Posted by | August 2, 2008 12:50 | Filed under: Top Stories

The Wall Street Journal has the story that managers and supervisors at Wal-Mart are being told by the company how bad it would be for them if Democrats win in November.  That’s because it would more likely lead to unionization.  The company is concerned that with unionization there would be higher health costs and is warning workers that  jobs would be cut, strikes might occur, and dues would have to be paid while the workers nothing in return.

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.

At issue is the Employee Free Choice Act, which would enable workers to more easily for unions. Presently, employers can demand a secret ballot election to decide on unionization.   The new law, if enacted, would remove that right.  Unions would be allowed to fomr if more than half of the workers signed a card saying they want to join.  Companies worry that workers would be pressured to join by union organizers.  Of course, now they’re pressured not to join by the companies themselves.

Here’s why what Wal-Mart is doing is legally questionable:

Federal election rules permit companies to advocate for specific political candidates to its executives, stockholders and salaried managers, but not to hourly employees. While store managers are on salary, department supervisors are hourly workers.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.