per year. They can't fork out a couple of billion a year to make their employees' lives a little better? Horses**t.

Maybe they should just roll out the red carpet for us and commission limos to bring us to and from work too. Dammit, I deserve to make $25 an hour and take 10 coffee breaks a day like those people with those big time union jobs get while the people who make minimum wage do the work they don't do....

And it would be nice if they'd take the shackles off when we have to stock stuff on the high shelves, because it's awful hard to reach them when we're chained up like that. Dammit, save me from my personal hell Senator Obama!

lb13

But you get discounts on squirrel feed and squirrel porn videos, right?

Here's Fanny! · #8 Post by **Here's Fanny!** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:57 pm

littlebeast13 wrote:
NellyLunatic1980 wrote:A bill supporting unions would hurt workers. Yeah, because God forbid a company give its workers healthcare, fair wages, and paid vacations. *gasp!* Oh my God! Hide the children! I'll be on the fainting couch.

Wal-Mart is $300B company that makes $9B per year. They can't fork out a couple of billion a year to make their employees' lives a little better? Horses**t.

Maybe they should just roll out the red carpet for us and commission limos to bring us to and from work too. Dammit, I deserve to make $25 an hour and take 10 coffee breaks a day like those people with those big time union jobs get while the people who make minimum wage do the work they don't do....

And it would be nice if they'd take the shackles off when we have to stock stuff on the high shelves, because it's awful hard to reach them when we're chained up like that. Dammit, save me from my personal hell Senator Obama!

lb13

Ha, stuff like this makes me laugh. Unions were necessary and needed 100 years ago. Now, with all the federal and state rules and regulations regarding employee rights, etc., they are not.

If people don't like the pay, the benefits, the hours, the amount of vacation time or the colour of the fainting couch, they're perfectly able to seek employment that better suits their delicate sensibilities.

Spock · #9 Post by **Spock** » Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:27 am

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:
Wal-Mart is $300B company that makes $9B per year. They can't fork out a couple of billion a year to make their employees' lives a little better? Horses**t.

And class, Nelly has provided us with a perfect example of the insatiable greed of the leftist for other people's money.

ne1410s · #10 Post by **ne1410s** » Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:08 pm

a perfect example of the insatiable greed of the leftist for other people's money.

I was taught to share. But, that was one of those pagan Christian thingies.

Spock · #11 Post by **Spock** » Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:59 pm

ne1410s wrote:
a perfect example of the insatiable greed of the leftist for other people's money.
I was taught to share. But, that was one of those pagan Christian thingies.

Oh, I'm sure you are well aware of the difference between private voluntary and government charity.

BigDrawMan · #12 Post by **BigDrawMan** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:56 am

Here's Fanny! wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:
NellyLunatic1980 wrote:A bill supporting unions would hurt workers. Yeah, because God forbid a company give its workers healthcare, fair wages, and paid vacations. *gasp!* Oh my God! Hide the children! I'll be on the fainting couch.

Wal-Mart is $300B company that makes $9B per year. They can't fork out a couple of billion a year to make their employees' lives a little better? Horses**t.

Maybe they should just roll out the red carpet for us and commission limos to bring us to and from work too. Dammit, I deserve to make $25 an hour and take 10 coffee breaks a day like those people with those big time union jobs get while the people who make minimum wage do the work they don't do....

And it would be nice if they'd take the shackles off when we have to stock stuff on the high shelves, because it's awful hard to reach them when we're chained up like that. Dammit, save me from my personal hell Senator Obama!

lb13
Ha, stuff like this makes me laugh. Unions were necessary and needed 100 years ago. Now, with all the federal and state rules and regulations regarding employee rights, etc., they are not.

If people don't like the pay, the benefits, the hours, the amount of vacation time or the colour of the fainting couch, they're perfectly able to seek employment that better suits their delicate sensibilities.

------------------

Unionized workers make more money and enjoy greater benefits than non union workers.
It is foolish to let management have full control over your wages and benefits when there is a better option.
The next thing the GOP does for the working man will be the first.

Jeemie · #13 Post by **Jeemie** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:00 am

BigDrawMan wrote:Unionized workers make more money and enjoy greater benefits than non union workers.
It is foolish to let management have full control over your wages and benefits when there is a better option.
The next thing the GOP does for the working man will be the first.

They don't have full control.

You can seek employment elsewhere, as was pointed out.

minimetoo26 · #14 Post by **minimetoo26** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:04 am

I don't know what they're worried about--how many of their workers are US citizens and eligible to vote?

(Just teasing--and I know beast is a card-carrying member of the National Apathy Party...)

#15 Post by **littlebeast13** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:09 am

BigDrawMan wrote:
Here's Fanny! wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:
Maybe they should just roll out the red carpet for us and commission limos to bring us to and from work too. Dammit, I deserve to make $25 an hour and take 10 coffee breaks a day like those people with those big time union jobs get while the people who make minimum wage do the work they don't do....

And it would be nice if they'd take the shackles off when we have to stock stuff on the high shelves, because it's awful hard to reach them when we're chained up like that. Dammit, save me from my personal hell Senator Obama!

lb13
Ha, stuff like this makes me laugh. Unions were necessary and needed 100 years ago. Now, with all the federal and state rules and regulations regarding employee rights, etc., they are not.

If people don't like the pay, the benefits, the hours, the amount of vacation time or the colour of the fainting couch, they're perfectly able to seek employment that better suits their delicate sensibilities.

------------------

Unionized workers make more money and enjoy greater benefits than non union workers.

Yeah, which is why it costs an arm and a leg to buy a car or forces one to take out a second mortgage if they need a home repair....

For everyone out there who is getting paid less than they deserve, there are just as many people out there who are getting paid more than they deserve....

lb13

#16 Post by **littlebeast13** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:11 am

minimetoo26 wrote:I don't know what they're worried about--how many of their workers are US citizens and eligible to vote?

(Just teasing--and I know beast is a card-carrying member of the National Apathy Party...)

Like it would matter, living in a state that's already handed its electoral votes to Obama anyway.....

All my co-workers speak English. But I'm surprised how many customers don't.....

lb13

BackInTex · #17 Post by **BackInTex** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:25 am

BigDrawMan wrote: Unionized workers make more money and enjoy greater benefits than non union workers.

I'm non-union. I'll wager a box of tissue that my pay and benefits over the last 25 years have exceeded almost any union job.

I worked for a company in the 90's that owned a trucking company. The number 2 priority of that trucking company was employee retention. (Number 1 was safety). They did that by providing high pay and better benefits than other trucking companies, even the unionized ones.

If you were a good, safe driver, motivated by productivity, and willing to work, you could make a very good living. If you were a poor or unsafe driver, and were not productive, you got let go.

Unions are needed only to protect the less productive, and to provide funding for the union infrastructure. No doubt a union would prevent a driver with 2 - 3 at fault accidents from being fired.

I prefere to go to Target rather than Walmart because of the employees (no offense to specific Walmart employees). Walmart as a whole hires below Target. I see how most of the Walmart employees 'work' and I'm surprised they can remain employed at all. At the Walmart by my house there are 2-3 great employees to every 10 slackers. I only hope that Walmart is able to reward their employees based on merit and not some union scale. Those 2-3 deserve much more than the other 10.

BigDrawMan · #18 Post by **BigDrawMan** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:28 am

Jeemie wrote:
BigDrawMan wrote:Unionized workers make more money and enjoy greater benefits than non union workers.
It is foolish to let management have full control over your wages and benefits when there is a better option.
The next thing the GOP does for the working man will be the first.
They don't have full control.
------------
thats true.There are minimum wage laws.

You can seek employment elsewhere, as was pointed out.

-----------

or they can unionize and make more money.

or stay and do nothing and always be poor.

BackInTex · #19 Post by **BackInTex** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:35 am

BigDrawMan wrote: or they can unionize and make more money.

If Walmart unionized and ends up paying a higher scale (all benefits included), most of those that work there (or would work there) will never get hired as a better class of potential workers will apply.

So while maybe those already working there will get higher pay, those just like them that were future hires will never get on and end up having to work for even less elsewhere.

BigDrawMan wrote: or stay and do nothing and always be poor.

If that is the level of motivation then they get what they deserve.

Jeemie · #20 Post by **Jeemie** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:52 am

I was going to reply, but BiT beat me to it.

Unions had their day and served their purpose...their day is now past.

Weyoun · #21 Post by **Weyoun** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:00 pm

I don't see what the controversy is. It's not like Wal Mart can actually police the votes of its 2 million employees.

peacock2121 · #22 Post by **peacock2121** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:36 am

When I was 16, I went to work for Sterling Optical. It was not a 'union shop'. There was talk about a union coming in and doing whatever they do to have Sterling unionize.

The manager (who was also one of the optometrists) came to us and told us if we joined the union, there would be no more Christmas gifts. No kidding - no more toe socks? (that is what I got as a Christmas gift that year).

I was more annoyed by how stoopid he thought I was than by a union trying to unionize us.