Legal News

Did Wal-Mart Violate Federal Election Laws? Labor Groups Want to Know

By Dan Slater

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. — from The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 1, 2008.

Two weeks ago, the above sentence led a Page One WSJ story by Ann Zimmerman and Kris Maher. Now that article is being cited by labor groups in a letter — to be released as soon as today — seeking an investigation into whether Wal-Mart violated federal election law by telling employees that electing Democrats would lead to passage of legislation making it easier to unionize companies. Here’s today’s WSJ story.

The labor groups — including American Rights at Work, the AFL-CIO and WakeUpWalMart.com — are filing the letter with the FEC, asking the Commission to determine whether the company “made prohibited corporate expenditures” by organizing meetings across the country to warn employees that a Democratic president would back legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which the company opposes. Both labor and business agree the legislation would make it easier for the labor movement to organize more workers.

Sen. Barack Obama co-sponsored the legislation, which also is known as “card check,” and has said he would sign it into law if elected president. Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, voted against the legislation last year. Companies aren’t permitted under federal election law to expressly advocate to hourly employees the election or defeat of specific candidates.

Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar said the company’s policies are clear and that anyone representing the company and telling associates how to vote were “wrong and acting without approval.” He said: “We welcome the FEC looking into this, because we are confident they will find what we have known all along, that we did nothing wrong.”

According to a digital recording of a Wal-Mart meeting made by a Wal-Mart employee and reviewed by the WSJ, the meeting leader told 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.

“The statements are not correct representations of what the law would require even under the current law,” said Jeffrey Hirsch, a labor lawyer in Boston. “It would be a violation of the national labor relations act to say those things.”

Wal-Mart said that the three comments don’t reflect Wal-Mart’s understanding of the law and weren’t included in its training.

LB’ers: When it comes to Labor v. Capital, we can’t help but think of Sally Field in her Oscar-winning turn as the eponymous Norma Rae. (”Forget it! I’m stayin’ put! Right where I am! It’s gonna take you. And the police department. And the fire department. And the National Guard to get me outta here!”) We’d love to hear your thoughts on the Wal-Mart situation, but also your recommendations for other good labor v. capital movies.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on August 14, 2008 (boomark / email).