Sounds familiar.

I am sure if another public outcry was made of this, like another high cost of wal-mart video: part 2 - The threat on American Freedom, CEO Lee Scott would immediately make a change.  But as long as no one objects and no public image damages, wal-mart will continue claiming that their employees were "acting without approval."

I must say that it is a valid argument.  Just like their labor negotiations and discriminations, (which mostly come from the west coast no less) are only mutually exclusive cases in seperate areas.  So I would have to continue to note that this is another peice of sensationalism.  Not every Wal-Mart does this.  Only those specific ones did.

However, I would like to know why each of those stores did it?  Maybe a regional manager needs to get fired?  The fact that it isn't a national problem is what makes one scratch the head.

If your a Wal-Mart employee or just anyone?

Eh...

I can only stretch that to un- or low-skilled workers who need some sort of bargaining power.

Th NY Time editorial mentioned in the Canadian article agrees. As do I. One more good reason to not shop at Wal-Mart other than the often lack of any products that haven't come from China.  Old Sam must be twirling in his grave for that reason only. His expressed goal
was to buy and sell American.

August 17, 2008
EDITORIAL
Mixing Politics and Wal-Mart

It is hardly news that Wal-Mart will do whatever it takes to keep unions out of its stores, from closing down a unionized outlet to firing pro-union workers. The National Labor Relations Board has already ruled several times that Wal-Mart has violated the law by retaliating against workers for supporting a union.

Facing the prospect that union-friendly Democrats could win both the White House and Congress, the retail giant is now turning its attention to this year’s election.

Last week, several labor groups filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, accusing Wal-Mart of violating election rules. They acted after The Wall Street Journal reported that thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads had been called to mandatory meetings and told that if Democrats won in November they would likely pass a law to make it easier to unionize companies. According to The Journal, Wal-Mart executives warned that could force the company to cut jobs, while workers would be forced to pay union dues and might have to go on strike.

Telling workers who are paid by the hour — Wal-Mart department supervisors are hourly workers — how to vote is prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Wal-Mart acknowledges that it summoned employees around the country to warn them about the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow unions to organize companies if more than half the workers signed cards agreeing to join, dispensing with the need for a secret ballot. But in a memo to managers, Bill Simon, the chief operating officer, said that any executive who might have appeared to be suggesting how to vote was “acting without approval.” Employees, a spokesman said, were merely told which members of Congress supported the legislation.

The vast majority on that list are Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who co-sponsored the bill.

The Federal Election Commission should investigate the allegations swiftly and aggressively. The “rogue executive” defense is a well-trodden excuse that should fool no one. Providing workers with a list of members of Congress who, in Wal-Mart’s view, support bad legislation that would worsen workers lives seems indistinguishable from telling them who to vote against.

Even if the F.E.C. eventually rules against Wal-Mart, the case underscores what a paltry deterrent election law provides. According to legal experts, the rules call for fines of only a few thousand dollars per violation. Even if thousands of violations were committed, the fine would amount to pocket change for Wal-Mart.

The F.E.C. needs to tighten its rules. Companies like Wal-Mart need to respect those rules and their workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17sun2.html?pagewanted=print

LOL why doesn't this suprise me?

I think I am going to save my self the trouble and stay out of the argument, especially arguing in favor of the likes of Wal-Mart.  I am not going to sit here and write a dissertation about how labor unions are now outdated and are concurrently run as a cultural necessity rather than an actual productive outlet.

My initial glib remark was against Iamme's idea of "social justice" which like always is a two-sided coin, sometimes costing more than it tries to benefit.

Always low wages, always.