[Marxism] US Wal-Mart Beats Union again, Canada Walmart Cited for Intimidation

[Ralph Johansen <michele@xxxxxxxx>]

At a Small Shop in Colorado, Wal-Mart Beats a Union Once More
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

New York Times: February 26, 2005

LOVELAND, Colo., Feb. 25 - Joshua Noble, a 21-year-old who loves to 
snowboard, jolted Wal-Mart Stores last November when he got a majority 
of employees here at the Wal-Mart tire-and-lube shop where he worked to 
sign statements saying they wanted to vote on bringing in a labor union.
   
The unionization drive begun by Mr. Noble created a storm in this 
onetime ranching town at the foot of the Rockies - even the BBC covered 
it - and became a closely watched test of labor's efforts to unionize 
the world's largest retailer.

But on Friday the workers at the Wal-Mart Tire & Lube Express abandoned 
Mr. Noble, voting 17 to 1 against unionizing, another setback for 
organized labor at the very moment when its leaders are mapping a 
campaign to pressure the company to improve wages and benefits.

With Friday's vote, Wal-Mart can continue to say that not one of its 1.2 
million American workers belongs to a union. Support for organizing 
dissipated here after the company repeatedly showed workers videos about 
what were portrayed as the shortcomings of unions, and transferred into 
the shop six new workers who, Mr. Noble said, had been screened by the 
company to ensure their antiunion sentiment.

Wal-Mart officials say the shop's work force simply concluded from all 
the information at hand that there was no need for representation by a 
third party.

Officials of the union involved, the United Food and Commercial Workers, 
counter by saying it lost because Wal-Mart struck fear in the workers 
with an intensive campaign. The union said it would challenge the 
outcome of the vote with the National Labor Relations Board, citing the 
lack of a union observer at the election and saying the six added 
workers had been brought in to dilute support for organizing.

Mr. Noble rounded up support for a union three months ago from 8 of his 
16 co-workers - a majority, once he was included - who change tires, 
lubricate cars and install batteries, and who had complaints about 
wages, health insurance coverage and their treatment by managers.

The shop seemed fertile ground for organizing. Most of the workers were 
under 25. Some had a rebellious streak, some were college students, and 
some were single mothers struggling to make ends meet.

"We thought the only way they'd listen to us is to have a union," Mr. 
Noble said of management. "There's strength in numbers."

Wal-Mart responded to the organizing drive by flying in a group of labor 
experts from its headquarters in Bentonville, Ark.

Wal-Mart's team, several workers said, hammered away at a variety of 
themes: that unions only want workers' dues, that they cannot guarantee 
better wages or benefits, that they want to put Wal-Mart out of 
business, that they foment walkouts in which the strikers can lose their 
jobs.

"It wasn't a fair fight," Mr. Noble said. "Every day they had two or 
three antiunion people from Bentonville in the garage full time, showing 
antiunion videos and telling people that unions are bad."

What angered him most, Mr. Noble said, was that after one union 
supporter was fired and two others moved away to attend college, 
Wal-Mart transferred in the six new workers, to undercut, he said, the 
union's chances of winning the vote.

Christi Gallagher, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said that the garage had 
merely been replacing the workers who had left, and adding a few for the 
sake of shop efficiency.

Of broader issues, Wal-Mart said Friday that results of the vote again 
showed its workers, whom it calls associates, to be satisfied and not 
eager for representation by the United Food and Commercial Workers.

"The U.F.C.W. has tried to organize our associates for years," said 
Terry Srsen, Wal-Mart's vice president for labor relations. "Many of our 
associates are former union members. They know better than anyone that 
the only guarantee a union can make is that it will cost the members 
money. And that is why they continue to reject the U.F.C.W."

The outcome here was just the latest turn in an intense battle between 
Wal-Mart and organized labor.


Wal-Mart Told to End Intimidation in Canada
By IAN AUSTEN

New York Times: February 26, 2005

OTTAWA, Feb. 25 - Wal-Mart Canada was ordered by Quebec's labor 
relations board on Friday to stop intimidating workers at a store in the 
midst of an organizing drive.

The decision involves three cashiers at a store in the Quebec City 
suburb of St. Foy and is the second unfair labor practice ruling against 
Wal-Mart in Quebec since September. Earlier this month, Wal-Mart Canada, 
a unit of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., announced that it would close a store in 
Jonquiére, Quebec, where employees had unionized and were trying to 
negotiate the first collective agreement with the retail giant in North 
America.

The board ordered Wal-Mart to immediately stop "intimidating and 
harassing" the cashiers in St. Foy. But it imposed a relatively light 
penalty: Wal-Mart must post the decision in the store's lunchroom for 30 
days.

Nevertheless, Jossée Lemieux, president of Local 503 of the United Food 
and Commercial Workers' Union, said the decision was significant.

"Wal-Mart cannot violate the fundamental rights of its employees without 
paying any consequences," Ms. Lemieux said in a statement.

Andrew Pelletier, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada, which is based in 
Mississauga, Ontario, said the company took issue with the board's 
finding that its managers intimidated employees. But Mr. Pelletier added 
that Wal-Mart would not challenge the ruling.

"We feel the appropriate thing to do is not appeal," Mr. Pelletier said. 
"We want to comply and just move forward in St. Foy."

The labor board found that the three workers experienced varying forms 
of intimidation. One was taken into an office by the manager and an 
assistant manager who demanded the names of union sympathizers. Another 
was threatened with a negative job evaluation if she supported the union 
drive. In the third case, a manager suggested that the cashier retract a 
recently signed union card.






_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism