Wal-Mart busted on video for lying to employees about their rights

By Kathy G.

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Wal-Mart was recently caught redhanded: they blatantly lied to employees about labor law and the Employee Free Choice Act (or "card check"). A video the Journal got a hold of shows the following:

In the hour-and-a-half meeting, held for managers in a Southern state, the leader tells employees that their wages may be reduced to minimum wage for up to three months before a contract is negotiated, that union authorization cards violate workers' right to privacy by including their Social Security numbers on them and that if a small unit within a store votes to unionize, the entire store will be unionized.

"If you have 10 associates in a photo lab and six sign union authorization cars, now the store is unionized," the meeting leader told employees. "Six people can make a decision for 350 people," which is about the average number of workers in a Walmart supercenter.

But actually, none of those things are true. Reducing wages during contract negotiations is illegal, card check can't legally require that employees provide their Social Security numbers (and won't in the future either, even if the law is changed), and organizing one unit in a store won't make the entire store unionized. Labor experts say that those three statements the Wal-Mart official made during the meeting were untrue, and that, in fact, Wal-Mart may have been breaking the law by spreading false information.

It's unclear whether Wal-Mart will face any legal consequences for the lies they told. But the Journal article notes that action has been taken on another front: labor groups have filed a complaint against Wal-Mart with the Federal Elections Commission. They're asking the commission to investigate whether the meetings Wal-Mart organized around the country warning thousands of employees about the consequences of electing a Democratic president violated the law (you can find the complaint here). Will the F.E.C. take action? It seems like there's a decent shot they might:

Legal experts said election-law complaints against employers are rare but that the complaint against Wal-Mart merits consideration. "I think it's going to be a case that the FEC is going to have to take seriously," said Joseph M. Birkenstock, a Washington attorney specializing in election law. The key to the case will be "exactly what was said" at meetings, he said.

Wal-Mart is clearly feeling the heat. They're known for playing hardball, but it seems like lately, they've been more reckless than usual. I think it's because they are very, very nervous about the prospects of a Democratic takeover, and about the potential impact of the Employee Free Choice Act on the Wal-Mart empire. All of which means we're probably making more headway on these issues than I thought.

Comments

[Cola]

I don't know... caged or scared animals usually prove more dangerous. I'm wary of what Wal-Mart could do with its lack of conscience and billions of dollars in regard to this election. And not just Wal-Mart, of course, but countless others with money and influence. This election is getting too close.

We can't afford to be careless, either.