In many cases it's not a matter of what's legal and what's not. Nor is it necessarily a matter of company policy. Supervisors and coworkers at pretty much any job are capable of getting someone to quit. Company policy might not be politically biased, but that won't necessarily stop supervisors and coworkers from being more unfriendly toward someone based on a discussion of who they've, plan to vote for, etc.

From my point of view, a company (or supervisor for that matter) that would try to bully me around politically isn't one worth working for. If my boss ever was brazen enough to try and tell me who to vote for, I would ask him if he wants notice or if I should just GTFO right now.

Additionally, profitable employees come in all political bents. Basing employment on political views would be a poor business decision (in the vast majority of cases). Filling positions with any fool who'll vote a certain way isn't going to help productivity.

I would expect no less from a company that uses Medicaid programs as their health care provider.

Absolutely, those who want to work can always find it. I guess it depends on the desperation as the unemployment rates continue to climb even with the current methodology
of deciding who is and who is not unemployed.  Maybe the Wal-Mart executives will succeed and the attempt to manipulate the vote, not for a union, but for who will occupy the Oval Office will succeed. Who can tell if you're desperate enough for employment if you'll be willing to mark a ballot at your employer's direction to keep your job. Or better still as unemployment continues to rise the recruiters will be so successful McCain will no long feel there is a need for a draft.

And Santa Claus will arrive on time, no one will get lumps of coal in their stockings and the Easter Bunny will lay huge chocolate eggs for all. The dual deficit will disappear,
China will quit supplying Wal-Mart with cheap goods, actually with the shut downs of traffic and manufacturing in China to clean up the air for the Olympics there is that possibility, but I have no doubt the Iraqi government is going to take all that oil surplus and pay for their own reconstruction, we'll all have two chickens in the pot and all
will be peaceful around the planet as we live happily ever after.

Ever worked part-time  for minimum wage Gojira to try to feed a family? Let me know when you've had that experience. 

In most civilized countries it is illegal to fire someone for joining a union, that should be one of the reforms, if it is not the law already. (I'm not sure).

Have you?
[/quote]

Your answer Gojira is yes, plenty of times and in some cases even less. Prior to the minimum wage being applied
to service workers to add to really low military pay of my spouse to feed my children, one waitress position page
$2 a shift, no matter how many hours were required per shift. That was a total of often far more than a 40 hour
week, with the actually income coming off the tips which were also taxable or supposed to be.  Not the first time
nor the last time as jobs for military spouses who were always moving were often hard come by.

And then the labor unions who brought about not only the 40 hour week with overtime past that number caused
service workers to be included in being paid minimum wage. The example was not the first time nor the last time.

Substitute teaching during grad school was very low paid and by the day rather than the hour and even with a
BA was a job, as a single parent during for part of the time I was in grad school allowed employment in the day
time while commuting a round trip 100 miles a night to attend grad school. BTW, in those days it was not included for Social Security purpose leaving mine now smaller. It wasn't until 1986 that the Reagan tax "reform"
began to include public employee positions in the Social Security system and there was no retirement plan available for subs.  BTW, subs are still not included in minimum wages, but paid by the day locally regardless of
the hours required by the school districts.

The reality is like many Wal-Mart employees, when the need arises to find a job, for a variety of reasons, one does take what one can find as previously stated, any one can find work if they really want to work. But the choice and availability of work becomes a far different matter. 

The obvious difference or what should be to any who have ever belonged to a union on the issue of intimidation, is unions can't kick out members who vote against their recommendations.  However, neither can Wal-Mart actually fire employees for their votes in a general election. These votes are secret unless voters use an absentee ballot and
allow Wal-Mart to fill it out and then sign it and mail it. 

It is in the end an attempt to intimidate that might succeed because of employees fear of job loss even it it isn't a reality.  The real intent is the concern by a huge corporation that already has a bad reputation for abuse of employees who are at a very low level of pay.

The legislation that would give workers more power to unionize is at the base of the whole issue.  Like a variety of issues this one in the discussion has raged far afield of the real issue, but it has been interesting and typically shows much of the political philosophy of some along with the lack of real life experience of others. 
 

Precisely.

Given some Democrats open hostility towards Walmart, can you exactly blame Walmart for trying to keep the Dems out?