Who’s paying for the Wal-Mart Airlift?
posted at 10:00 am on April 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
At 10 am ET, 100 Wal-Mart workers from around the country will demonstrate in Washington DC to demonstrate for Card Check. They will complain about working conditions and wages, which should prompt reporters covering the protest to ask a basic question:
Washington, DC – Nearly 100 Walmart workers from 17 states will come to Washington, DC this week for a national organizing committee meeting, and to brief Congressional staff on working conditions at America’s number one private employer and why they need a union voice in the workplace.
Workers from Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, will be available to speak to reporters following the briefing with Congressional staff:
WHAT: Briefing for Congressional Staff and Press by Walmart Workers
WHEN: Thursday, April 30 at 10 AM
WHERE: Agriculture Committee Room, #328 Russell Senate Office BuildingDespite Walmart’s long and well-documented history of anti-worker activities, associates say they are emboldened by the election of Barack Obama and the introduction of the Employee Free Choice Act in Congress. Ten of these workers shared their stories in a new video, released last week.
Walmart Workers for Change is a new campaign made up of thousands of Walmart workers joining together to form a union and negotiate better benefits, higher wages, and more opportunity for a better future.The campaign is a project of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), America’s neighborhood union. The UFCW represents 1.3 million workers nationwide, with nearly one million working in the supermarket industry. Many of UFCW members also work at national retail stores such as Bloomingdales, Macys, H&M, Modell’s Sporting Goods, Saks Fifth Avenue, RiteAid, CVS, and Syms.
So these overworked and undercompensated employees from 17 states have enough time and money to take a couple of days off to travel to DC for a demonstration? Is this a spontaneous decision? I’d say … no. Reporters should be asking whether these demonstrators are getting compensation from the UFCW for their travel expenses, meals, time off, and anything else.
After all, some people wouldn’t mind a job at Wal-Mart or anywhere else in this economy. And if they’re getting on round-trip flights to plead poverty in our nation’s capital in an effort to strip workers of the secret ballot, we’d like to know who’s footing the bill.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Those 100 workers represent the 10,000 too scared to come out into the light of day.
/sarc
If they dont like working at Wal Mart, they should go find a new job.
southsideironworks on April 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM
I worked at Target HQ for nearly a decade. The issue is the same as it’s always been – the union that is trying to get Wally (and Target, by the way) unionized is the UCFW, which has its hooks into most of the big grocery chains in the U.S. Wally is a huge issue for the UCFW because the non-union Supercenters are kicking the asses of traditional grocers. Groceries are a very low margin business so the added labor cost that the UCFW imposes is a huge competitive disadvantage for the grocery chains. It’s a variation on the UAW’s frustration with non-union auto plants in the South – the unions are, in the end, parasites that are killing their hosts and in order to survive, they need to expand their reach to the competitors that don’t face the same burdens.
Wally (and Target) rightly point out that the supposed advantages that the unionized grocery workers have are largely illusory – the pay might be marginally better, but it’s a job only. People who go to work at Wally and Target and show initiative regularly rise from the stores into management. And a lot of people I knew who worked in our stores at Target weren’t looking for a career – you had a lot of high school students or part-timers who understood what the advantages and disadvantages were. All the union would do for them is dock their pay.
Mr. D on April 30, 2009 at 11:41 AM
AND a slap in the face of people who came out at a grass roots level with no compensation or urging from any lobby or special interest group. The more phony ‘demonstrations’ there are, the less impact ANY demonstration can have.
Dee2008 on April 30, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I used to work for Wal Mart. Unions would ruin it, like they ruin almost everything else.
Dr. Manhattan on April 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Which, of course, is the entire point.
Businesses are not allowed to become mega-successful.
Those that do must be punished.
Unions uber alles!
Religious_Zealot on April 30, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I have been beaten up by management and I have been beaten up by unions. I still remember the call in the night from a slimey union lawyer threatening me for causing discomfort for the head of the national. A scene worthy of the mafia
Power corrupts and absolute power of a closed union shop can be worse than a bad boss.
People are all sinners. Our government was built on the Christian understanding that people will fall, and we need recourse to defend ourselves against the corruption that tempts every soul.
The boss owns the company and without a formed conscience can abuse employees. Unions performed great service ending some terrible practices. Unfortunately Unions are just another boss, and there is little recourse when they go bad, and they do with time in a system rigged to preserve power at all cost
I despise both for their abuses
I knew someone who said if you take a bunch of politicians, put them in a bag, and beat it with a baseball bat, you always hit the right one. kind of applies to union and management as well
entagor on April 30, 2009 at 12:10 PM
er…
100?
Sorry. I had to laugh.
I am fearful of walmart because of the flu freak out, but, if these people ruin it…oh man.
Mommypundit on April 30, 2009 at 12:13 PM
heh
maverick muse on April 30, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Funny how the employees fail to tell about their lil stock option deal. My brother in law, was an assistant manager , years ago. He quit Walmart, and took a job with a gas company. When he left Walmart, the account that he had ,for being an employee for Walmart, was no amount to sneeze at. It was well over $10,000. Now you have to work there for a few years to make this, but he told me ALL employees reap from this benefit.
They may not make a huge sum of money, in their wages, but there are a few perks. They gripe about the insurance, but that’s for everyone. We pay almost $400 a month for our insurance, and that’s with the employer kicking in as well.
Walmart is, what it is, and no one said going in, that if you can scan an item, you’d make $80,000 a year.
capejasmine on April 30, 2009 at 12:19 PM
At this point, unions have become a luxury America is either to forfeit or to succumb. How many lobbies bribe massive enrollments from citizens as the unions do?
Again, the Southwest is comprised of ‘right to work’ states. If unions could, they would enact federal legislation mandating unionization as a prerequisite to citizenship. Already done, Socialism.
maverick muse on April 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM
The first job that I had was in a heavily unionized refrigerator company in Evansville, Indiana. The Unions had control over all the big manufacturing companies in town.
The first thing that I was told, on the first day, was to “slow down. Don’t work so fast.”
Over the next 15 years, the Unions forced the closure of all the major industries there: Servel, Whirlpool, the Plymouth Assembly Plant and others.
The Unions claimed they were just saving jobs but the plants could not get their products out with all the wildcat strikes, slow downs and grievances filed for the slightest thing.
In the end, sadly, one by one the plants with all their jobs just closed down and moved to states that had less taxes and a less hostile workforce.
Uniblogger on April 30, 2009 at 12:25 PM
capejasmine on April 30, 2009 at 12:19 PM
I understood years ago that Walmart/K-Mart/Target protocol for monetary savings was to replace employees after they rise so far in management.
maverick muse on April 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Thats the truth. My son has gone from cart chaser to store co-manager at Sams Club in 5 years. Hard work and integrity is still rewarded in a few places in the USA but usually not when a union is involved.
el rey on April 30, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Good points. My granddad was one of the early members of the UMW in the 1920s. They transformed working conditions to a much better place, considering that it was still a deadly job.
By the time I was a kid in the 60s, the UMW would call a strike every other year or so. Businesses would often include in their radio and TV ads, “No Payments until the strike is over.”
Union leaders consistently supported Dems, who stabbed the coal industry and sided with the enviros supplying the knives. Throughout the decline of the mining industry I have rarely seen a UMW official ever have to reduce their own standard of living.
I’d sooner become Bawney Fwank’s masseur than join a union today.
TugboatPhil on April 30, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Unions, like any political entity, have ceased to be concerned about the workers and, instead, are solely interested in keeping itself in power.
As such, they have ceased to be the useful force they were and have become worse then the business leaders they used to fight.
Religious_Zealot on April 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM
The unions are looking to do to Wal-Mart what they’ve done to the auto industry.
CA_Conservative on April 30, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Unions are great for making sure that everyone makes the same amount of money regardless of ability, or drive.
ANyway, as an example, at one of the big grocery chains up here, the unionized workers at the old stores start at $23.75 per hour stocking shelves and fetching carts from the parking lot. In the same company, the employees at their “supercenter” doing the same job get $9.75 per hour to start. Guess which stores look better, have a wider selection and better prices?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on April 30, 2009 at 12:58 PM
With all of the obscene and terrible abuses made by Wal-Mart management the union could only manage 100 “employees”?
Why don’t we just call it what it is, EXTORTION. The unions see a successful company and they want their “entitled” cut. There is not one industry that has not been ruined by unions.
jdkchem on April 30, 2009 at 1:04 PM
They do it by offering value, managing the company well, and treating the employees fairly. If Wal-Mart was the hellhole that it is portrayed as, you wouldn’t have hundreds of people lining up for a handful of jobs when a new Wal-Mart opens. The Wal-Mart workers would be clamoring for the union across the board — and they’re not.
If a company succeeds without unions, what advantages recommend union membership to the workers? They do fine without unions. Therein lies the rub.
cheeflo on April 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM
If those workers unionize, Wal-Mart should say “Thank you” and close shop instead of letting the unions bleed them dry and sink their claws into the business.
Rogue Traveler on April 30, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Interesting, so the unions are organizing in spite of laws preventing such activity? I thought that wasn’t allowed.
AnninCA on April 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I agree, CA Conservative. It really is a plan to destroy the company and has virtually nothing to do with employees.
AnninCA on April 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Fire them.
If they want to unionize, then do it on a store by store basis. Can’t? Screw you. Your union wages mean I have to pay for them in higher prices.
I don’t want to pay for you to sit on your ass, get paid $20/hr and do less than you already do, which isn’t much.
spmat on April 30, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I for one applaud the union move. I am horrified every time I shop at Walmart to see:
five-year-olds forced to scrub floors on their hands and knees
helpless women operating dangerous asbestos-covered cash registers laced
stockers hauling merchandise with only a jagged, pointy pallet jack to help them
managers beating emaciated employees and forcing them to work 4 to 8 hour shifts with only a few breaks according as dictated by law
It is almost enough to make me ashamed to be a regular Walmart customer.
Laura in Maryland on April 30, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Wall-Mart will have a corporate response, I bet. It will be employee-oriented, too.
I simply don’t believe that their policies are anti-employee, except maybe in wages.
AnninCA on April 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM
My daughter has worked for Kroger (unionized grocer) for 2 years now. When she got her first paycheck and saw a $50 union fee, nearly a quarter of her paycheck… she was ticked. She hates unions. Watching the parasites suck money from productive employees was enough to turn her.
dominigan on April 30, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Dont like the job at Wallyworld? Quit,find another, they wont miss you. In fact I am betting your slot on the schedule is filled before your last day is up.
canditaylor68 on April 30, 2009 at 2:20 PM
I had some Democrat hack call me and ask, “Do you think that employers such as Wal-mart should pay thier fair share?”
Me: “What makes you think they don’t?”
Lib: “They work their people part time so they don’t have to pay benefits.”
Me: “If they only work part time they have time to go look for another job. This tells me that Wal-mart gave them the best deal they could find.”
I could go on and on. Let’s just say that it got pretty funny. They thought that a rich employer should pay more than the market rate to their employees.
Just immagine having to show your tax returns before Best Buy would tell you the price of a TV. Base the price on the buyers income? Hillarious.
Rich guys would just hire poor people to do their shopping. (oops, some liberal will now make this proposal so the rick guys will hire professional shoppers.)
The Rock on April 30, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Liberal translation: If we can get the names of those who keep voting No for unions at Wal Mart, we could beat the living hell out of them, threaten their families, and intimidate them into unionizing Wal Mart. Then we could retire on all those union dues they will pay while Wal Mart goes down the tubes.
Christian Conservative on April 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM
I worked at Haggen’s grocery store when I was just out of high school, and I had to join the union. Haggen’s paid slightly more than walmart, but I didn’t realize when I was hired that I had to pay something like $60 per MONTH (if I remember right) to be part of the dang union. Ridiculous! Those stupid unions make me want to bite someone… just a way for the union organizers to make a lot of money off low paid employees. And you HAVE to be part of them too (or at least that’s what I understood when they gave the presentation). Lame lame lame. Luckily I didn’t work there for long, I moved on to foreign exchange, which paid better and had no unions.
I’d much rather work at Walmart with no union than at a local grocer with a union, regardless of benefits and pay differences. Unions disgust me that much.
Christina D on April 30, 2009 at 3:23 PM
My son worked for Wal-Mart for a couple of years, and loved it there. Now, he hates them, and can’t say exactly why. He’s a very intelligent, and mostly conservative/libertarian young man, but his wife’s union family seems to have brainwashed him. It’s just not worth the cost to argue it with him.
Buford Gooch on April 30, 2009 at 3:26 PM
When I was a college student, I worked for two grocery store chains: County Market (non-union) and Meijer (union). Starting wages were similar (actually CM was a bit higher), so that is a wash. County Market was a great employer: clean store, good management, pretty decent morale among the employees, easy to earn pay raises based on merit. Meijer, too be blunt, sucked. “Tenured” Union thugs controlled every aspect of the job (how performed what tasks, when they were performed), raises were difficult to come by (the tenured, lazy union thugs basically sucked up the money that would go to the productive workers), and because of this, it was a job no one stayed at for very long if you could get out. Unions are leeches and need to be eliminated. And the UFCW needs to be disbanded by violence, if that is what it takes.
PimFortuynsGhost on April 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Walmart has a few secrets. For a store manager, shrinkage plays a role in his comp plan. if the store goes union, they (workers) can steal the store blind. what does the store manager have to do to fire a thief? Go thru the union steward and long term grievance procedures?
Wlamart going Union will not likely happen. if it ever did on a small regional basis, it would need to be when the employment rate is very low. There are far too many people on the street to have a strieke hurt walmart. If a wlamart went union. call a strike and hire scabs. The strike could go forever.
seven on April 30, 2009 at 3:45 PM
I don’t see any indication that they’re flying anywhere. Would their willful ignorance be less offensive if they’re driving? And sleeping on someone’s couch?
Tanya on April 30, 2009 at 5:15 PM
In 1966, when I was 16, I became a proud member of the Teamster’s. It was required to work in a grocery store in a small town in Oregon.
The local Teamster boss was a 50’ish year old Chicago transplant. He was about 5’ 2” and 350 pounds. He was always accompanied by a silent 6’6”, 300 pound 40’ish guy. Both could have come right out of a Soprano’s shoot. They also could have been the inspiration for Mater/Blaster in Beyond Thunder Dome.
One day we were told to report to the smoky, dimly lit meeting hall. With his goon standing a few steps behind and to his right, the union boss told us that contract negotiations were stalled and that ‘we’ had decided to strike. We were to make this official by voting the following week.
One of the young members stood up and gave a polite 30 second rebuttal to the strike position. It was obvious that the boss did not appreciate this and the meeting was terminated.
That night someone shot the young union member’s golden lab which was in a kennel in his back yard. He quit his job and left town. We voted to strike but management settled before we actually walked out. Word around the store was that some of the management team cared for their dogs (and children).
Voodoo on April 30, 2009 at 5:28 PM
I am 65 now and never had to join a Union here in Texas. I did have to work with many Union Members both here and in other states. It was always Edgy because of all of the rules.
At St Regis in N. Fla. the paper mill workers tried to stop an automation project that I was working on. The Union told the workers that they would lose their jobs when the project finished construction and started up. Those AHs sabotaged equipment on a daily basis, until we got the state police on it. They put several people in jail for vandalism. We had a company wide meeting before the construction started, and another a month or two before completion detailing where everyone would be working, and what their duties would be.
The only ones without jobs? Surprise! The guys in jail. The Automation reduced the amount of physical labor the folks had to do. They re-hired a couple of guys who had been forced to quit due to back injuries to replace the jailed AH’s. Once these guys saw how good things worked for them they quit screwing things up. The Unions were PISSED! The last I heard, they were voting out the whole bunch of local Stewards. Good for them.
At plants here in Texas, I was told that I could not “touch” the equipment I was installing without permission. BS, I charged on and by the time the Union guy got finished with his coffee and donut, I was done. Longer jobs, we just ignored them to the mirthful amusement of everyone else.
Unions need to go. they are a product of the early 20th century. We don’t need them now.
marcboyd on April 30, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2