Another reason to vote for Obama

[telcoman]

If Wal Mart management is getting nervous then employees must realize that Obama is the man for them if they are tired of getting screwed by Wal Mart management.

From the Wall street Journal

Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic WinBy ANN ZIMMERMAN and KRIS MAHERAugust 1, 2008; Page A1

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 actions by Wal-Mart -- the nation's largest private employer -- reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership. That could lead to higher payroll and health costs for companies already being hurt by rising fuel and commodities costs and the tough economic climate.

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.

"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval," said David Tovar, Wal-Mart spokesman. Mr. Tovar acknowledged that the meetings were taking place for store managers and supervisors nationwide.

Wal-Mart's worries center on a piece of legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which companies say would enable unions to quickly add millions of new members. "We believe EFCA is a bad bill and we have been on record as opposing it for some time," Mr. Tovar said. "We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do."

Other companies and groups are also making a case against the legislation to workers. Laundry company Cintas Corp., which has been fighting a multiyear organizing campaign by Unite Here, relaunched a Web site July 14 called CintasVotes. The site instructs visitors to take action by telling members of Congress to oppose the legislation.

"We feel it's important that our employee partners fully understand the implications that the Employee Free Choice Act could have on their work environment and benefits," said Heather Trainer, a Cintas spokeswoman.

Business-backed organizations are also running ads aimed at building opposition to the bill, including the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which counts several hundred industry associations as members. Another group, the Employee Freedom Action Committee, is run by former tobacco lobbyist Rick Berman. The groups, which aren't affiliated with each other, say they have a total of $50 million in funding. Neither will disclose which companies or individuals have provided funding.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made defeat of the legislation a top priority. In the past six months, it has flown state and local Chamber members to Washington to lobby members of Congress. On Thursday, the Chamber began airing a television ad in Minnesota and plans to run ads in other states as part of a broader campaign.

The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity. The AFL-CIO and individual unions such as the United Food and Commercial Workers have promised to make passage of the new labor law their No. 1 mission after the November election.

First introduced in 2003, the bill came to a vote last year and sailed through the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, but was blocked by a filibuster in the Senate and faced a veto threat by the White House. The bill was taken off the floor, and its backers pledged to reintroduce it when they could get more support.

The November election could bring that extra support in Congress, as well as the White House if Sen. Obama is elected and Democrats extend their control in the Senate. Sen. Obama co-sponsored the legislation, which also is known as "card check," and has said several times he would sign it into law if elected president. Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and voted against it last year.

Wal-Mart's labor-relations meetings are led by human-resources managers who received training from Wal-Mart on the implications of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Fine Legal Line

Wal-Mart may be walking a fine legal line by holding meetings with its store department heads that link politics with a strong antiunion message. 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.

However, employers have fairly broad leeway to disseminate information about candidates' voting records and positions on issues, according to Jan Baran, a Washington attorney and expert on election law.

Both supporters and opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act believe it would simplify and speed labor's ability to unionize companies. Currently, companies can demand a secret-ballot election to determine union representation. Those elections often are preceded by months of strident employer and union campaigns.

Under the proposed legislation, companies could no longer have the right to insist on one secret ballot. Instead, the Free Choice, or "card check," legislation would let unions form if more than 50% of workers simply sign a card saying they want to join. It is far easier for unions to get workers to sign cards because the organizers can approach workers repeatedly, over a period of weeks or months, until the union garners enough support.

Employers argue that the card system could lead to workers being pressured to sign by pro-union colleagues and organizers. Unions counter that it shields workers from pressure from their employers.

On June 30 the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Wal-Mart illegally fired an employee in Kingman, Ariz., who supported the UFCW and illegally threatened to freeze merit-pay increases if employees voted for union representation. The decision came eight years after the organizing campaign failed, and four years after the case was originally heard.

"We've always maintained the termination was not related to the union and that there was nothing unlawful about an answer provided an associate about merit pay," said Mr. Tovar, the Wal-Mart spokesman. "Following the decision, we were considering offering reinstatement, but that is on hold, since the [union] appealed the decision."

Unions consider the Employee Free Choice Act as vital to the survival of the labor movement, which currently represents 7.5% of private-sector workers, half the percentage it did 25 years ago. The Service Employees International Union said the legislation would enable it to organize a million workers a year, up from its current pace of 100,000 workers a year.

The Underdogs

The business-backed lobbying groups are running ads in states where a win by a Democratic Senate candidate would boost support for the legislation in the Senate, saying the loss of secret ballots exposes workers to bullying labor bosses. In one, they use an actor from the "Sopranos" TV series about mob life to hammer home their point.

Business groups say they're the underdogs since they will be outspent by unions by a wide margin. Labor has pledged to spend $300 million on the election and securing passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, compared with under $100 million by business groups, according to Steven Law, chief legal officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber's strategy is to focus on the Senate, where labor needs eight more supporters of the legislation to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"This is a David-and-Goliath confrontation, but we believe we'll have enough stones in the sling to knock this out," said Mr. Law.

Wal-Mart is a powerful ally. Through almost all of its 48-year history, Wal-Mart has fought hard to keep unions out of its stores, flying in labor-relations rapid-response teams from its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters to any location where union activity was building. The United Food and Commercial Workers was successful in organizing only one group of Wal-Mart workers -- a small number of butchers in East Texas in early 2000. Several weeks later, the company phased out butchers in all of its stores and began stocking prepackaged meat. When a store in Canada voted to unionize several years ago, the company closed the store, saying it had been unprofitable for years.

Labor has fought back with a campaign to portray Wal-Mart as treating its workers poorly. The UFCW helped employees file a series of complaints about the company's overtime, health-care and other policies with the National Labor Relations Board. Dozens of class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of workers, many of which are still winding their way through the courts.

Wal-Mart has been trying to burnish its reputation by improving its worker benefits and touting its commitment to the environment. On the political front, it's hedging its bets, spreading its financial contributions on both sides of the political divide.

Twelve years ago, 98% of Wal-Mart's political donations went to Republicans. Now, as the Democrats seem poised to gain control in Washington, 48% of its $2.2 million in political contributions go to Democrats and 52% to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that tracks political giving.

Write to Ann Zimmerman at [email protected] and Kris Maher at [email protected]

Telcoman

[rn79870]

Wal-Mart has been trying to burnish its reputation by improving its worker benefits and touting its commitment to the environment. On the political front, it's hedging its bets, spreading its financial contributions on both sides of the political divide.

Ah, more "change for the better."

[Cold_Zero]

We had something similar with our company back during the 2004 Presidential Election. Prior to the election we had an all employee meeting as kind of a 'touch base' and 'moral booster' for our center here in Indiana. Our CEO got chided by some employees (Collection Call Center Folks) for his financial support for GW Bush during the 2000 election. Apparently these folks support Kerry and disliked GW Bush. Although I have always been shocked at the bluntness of these guys when asking questions, this took the cake. Imagine 3000 people all turning their head and jaws dropping open all at once. I did respect our CEO's response. He basically laid out that you can vote for whom you want, but employees of our company might want to consider the fact that Most Democrats want to get rid of Private involvement in the Student Loan Industry and it was Bill Clinton that established our main competitor in hopes to eliminate us. Most people say, vote your issues, but I say, "Vote your pocket book." Obama does not favor private lenders involved with the FFELP. He not only wants the Government to take over student loan funding, but also the government providing the money that doesn't have to be paid back. Voting for Obama would effectively put me out of a job. Sorry guys, the current crop of Democrats hate big Corporations and hate anyone that makes a profit. Look back at the rhetoric of Hillary and Obama during the Primary process. It's also evident in the rhetoric of Congress blasting 'Big Oil' for making 'Wind Fall Profits.'

[rn79870]

Bud, you're the first person here who's given an honest response to why they are voting for a particular candidate instead of against one.

Interestingly enough, I've searched both candidates with respect to education, and I've seen nothing by wither candidate regarding a position on student loans or federal funding of the loans. Perhaps we need to inquire of both candidates as to their position on that issue.

[wingFeather]

Voting for Obama would effectively put me out of a job. Sorry guys, the current crop of Democrats hate big Corporations and hate anyone that makes a profit. Look back at the rhetoric of Hillary and Obama during the Primary process. It's also evident in the rhetoric of Congress blasting 'Big Oil' for making 'Wind Fall Profits.'

+1

What you say is truth. Voting Obama would put a lot of people out of a job. I know personally that I'd probably walk away from my job if I knew I was guaranteed universal healthcare & easier access to welfare and handouts. I'd also walk away from my debts, too. Hurray for Socialism! Thanks, Obama!

[srellim234]

Strictly presented here in the interest of fairness, Wal-Mart has responded:

Wal-Mart denies that it told employees how to vote

By CHUCK BARTELS AND ANNE D'INNOCENZIO, AP Business Writers

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, denied a report Friday that it had pressured employees to vote against Democrats in November because of worries that a bill the party supports would 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.

A report in The Wall Street Journal said the Bentonville, Ark.-based discounter — which has rigorously resisted being unionized — had held mandatory meetings with store managers and department supervisors in recent weeks to warn that if Democrats take power in November, they would likely push through the bill, which the company says would hurt workers.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar told The Associated Press that the company did discuss the bill with its employees, including what it sees as the negative impact, and noted that the company's stand on the legislation is no secret.

"We believe the Employee Free Choice Act is a bad bill and we have been on the record as opposed to it," he said.

But he said the company wasn't advocating that its employees vote against backers of the legislation.

"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression... they are wrong and acting without approval," said Tovar. In fact, he said that Wal-Mart has been working with both Republicans and Democrats.

"Half of our (political action committee) contributions are to members of each party," Tovar said. "We regularly educate our associates on issues which impact our company, and this is an example of that."

The Wall Street Journal cited about a dozen unidentified Wal-Mart employees who had attended such meetings in seven states as saying they were told that employees at unionized shops would have to pay big union dues while not receiving any benefits in return.

Furthermore, workers said they were told that unionization would mean job losses as costs rise, according to the report. The report said the Wal-Mart human resource managers who held the meetings didn't specifically tell the employees how to vote, but made it clear that a Obama victory would mean unionization.

Wal-Mart Watch, a union-backed group that has criticized the company for what it calls skimpy pay and benefits and poor treatment of its workers, said in a statement that the article "demonstrates once again that Wal-Mart intimidates its workers." The group, which supplied some of the sources to The Wall Street Journal, said the stories cited in the article are "consistent" with numerous reports it has received in the past week.

The development deals a blow to Wal-Mart's reputation just as the company has started seeing its image improve and criticism diminish as it works to improve benefits and push through its "Save money, live better" campaign.

In a session with reporters after the company's annual shareholders meeting in June, Wal-Mart President and CEO Lee Scott said Wal-Mart was comfortable working with either presidential candidate. In the past, Wal-Mart had lined up with the Republicans. But the company's message of environmental sustainability, its program to offer $4 prescription drugs and improved benefits for workers helped move the company to the political center.

"We stand ready to work with the new Congress and whoever is elected (president)," Tovar said Friday.

[smockers83]

Not a fan of Wal-Mart, but that's besides the point. For those that shop at Wal-Mart on regular basis because that's what they can afford, this is bad bad news and is a very good reason these people should not vote for Obama, even though most of them will because they will never hear this story and understand the after effects. If Wal-Mart employees are allowed to unionize, their biggest cost, labor, is going to go up dramatically. That causes Wal-Mart to raise their prices, which puts an economic crunch on these lower-income people that shop there. Obama says he wants to help, this doesn't help as it would change absolutely nothing. Let the labor market stay private and free, we don't need unions anymore. Strict labor standards are in place so all they do now is drive up costs due to causing labor to be more expensive.

[Cold_Zero]

Bud, you're the first person here who's given an honest response to why they are voting for a particular candidate instead of against one.

Interestingly enough, I've searched both candidates with respect to education, and I've seen nothing by wither candidate regarding a position on student loans or federal funding of the loans. Perhaps we need to inquire of both candidates as to their position on that issue.

Bob,Interestingly enough both candidates for President were "Not Voting" on the piece of legislation that I referenced Vote 326: H R 2669: H.R. 2669 Conference Report; College Cost Reduction Act of 2007

Its very interesting to that both were no votes. I expected Obama to vote "Yes" and kind of expected McCain to vote "Yes" as well. Only because voting against this measure looks like are you against the borrowers and Education since it is really an all in one resolution.bud

[mtcookson]

Well... if they want to get rid of Wal-Mart that's definitely the quickest and easiest way to do it. If that's what you want then yeah, vote for Obama.

[Cold_Zero]

Interestingly enough, I've searched both candidates with respect to education, and I've seen nothing by wither candidate regarding a position on student loans or federal funding of the loans. Perhaps we need to inquire of both candidates as to their position on that issue.

I did some digging from the horse's mouth:http://obama.3cdn.net/c16add48...y.pdfSpecifically pages 9-11.

This is the reason why I CAN NOT vote for Obama:

Eliminate Costly Bank SubsidiesCurrently, there are two basic college loan programs: the Direct Loan system, funded publicly, and theFederal Family Education Loan Program, funded privately by banks and lenders who receive subsidiesand guarantees from the government.

This statement is pretty accurate. 100% YOUR tax money goes to operate Direct Lending’s William D. Ford program. While under FFELP the margin that YOUR tax dollars pay for on Stafford Loans is 2%. The rest of the money comes from private lenders/investors. Which one is a more effective use of YOUR tax dollars?

Quote »Privately funded loans cost more per loan than the Direct Loanprogram and provide no greater benefits. Obama will save taxpayer money billions by eliminating themore expensive private loan program, and directing that money into aid for students.[/quote]THIS IS A FLAT OUT LIE FFELP lenders deliver a cheaper loan to cost product to borrowers than Direct Lending, with MORE borrower benefits. No matter how many times this information is provided to Congress by our Execs during hearings and studies, Democrats always claim that DL is more cost effective. Since when has it ever been more cost effective to have the US Government operate services?

Not only does Direct Lender take YOUR tax dollars to Guarantee, Originate and Disburse student loans, but they CONTRACT OUT THE SERVICING OF THEIR PORTFOLIO TO ACS http://www.acs-inc.com/ That is right, they DO NOT service their own portfolio, they pay a PRIVATE company to do so. What was ironic was our company use to service Direct Lending’s portfolio and we bid on the contract a few years ago. Ha!

Also, Direct Lending currently comprises 16%-26% of the student loan market. If Direct Lending is that effective why havent they pushed the Private Lenders out of the Market? No Congress has to do that for them by passing bills like HR 2669 to strip the financial profitability (Setting artificially low interest rates, reducing collection costs and decreasing the 2% margin on FFELP loans). Congress was faced, this student loan season, with a mass defection of private lenders fleeing the FFELP program. In the midst of this crisis, Direct Lending was only equipped to handle 40% of the guarantee/origination and disbursement needs of the market. Had the Treasury Department not stepped in (big long story) Direct Lending and Congress would be faced with a nightmare scenario of kids going back to school and NOT getting Financial Aid.

Favoring Direct Lending over private FFELP lenders is an attempt to control Distribution of student loans. They dont care about servicing and collecting on their student loans during repayment. Also, like most Democrats anyone making a profit on services must be doing something illegal or unethical, because hey! Its immoral to make a profit.bud

[Repo Man]

Dayum! And I wondered exactly what it is you do all day.

[smockers83]

We've talked about student loans in at least one previous thread. How can you not find info anymore? From the economic thread comparing the two candidates, it was said that Obama wanted to give tax rebates or something in the form of taxes to those families with kids in college. A college education cannot, by any means, be funded through taxes.

[Cold_Zero]

Dayum! And I wondered exactly what it is you do all day.

Shut up bastard or I wont help you fix your computer tonight. j/k This is my post vacation, vacation. Had a bunch of conf calls today.

[Rev_D21]

Voting Obama would put a lot of people out of a job.

Couldn't be worse than the rate we are losing jobs now. Perhaps Walmart employees can go fight in Iraq instead? Pretty soon that'll be the only job taking applications left.

[smockers83]

Only 72,000 people became unemployed by losing their job. Unemployment over the month of July went up only 0.1%. The increase in unemployment was mainly due to the fact that many people are re-entering the labor force. Of the 285,000 increase over the month, 72,000 of that was due to lost jobs, or 25%, while the remaining 75% was due to 213,000 people entering the market.

[Rev_D21]

213,000 entering the market? Which market? Unemployment?

[AZhitman]

Dunno about you guys, but unemployment here is VERY low.

Perhaps people need to move, grow, change and adapt, instead of standing still with their hand out, waiting for The Great Pumpki... errr... Obama to 'save them'.

[mtcookson]

This unemployment thing really confuses me... over in Wichita there are a lot of business (lots of aircraft companies) that are desperately needing workers. All over the automotive sector is in dire need of technicians, there is a big lack of nurses from what I hear (and you can become an LPN in 1 year or for more cash an RN in 2 if I remember correctly).

I think the unemployment issue may just be from downright lazy people or something stupid because I constantly see way too many job openings for the unemployment rate to be "bad".

[Marenta]

This unemployment thing really confuses me... over in Wichita there are a lot of business (lots of aircraft companies) that are desperately needing workers. All over the automotive sector is in dire need of technicians, there is a big lack of nurses from what I hear (and you can become an LPN in 1 year or for more cash an RN in 2 if I remember correctly).

I think the unemployment issue may just be from downright lazy people or something stupid because I constantly see way too many job openings for the unemployment rate to be "bad".

I agree. I see way too many jobs available for unemployment to be this high. But, I guess it's just the way the world is. Lazy is just something that you just can't train out of people.

[smockers83]

213,000 entering the market? Which market? Unemployment?

People entering the job market, in other words, the labor force participation rate. The job market includes those who are employed and those not employed who are actively looking for a job (in general). Then you have those are not in the market, those who aren't working and not looking for a job.

AZ is right in that the unemployment rate really isn't that bad, especially considering the economic slow down. It is somewhat generally agreed that when a developed nation is at full employment, the unemployment rate is around 4%.

Here's the data I'm talking about. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[ishkabibble]

Since when has it ever been more cost effective to have the US Government operate services?

Most of the time, actually. Look up the history of OMB Circular A-76 and the resulting job competitions.

Which is cheaper, to pay a government employee $50/hr to do a job not limited by the constraints of contract language, or to pay a contractor $150/hr who can't do anything that's not specifically identified in the contract?

(Yes, this example is oversimplified)

[Rev_D21]

I wouldn't count those having jobs but looking, they have jobs. Those numbers just confuse the issue. Jobs lost overseas or jobs lost due to production shrinkage was really what I was referring to. The only ones I am counting are the ones without jobs.

[smockers83]

I wouldn't count those having jobs but looking, they have jobs. Those numbers just confuse the issue. Jobs lost overseas or jobs lost due to production shrinkage was really what I was referring to. The only ones I am counting are the ones without jobs.

You misread.

The job market includes those who are employed and those not employed who are actively looking for a job (in general). Then you have those are not in the market, those who aren't working and not looking for a job.

Those NOT employed who are actively looking for a job.

[themadscientist]

so I should vote for this cult of personality because he makes Walmart nervous? Sorry, not a good enough reason to choose failure.

[C-Kwik]

I hate unions. Ima have to put this on my con list for Obama...

[AZhitman]

Wow. Never expected that from you, Chano...

At any rate, yes - Unemplyment in the valley is VERY low... I can drive down through my small suburb and find 15-30 "help wanted" signs. All are offering $10+ per hour, and all are legit businesses (grocery, fast food, pool supply store, hobby shop, cleaners, etc).

Take the unemployment figure, subtract the ones who aren't really looking or trying, and your number will be very, very low.

[rn79870]

Take the unemployment figure, subtract the ones who aren't really looking or trying, and your number will be very, very low.

According to the US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the numbers for July, 2008 reflect...Both the number of unemployed persons (8.8 million) and the unemployment rate (5.7 percent) rose in July. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 1.6 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 1.0 percentage point.

You're probably fortunite to live in an area that's not affected by the declining economy. The majority of the US is not so fortunite.

[AZhitman]

Nah, one of the principles of economics is that the entire country feels the sting... Remember, we're a "world economy", and there's very little intra-state differences.

Those stats mean nada without corresponding data on population increase in the past 12 months...

[smockers83]

Right, only 72,000 people lost jobs in July, yet 213,00 joined the labor force over the month. In other words, out of the 285,000 uptick of those unemployed in July, only 72,000 of them lost jobs. Many of those could be students on internships who are heading back home or quiting part time summer jobs to enjoy the last bit of summer and gear up for school. If one looks at the BLS link I posted and scrolls down to the tables and look at Table A-8, it gives all the reasons for unemployment.

As for state-by-state differences, there are some big differences. For example, in June, MI's unemployment rate was 8.5% (the highest in the country) and 16 states have an unemployment rate of <4.25%, half of 8.5%. Arizona was at 4.8%, just .15% more than half of that of metro Detroit (9.3%). What the actual numbers are I can't tell you at the moment because the BLS site is down for whatever reason and I already closed it (and I can't access A-8 anymore either because I wanted to say more on that).

Realizing this data, would someone tell me why I'm trying to find a job in MI?
Modified by smockers83 at 2:28 AM 8/4/2008

[telcoman]

I hate unions. Ima have to put this on my con list for Obama...

You may hate unions but they are still necessary.

From todays Wall Street Journal

Companies Tap Pension Plans To Fund Executive Benefits By Ellen E. Schultz and Theo Francis Word Count: 2,206 | Companies Featured in This Article: Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Intel, CenturyTel, CenturyTel, Intel, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Milliman, RSA Insurance Group, Hartmarx At a time when scores of companies are freezing pensions for their workers, some are quietly converting their pension plans into resources to finance their executives' retirement benefits and pay.

In recent years, companies from Intel Corp. to CenturyTel Inc. collectively have moved hundreds of millions of dollars of obligations for executive benefits into rank-and-file pension plans. This lets companies capture tax breaks intended for pensions of regular workers and use them to pay for executives' supplemental benefits and compensation.

The practice has drawn scant notice. A close examination by The Wall Street Journal shows how it works and reveals ...



Telcoman