Friday, August 1, 2008

The Lost Art of Subtlety

Reports surfaced today that in 'mandatory meetings' for department heads and store managers Wal-Mart is pressuring employees to vote against Democrats in November, fearing that new Democratic administrations in the White House and an increased majority in Congress might pass laws to 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.

I'm a little torn by this- I'm for unions, but only up to a point. My family's personal experience (not to mention the somewhat complicated story about how we ended up in Iowa when we started out in the UK) makes me somewhat wary of unions. Britain in the late 70s was in a total mess because the unions had too much power. You can have too much of a good thing and Margaret Thatcher had to do some fairly brutal things to the British economy to right the imbalance. Unions can be useful, but they can also be a gigantic pain in the ass. I'm glad there's been more a de-centralizing move in the Labor Movement lately, because I think the more localized and regional a union is, the more aware they're going to be of the needs of their workers.

But unionization without secret ballot elections? Um... doesn't sound very fair to me- and it opens the possibility of abuse on either side of the equation. We're talking about employees and their jobs here. Pro-Union types shouldn't be able to target people for pressure and anti-union type shouldn't be able to do that either. At the end of the day, whether you're a union organizer or a boss, the rights of the employees have to come first.

As for Wal-Mart... well, once upon a time, I did in fact work at a Wal-Mart for about a month or so. It was an interesting experience made more interesting by the fact on Day 1 of Orientation everyone sits through a 20 minute video which explains very earnestly why exactly unions are a bad, bad, bad thing- and what to do if a union organizer approaches you. That, combined with the framed pictures of Sam Walton on the wall in a manner not unlike those pictures of Mao or Lenin you'd see in the Soviet Union or China made the experience a little spooky.

That said: Wal-Mart might, maybe just have a point- not in pressuring people to vote a certain way (gee, whatever happened to subtlety?) but in the fact the unions may muck up their structure. On paper (I never availed myself of the process) there's an 'open door' policy for any and all associates to pass up ideas, make complaints and take concerns to managers and other people higher up the food chain. Cynics may question the effectiveness of the system or whether or not it's a reality to begin with, but it's worth noting that they trip over themselves to point out that Wal-Mart wouldn't have people greeters if some random associate hadn't pushed the idea up the food chain, so to speak. The structure is not as monolithic and 'evil-empire-y' as the clichés would indicate. Plus, name a company where employees get quarterly bonus checks from corporate profits. Every single quarter. OK, it's not much, but it's something- and Wal-Mart could (and should) treat its employees better, but there are worse places to work out there.

But: This ain't cool at all:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise ...

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

Not cool and just plain stupid. This has all the subtlety of a brick to the back of a head and it's a slip-shod move to boot. And despite denials by the company, that employee quoted above was right. They are trying to tell their employees how to vote in a not-so-subtle way and it's going to backfire on them in a huge way. It's bad enough they throw 'UNIONS ARE BAD' propaganda at their employees in a major way on Day 1, but pressuring them on who to vote for? Naughty, naughty, naughty!

No comments: