 |
 |
||
|
|
|
 Wal-Mart Election Scare Tactics ChallengedPosted on Aug 14, 2008
Labor groups have filed election complaints against Wal-Mart for reportedly telling store managers that Democrats’ proposed labor law changes would drive down wages and force layoffs.
|
America’s Confused Approach to Afghanistan
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By cann4ing, August 17, 2008 at 7:47 pm #
No Mike, our biggest problems are (a) the fascists who seized control of the WH in 2000 as a result of electoral fraud and a judicial coup, (b) a Congress which while under Republican control aided and abetted the Bush/Cheney assault on the constitution and rule of law by refusing to exercise Congressional oversight authority while acting as a rubber stamp, handing the fascist regime its every wish, (c) a Supreme Court that is but one radical-in-robes, Federalist Society jurist away from permanently ending our constitutional separation of powers and the rule of law (d) corrupt politicians who lack the scruples to take on corporate America, let alone take seriously their oath of office by taking impeachment, and with it, the constitution “off-the-table,” (e) a mass media in which 95% of what Americans see, hear and read is produced by six giant corporations—where commercial values have overwhelmed democratic values, a media that acts as a propaganda network for the ruling class, and (f) the continued destruction of the middle class aspirations everywhere through so-called “free-trade” agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA & the WTO.
Electing Obama rather than McCain will not, by itself, resolve all that, but it is a vital first step. Indeed, if McCain is elected, his openly stated preference for appointing another Federalist Society jurist to the Supreme Court will spend the end of our democratic experiment that began more than two centuries ago, and the final descent into facism.
Report thisBy mike112769, August 17, 2008 at 10:17 am #
I have told you (Cyrena) many times that our biggest problem is Congress. A president can make all the signing statements he wants, but at the end of the day Congress STILL has the power to stop him. Never in the history of this country have we had a President and Vice-President more worthy of impeachment. Why hasn’t this been done? Because the same bosses who run the President also run Congress. I still stand by my statement that Obama won’t be allowed to change anything. I really don’t believe he’ll even get the chance to. The President is NOT an emperor. He can only do what the House and Senate ALLOW him to do.
On a side note, I find it curious that every time someone disagrees with you, you resort to name calling. I am aware of what is going on in this country. I see no need to explain my reasoning with 2 or 3 part entries. I don’t believe I should try to force others around to my way of thinking. Just remember though, IF Obama should get the Presidency, I will be here to tell you “I told you so”.
Report thisBy cyrena, August 17, 2008 at 4:05 am #
Mike, here are some resources for you.
Nine Republicans Vote for Impeachment Hearings, Ten Abstain
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9628
ink to the entire page on just the impeachment activity thats been under way for years.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=14
And heres the home page link for the site. Maybe you could update yourself with the activities of others that the MSM certainly doesnt advertise.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home
This might help you figure out why Wal-Mart has been so determined to influence the ‘voting’ of their employees. OBVIOUSLY, *THEY* have enough sense to know that an Obama presidency could really put a whammy in their Grand Heist.
Report thisBy cyrena, August 17, 2008 at 3:10 am #
correction…2/3rds on the legislative majority. My typo.
Report thisBy cyrena, August 17, 2008 at 3:01 am #
By mike112769, August 16 at 10:08 pm
That is exactly the point Im trying to make. One man cannot make a difference, even if he is the President.
And this is exactly the point that Im making as well Mike. As VP, Dick Cheney HAS made a difference, by destroying the Constitution, and implementing his long planned UNITARY EXECUTIVE Doctrine. So the mess can be firmly affixed to he and his puppet, and the rest of the corrupt repuglican Congress, not to mention the blue dog dems who are simply neocons in blue clothing.
And yes, weve already acknowledged that there is a required 3/4ths majority in some of the legislation required, but a simple majority is all thats needed in other crucial decisions. (like the selections of power holders like any Supreme Court Justice, or any Attoney General, etc, etc)
So your cynicism is unwarranted, if only because of your ignorance. You can be far more cynical (and legitimately so) when you know what the hell youre talking about. Why dont you try to educate yourself on some things. Maybe you could start with ALL of the SIGNING STATEMENTS that Dick Cheney has attached to any legislation that the Congress has passed in the last several years. Those SIGNING statements basically say that WHATEVER the Congress decided, Dick Bush will still do whatever the hell they want.
Meantime, instead of claiming that the president wont be allowed to do anything, (which really pisses me off, since Dick Bush has ALLOWED himself to do anything he wants) why dont you consider that the Congress youre complaining about needs to be fixed, and Obama cant do that. Thats one thing he DOES NOT have any control over. His job is to work with the people the American citizens choose to represent them. Pay more attention to the people you elect to Congress.
And stop saying we can’t blame the mess of America on Dick Bush. That’s exactly where the blame lies, as well as on the morons who voted for him, or threw their votes away on somebody else.
Report thisBy mike112769, August 17, 2008 at 2:08 am #
That is exactly the point I’m trying to make. One man cannot make a difference, even if he is the President. We can’t blame the mess our country is in on Bush. Congress AND the Senate went along with him. Obama won’t change anything because he CAN’T. All it takes is a two-thirds majority, and the President is screwed. This may come as a shock to you, but our politicians are bought and paid for. Their masters (Big Business) will cut off their funding if they don’t like the way they vote. Therefore, Obama won’t be ALLOWED to change a damned thing.
Report thisBy cann4ing, August 16, 2008 at 4:58 pm #
Well, Mike, how can you blame Obama for the absence of change during the time he has been in the Senate. He is only one of 100 Senators. The Republi-pukes are in a position to filibuster any bill they don’t like, and, while I know it may come as a shock to you, but George W. Bush is still the POTUS. Tell me, Mike, how can someone who has no control over who is selected to head the Bush-controlled NLRB impact the decisions of that body—which is supposed to protect the rights of workers but has tirelessly worked to defeat those rights these past eight years—supposed to make the change?
Report thisBy mike112769, August 16, 2008 at 2:25 pm #
If Obama wins the elction ( a BIG if), I would like to see some change. I hope to see some improvement for the better in America’s foreign policy. I expect neither. Cynical? Yes, I am very cynical. I have heard the same promises being made from Obama before. I hear them every 2 and 4 years, just like clockwork. Please continue to have hope for a Democratic presidency, just don’t be surprised when I get to say “I told you so”. Wal-Mart is an excellent example of pure capitilism at work. If our laws enable a company to import cheap goods, why shouldn’t it? Wal-Mart has too much money for our government to stop it. Only the public can do that, by refusing to buy their merchandise. Like Louise, you will never catch me in a Wal-Mart.
Report thisBy cann4ing, August 15, 2008 at 8:26 pm #
Cyrena: I, of course, agree wholeheartedly with your response to Mike. While I think Obama has been far too ambivalent on NAFTA and so-called free trade, his positions on the restoration of the right of the working class to organize is clearly set forth on his web site and in his position on federal legislation that has come before the Senate. Of course, an Obama presidency will translate in to change, but how progressive that change will be requires more than simply defeating John McCain.
All progressives should be encouraged to join the Healthcare not Warfare campaign of Progressive Democrats of America; to elect to Congress, new members committed to single payer and an end to neoliberal trade policies that have been the bane of middle class aspirations of working people all over the globe.
Report thisBy cyrena, August 15, 2008 at 5:24 pm #
y mike112769, August 15 at 7:08 am #
Obana as President wouldnt be allowed to change anything. It is in BOTH parties best interests to keep the staus quo. Believing otherwise is wishful thinking.
~~~~~~~~~`
You’re presumptuous mike112769, and cynical. If the current thug regime could be ‘allowed’ to destroy the constitution, then I think we have a more than reasonable chance that Obama would be ‘allowed’ to restore it. That is particularly the case since many of these ‘status quo’ Congress people are also looking at an election or de-election in November.
Report thisBy Louise, August 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm #
I think I’ve mentioned here before, I’ve given explicit instructions. Should I collapse in the street close to a Wal-Mart, DO NOT carry me into that store. I’d rather die in the street than be caught dead in a Wal-Mart!
My oh my, some might ask, why such animosity to Wal-Mart? It’s only a store.
No Wal-Mart is not ONLY a store. Wal-Mart is a model. A model of how to make the most profit on the least expenditure. OK, that’s capitalism, what’s wrong with that?
Well, Wal-Mart takes it one step further. How to remove the consumer as value to the equation as a “customer” and turn them into a “captive,” with cash to be used as a tool in the equation. Ergo, profit for the few at the expense of the many. If that’s what capitalism is, you can have it. I think it sucks!
See before the Wal-Mart Model, people who consumed a product also peripherally had a hand in creating the product. So it was potentially a win-win for everybody. People had jobs in manufacturing. That gave them income to purchase goods, which in turn gave the store which marketed those goods the opportunity to keep their doors open, make a profit and order more goods, which in turn gave more opportunity to people looking for secure employment to find jobs manufacturing those goods.
The Wal-Mart Model, more than any single entity eliminated that!
Wal-Mart started off with a bad reputation. A cheap store with cheap products and cheap customers, who had to be searched before they could enter the store. Wal-Mart had to compete with the image of quality, but they couldn’t do that unless they figured out a way to control the quality. And they did. Traveling overseas, or just across the border, they found companies who would duplicate the American produced quality at a Wal-Mart “cheap” price. They could do that because they had no labor laws. No standards. No concern for the workers health or income or standard of living. In fact whether or not the workers were allowed to even enjoy living was unimportant. Cheap labor at the high price of human value and life. No doubt a high priority factor that attracted Wal-Mart across the border, or overseas.
Then they moved into areas with relative small populations, acquired by hook or by bribe permission to build a monster store where it would be the most likely to put the few local mom and pop businesses out of business, and acquired their first “captive” consumers. As the cheap goods rolled in from other nations, the local manufacturing base began to crumble. And as the big blue box spread across the land like a swarm of devouring locusts, the small business became a faded memory, while consumers dropping income forced them into Wal-Mart.
And retailers everywhere realized, if they were going to get their share of consumers, they had to adopt the Wal-Mart Model.
Strange thing about “capitalism” the folks who watch their dividends, contribute nothing to the backbone that drives the economy. And the Wal-Mart’s and their ditto’s, having forced the closure of most manufacturing in this country, hurt the buying ability of the consumer who actually use to be the backbone of this country. So here we are. A nation without a backbone. What’s gonna happen if someone pushes us over? Awfully hard to stand back up without a backbone.
So blame the unions if you want. That only identifies complete ignorance of the facts. The Wal-Mart Model, more than any single THING [as in the slimy creature from the deep that rose up and destroyed everything in it’s path] is responsible for the closed plants, the shuttered stores, the lost jobs, the growing unemployment and the bad stuff that shows up in our kids toy-box, or on our kitchen table.
Like I said. I’d rather die in the street than be caught dead in a Wal-Mart!
Report thisBy cann4ing, August 15, 2008 at 2:12 pm #
How can a self-described “voice of truth” come up with such irrelevant nonsense?
Before 1991 Wal Mart did not have a single store outside the continental U.S. By 2003, thanks to NAFTA & other neoliberal trade agreements, Wal-Mart had become the worlds largest global corporation. Its always low prices translates into always huge profits—$7 billion per year, profits that have placed five members of the Walton family amongst the worlds top ten richest people, with a combined personal worth in excess of $100 billion. This enormous wealth at the top is punctuated by the poverty level wages of Wal-Marts own employees, the more fortunate of whom receive $15,000/year for full time work. But for seventy percent of the Wal-Mart workforce, the company defines full-time as 28 hours per week—$11,000 per year.
The Scrooges at Wal-Mart are subsidized by middle-class taxpayers. As Greg LeRoy notes in “The Great American Job Scam” When Wal-Mart and other poverty-wage retailers fail to provide a decent wage and full time hours, many employees and their families qualify for safety-net help such as Medicaid, state childrens health insurance, earned income tax credits, Section 8 housing assistance, low-income energy, and free or discounted school lunches.
A study by David Neumark of the Public Policy Institute of California revealed there is a net loss of local jobs when a Wal-Mart is opened. Jim Hightower puts it a bit more bluntly, describing Wal-Mart and its ilk as predators who hit neighborhoods and towns like a neutron bomb, leaving buildings standing, but sucking out all of the economic and democratic vitality. It isnt just the enormous size of the developments, with Wal-Mart SuperCenters taking up as much as 261,000 square feet, excluding parking lots, but the impact that its predatory pricing techniques which force closures of local small businesses, with a concomitant loss of the income and tax base those businesses had meant for the community.
Having garnered full control of retail, these corporate giants determine whom their suppliers will be, and, invariably Wal-Mart turns to sweatshop laborers toiling for $2/day in China rather than companies who pay decent union wages here at home. So “voice,” if you had any inkling about the “truth” you would know that there mere fact that Wal Mart does not directly manufacture its goods is irrelevant to outsourcing.
Report thisBy voice of truth, August 15, 2008 at 12:39 pm #
Wal-Mart does not manufacture anything, so it can hardly be accused of “outsources all the manufacturing jobs it can to China and other countries where they have no labour laws”.
Like it or not, labor unions have completely outlived their mission and usefulness. All they are about now is trying to screw over companies and force companies to continue to employ incompetent people. Unfortunately, the one thing they care about most is power. There is no difference between a labor union and an employer.
Report thisBy nrobi, August 15, 2008 at 12:00 pm #
To put these comments into perspective, Wal-Mart outsources all the manufacturing jobs it can to China and other countries where they have no labour laws, no chance of unionization, no workers rights and most of the governments are totalitarian in nature.
Report thisA Patriotic company like Wal-Mart supporting a totalitarian regime to get the cheapest goods it can, for the least amount so that they can hike up the price to soak the American Consumer for all they have. The Walton’s do not care on whit for the American people, just as long as there is no public education system, no union rights, no right to file grievances against your employer, no substitute for any of the products that Wal-Mart buys.
In point of fact, Wal-Mart, was profiled in an expose by Frontline, and they did not come out looking too good. You can check out that piece on Frontline at http://www.pbs.org. and look for the Frontline website.
What surprises me more than anything is the fact that people still continue to patronize a company that does not have anything but their own pocketbooks at heart. Should the American people, continue to support this and other companies like it, we are signing our own economic death warrants.
No longer will we, the American people be able to afford the prices at companies such as this, what then will happen to those companies? Well should we really care? The free-market system will weed out those companies that don’t care about their workers and those who do not care about the consumers that purchase their products.
By Leefeller, August 15, 2008 at 11:52 am #
Rule of law, is a form of accountability only for the masses, some of us know this.
Report thisBy mike112769, August 15, 2008 at 11:08 am #
Obana as President wouldn’t be allowed to change anything. It is in BOTH parties best interests to keep the staus quo. Believing otherwise is wishful thinking.
Report thisBy cyrena, August 15, 2008 at 9:40 am #
Reply to jobart, August 14 at 3:53 pm
Part 1 of 2
..Can the Govt, either come down hard on these labor law violators, or force divestiture on holdings? Something needs to be done to effectively punish labor abusers in America? WalMart would make a good case-in-point for such changes in thinking about American workers and the rights we, America, afford them.
~~~
Jobart, you *know* I love you, so there is a strong note of endearment in my voice inflection when I ask you this
WHICH Government do ya supposed is gonna come down hard on these labor law violations????
THEY (the government) ARE the labor law violators. Heres the formula, which I figured out the hard way, not long after The Coup, since the Corporate Fascist State was already in place in the state where I worked and lived at the time. (Texas).
The short formula is this: Corporations = the Government. They are now, totally intertwined and there is no place or space for air in-between, at least not in any domestic law. (like labor law). Those gov agencies previously (like in the good old days) charged with oversight and the implementation of laws and the punishment of violators, have what I call a polar opposite charge now. Since the government is the same as the corporations, they PROTECT the corporations, and the laws have been carefully reconstructed, (like the Constitution) to invert how the whole system was initially designed to operate. And any laws that might still be on the books, are either ignored or loopholed back and around.
They dont enforce any of the old style labor laws. Rather, they do just they opposite. Its been that way on the Federal Level for nearly 8 years now, and it was that way in Texas even before. (remember GW was the ostensible governor there). So places like Texas, with their right to work laws, actually mean the opposite. It means they have the right to fire you for anything or nothing, and any complaints to the state or federal agencies are promptly ignored. Standard answer from them, (whether its the Department of Labor, or the EEOC, or the department of ANYTHING) is: Plaintiff, (fill in the corporation of your choice) DECLINES TO RESPOND. Thats the government saying that, (or at least the person ostensibly works for the government) but they are actually in the employ of the Corps. Try to sue em, or even get a spot before a judge in a court of law. They just decline to respond.
I know, I know. It sounds totally outrageous, and Im sure there have been a few who have been able to force the issue, (though they never win) but overall, the government, (if were talking about the agencies historically responsible for upholding these efforts) doesnt do it. If there are any *individual* government employee holdovers left from the old system, (that would actually do their job) THEY get fired too!! (you remember all of the US Attorneys, right?)
So, the very thought of trying to force divestiture on holdings would get a response like what Karl Rove did when he was subpoenaed by Congress, and what George W did when Scooter Libby was convicted and sentenced to jail in a court of law. (except with these guys, it wouldnt even get that far). They would just, decline to respond.
Report thisBy cyrena, August 15, 2008 at 9:38 am #
Part 2 of 2 reply to jobart, August 14 at 3:53 pm
So, thats why this first paragraph of the article is such a no-brainer
At issue is whether Wal-Marts discussion of the law, which would make it easier for workers to unionize, amounted to an effort to dissuade employees from voting for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Wal-Mart denies that it tried to influence voting
Well, of course this is EXACTLY what the purpose has been. Wal-Mart, (like my own former Slave Master) would do ANYTHING to prevent employees from unionizing for collective bargaining. Needless to say, the government doesnt want them to either. (since they are the same). Obviously, Obama as President would change that, because hed go back to the Constitution and the rule of law. Then the government would actually have to operate as the government and not as the protector of Corporate rights to force people to work for no money and no benefits.
What is a very pleasant surprise here, (at least for me, since Ive been following this) is that this group has actually taken a new tact, (wouldnt have helped to deal with the Dept of Labor or the EEOC) by filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.
Now that may be, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than symbolic. But, it at least gets the attention where it should be.
So, we shall see. Meantime, Im deep into the Mexico permanent retirement research. (thanks for the tip) Gotta have a backup.
Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and have it totally inaccessible, depending on the outcome of so many things.
Things are really, really urgent at this point.
Report thisBy Louise, August 14, 2008 at 8:00 pm #
Awe Wal-Mart.
Rapidly replacing the “staple” as the backbone of America.
[The people gave up that distinction years ago
]
Report thisBy jobart, August 14, 2008 at 7:53 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Can the Gov’t, either come down hard on these labor law violators, or force divestiture on holdings? Something needs to be done to effectively “punish” labor abusers in America? WalMart would make a good “case-in-point” for such changes in thinking about American workers and the rights we, America, afford them.
Report this