Human Rights Watch: Wal-Mart's tactics, some illegal, prevent workers from forming unions

[DeepModem Mom]

CNNMoney/Reuters: Wal-Mart faces blast from human rights group
Report claims No. 1 retailer uses array of tactics - some illegal - to prevent unions in stores.
April 30 2007



NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has used a myriad of tactics, including some that are illegal, to hinder the ability of its workers to form labor unions, a human rights group said in a report to be released Tuesday.

According to Human Rights Watch, the world's largest retailer has restricted the dissemination and discussion of pro-union views, threatened to withhold benefits from workers who organize, interrogated workers about their union sympathies and sent managers to eavesdrop on employee conversations.

Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the United States, has also refused to bargain collectively, fired employees it knows to be pro-union and focused security cameras on areas where union organizing is heaviest, according to the report.

Wal-Mart employs more than 1.3 million workers nationwide, none of which is in a union. "Wal-Mart workers have virtually no chance to organize because they're up against unfair U.S. labor laws and a giant company that will do just about anything to keep unions out," said Carol Pier, who researched the report for Human Rights Watch, which probes human rights abuses around the world....

***

"Wal-Mart is a poster child for what is wrong with U.S. labor laws," said Pier. "Many tactics comport with U.S. law but taken together they create a climate of fear and intimidation."

Wal-Mart exposes new hires to anti-union training sessions and videos, gives managers union-prevention manuals and uses a "union hotline" and a centralized database to track union activity across the country, Human Rights Watch said.

U.S. labor laws fall short of international standards, the report said, and "allow a wide range of employer conduct that violates workers' right to organize and fail to include 'sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference by employers against workers and workers' organizations,' as required by law."...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/30/news/companies/bc.walmart.labor.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

[saltpoint]

1. Thanks for posting this.

I don't expect we'll bring down the Wal-Mart corporation, but for what it's worth, our household does not shop there.

I don't like the anti-union attitude, and I think the richest company on earth could afford to pay its workers a proper pay package.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. I've only been to a Wal-Mart a half dozen times or so in the past several years. I wonder...

if there are any polls or other measurements of how many people are avoiding Wal-Mart shopping.

[saltpoint]

4. That's a good question. I'm not into bombing them but I'm into ignoring them.

Households need certain goods, of course, but we will look from them at Meijers or Target or somewhere else.

If I come across any polls like that, DeepModem Mom, I'll pass them along. I bet lots of DUers would like to see them if they're out there.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Thank you -- I'll do the same! nt

[nam78_two]

3. K&R.nt

[Matsubara]

6. K&R. I recently saw a Penn & Teller show glossing over Wal-Hell's record.

I liked them better when they were magicians on Letterman back in the day, not hearing them do right-wing spiel all the time.

[formercia]

7. When to buy at Wally World

when you know it's a loss leader. The more you buy, the more they lose.

[Fierce]

8. The union-prevention manuals are a hoot.

Or at least would be, if more people would see them for what they are.

[formercia]

9. The serf economy.

What's the difference between a serf and a slave?

The slave gets room and board.

The serf is thrown out in the street when the shift is over.