Wal-Mart: "Merry Christmas, SUCKERS!"

Wal-Mart will be paying about 87,500 current and former employees in Massachusetts a total of $40 million dollars after settling in the state's biggest-ever wage-theft class-action lawsuit. According to the settlement, everyone who has worked at a Wal-Mart in Massachusetts since 1995 will receive a payment ranging from $400 to $2,500, depending on how long they worked there. The average payment will be about $734.

The lawsuit, like many other cases brought against Wal-Mart, alleges that the company requires employees to work through breaks and work beyond regular shifts. In other words, Wal-Mart systematically steals the labor of its workers. It pays workers poverty wages for their scheduled hours, then tells them they have to give some free work or else be fired.

If you think this story sounds strangely familiar, you're right. Last year, Wal-Mart did the same thing. In December 2008, they settled 63 lawsuits for alleged wage theft around the country, paying out at least $352 million. Is it a coincidence that it has happened again in December, a time when the company can portray the payments as Christmas bonuses? Think of it: Wal-Mart gives back some of the money it stole from its workers, without ever admitting that it stole anything in the first place, arranges the settlement so that no one can talk about it, and makes the whole thing look like a benevolent act. "Merry Christmas, suckers!"

This is just a calculated operating cost for Wal-Mart headquarters. They set their wage and hour policies. They know that the worst thing that can happen is a lawsuit which will take years to develop (This one began 8 years ago). They know that the lawsuit can be settled on terms that preserve the company's All-American image and do not affect Wal-Mart's ability to commit the same crimes again. And the company marches on.

And Wal-Mart will continue marching on, trampling its workers underfoot, until those workers are able to organize and resist. If any company in the United States is difficult to unionize, it is Wal-Mart. They pull out all the stops. All managers get training in anti-union tactics. Workers have to watch anti-union propaganda videos. Corporate HQ manages the public relations at any store where labor or community activism breaks out. At worst, they will simply close a store that gets close to unionizing. In 2000, when meat-cutters at a Wal-Mart decided to unionize, Wal-Mart closed down its meat-cutting operations in 180 stores across six states, and switched to prepackaged meat.

Thankfully, somebody forgot to tell the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) to give up. Their Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign has signed up nearly half a million supporters, publicized Wal-Mart's anti-worker policies, and begun organizing drives at hundreds of stores. Some say that UFCW's efforts have already changed Wal-Mart's behavior on some issues, because it's the closest thing to accountability the company has ever had.

Few things would do as much to shift power in this country from the corporate class to the working class as winning a strong union at the nation's biggest private employer. Even if Wal-Mart were victorious, as it always has been, at crushing the organizing drive, a big publicized fight would bring national attention to wage-theft, corporate power, and the labor laws that make it unnecessarily hard for workers to unionize. Winning at Wal-Mart would be huge. Losing at Wal-Mart--and losing right--could be just as huge.

Obama Reminds Me Why I Voted For Him

Speaking at the Cincinnati AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here are some of the highlights from the transcript.

Praising some of the labor movement's past accomplishments:

"So let us never forget: much of what we take for granted--the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, health insurance, paid leave, pensions, Social Security, Medicare--they all bear the union label. It was the American worker--union men and women--who returned from World War II to make our economy the envy of the world. It was labor that helped build the largest middle class in history. So even if you're not a union member, every American owes something to America's labor movement."

Linking the economic crisis to the cultural values that enabled it:

"But in recent years, the American Dream seemed to slip away, because from Washington to Wall Street, too often a different culture prevailed. Wealth was valued over work, selfishness over sacrifice, greed over responsibility, the right to organize undermined rather than strengthened. That's what we saw. And while it may have worked out well for a few at the top, it sure didn't work out well for our country."

Addressing health reform directly, turning up the ass-kicking a bit:

"We've never been this close. We've never had such broad agreement on what needs to be done. And because we're so close to real reform, the special interests are doing what they always do--trying to scare the American people and preserve the status quo."

"But I've got a question for them: What's your answer? What's your solution? The truth is, they don't have one. It's do nothing. And we know what that future looks like. Insurance companies raking in the profits while discriminating against people because of pre-existing conditions and denying or dropping coverage when you get sick. It means you're never negotiating about higher wages, because you're spending all your time just protecting the benefits you already have."

Recognizing that it all comes back to organized labor:

"And few have fought harder or longer for health care and America's workers than you--our brothers and sisters of organized labor. And just as we know that we must adapt to all the changes and challenges of a global economy, we also know this: in good economic times and bad, labor is not part of the problem. Labor is part of the solution. It's why I support the Employee Free Choice Act--to level the playing field so it's easier for employees who want a union to form a union. Because when labor is strong, America is strong. When we all stand together, we all rise together."

It's about time for some of this fiery Obama. The opponents of health reform (i.e. insurance companies, anti-social ideologues, and congressional Republicans) need to be called out for their vacuous arguments aimed at maintaining the status quo. Obama is beginning to do this and to boil down the health reform issue to its essential conflict: corporations who profit obscenely from an inhuman system vs. ordinary people uniting to improve their lives. I hope there is more of this in his big speech on Wednesday night.

My wife and I just returned from a holiday weekend getaway (which I'll be posting about later). It was nice to find this rousing speech online when we got back. The president is getting tough on the health reform fight while allying with the folks who have been fighting the corporate status quo since there first was one. Happy Labor Day indeed.

5 Ways to Fight Harder For Employee Free Choice

Last week, moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) announced that he would reverse his position of the last six years and oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. Specter said he will even support a Republican filibuster to prevent the Senate from voting on the bill. 

Why is it even news that a Republican Senator opposes making it easier for workers to form unions? Because Specter was actually a co-sponsor of Employee Free Choice in 2003 and 2005 and the only Republican Senator to vote for cloture on the bill in 2007.

Specter's "flip flop" means Labor is still looking for one Republican to join with the 59 Democrats to prevent a filibuster this time around. (Specter was thought to be the most likely Republican defector.) Media outlets portrayed Specter's new position as the nail in the coffin of the Employee Free Choice Act. The Hill called it a "death blow" to labor's biggest legislative priority.

Oh well! Let's just forget Democrats' large majorities in both houses of Congress, our popular Democratic president, and the solid public support for Employee Free Choice. Mr. Specter doesn't like it so we better just take our toys and go home.

Hold on a second. The progressive coalition has barely even begun to fight for the EFCA. And that's our problem. The moderate Republicans that we need to persuade have not felt any real heat yet.

Here are a five things the Left should do to crank up the heat moving forward:

1. Demand leadership from President Obama. In the Senate, Obama was a co-sponsor of the EFCA. It's time for him to step up and do all he can as President to get it through Congress. He should start with a press conference or another Internet town hall meeting to discuss the legislation and dispel some of the common misinformation about EFCA. Next, he should begin a series of campaign-style rallies around the country to drive home his point and take control of the media coverage on the issue--similar to what he did pushing for the economic recovery package in February. He should, once again, wrap himself in the mandate from his election to push through a legislative priority. He should travel to Tar Heel, North Carolina, where workers finally won union representation (and wage and benefit increases) at the Smithfield Foods pork processing plant after a 15-year battle with the company. Bringing Smithfield workers on the stage with him, Obama should say that the Smithfield case demonstrates the EFCA, making it easier for workers to exercise their rights to form unions. He should highlight similar stories in several places around the country.

2. Increase Labor's on-the-ground efforts and target them in a few key states. We're talking knocking on doors, local TV and radio ads, rallies, letters to editors--all that stuff. Aim for moderate Republicans and particularly vulnerable Republicans. Here are four states to think about, each with varying prospects. (Feel free add to this list in comments.)

• Pennsylvania - Arlen Specter could at least be persuaded to vote for cloture. The guy is in a pickle. He is being challenged by a big business Republican in his upcoming primary, pulling Specter further to the right. And he just pissed of the Labor Left in a blue, union-heavy state. Specter is caught between a rock and a hard place. If it starts looking like he'll win the primary, he might want to start walking back his EFCA opposition to make things easier for him in November 2010.
• Maine - Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are the Republican Senators here. The state doesn't have super union membership, but it's reliably blue and in the northeast, making it a fair prospect if Obama casts EFCA as an Obama vs. Limbaugh issue. The Maine ladies can keep winning as Republicans, but not if they are seen as thwarting Obama's agenda.
• North Carolina - In this new blue state, Republican Senator Richard Burr is looking weak for 2010. He is already trailing the leading Democrat in polling for that race. Burr might be persuaded to shake things up and cast himself as a different kind of Republican. It's hard to imagine him ever supporting Employee Free Choice outright, but he could possibly "oppose it" while voting for cloture (and thereby ensuring its passage). A big Obama rally in Tar Heel with the Smithfield workers would help.
• New Hampshire - Republican Senator Judd Gregg awkwardly rejected President Obama before. Let's see if he'll do it again on the EFCA. Again, blue state, northeast--even if it is kinda conservative compared to the rest of the region. Also, it's a small enough state that a massive ground campaign could make a big difference. 

3. Throw in some carrots with these sticks. Unions should consider floating a bargain to moderate Republicans:"Support the EFCA and, if it passes, we will not target you in your next election." They did this to some extent with Specter, but it might be tried with others.

4. Play tough with conservative Democrats. It's pretty much expected that every Democratic Senator will support the Employee Free Choice Act, but a few of them are sounding wobbly. (No, not that kind of wobbly.) The Senate Democratic leadership should whip these few into line in the normal ways. But in addition, unions should offer this warning to conservative Dems: 

"If you waver on Employee Free Choice, we will support a progressive Democrat to challenge you in the primary and/or support a third-party progressive candidate in the general election."

5. If all else fails and Republicans are going to filibuster, then let them filibuster... and filibuster and filibuster. Let the public see that 41 Republicans are willing to clog up the work of the Senate indefinitely in order to make it harder for workers to organize. If the filibuster is their only trick for the next 8 years, then let's wear it out in the first. Let the public watch Senator Cornyn read from the phonebook on the Senate floor, and let news anchors compare it to Strom Thurmond's longest-ever filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

I would like to see each of these five things before we start talking about a death blow to the EFCA. And even then, a "death blow" would only mean delaying it until 2011, when there will most likely be a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate.

CNBC Brings You This "Breaking News!"

The richest man in the world opposes the Employee Free Choice Act.

Another Note on "Removing the Secret Ballot"

Because I can't stop beating this dead horse.

Another flaw in the business lobby's favorite argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is that it equates secret ballots with fair elections. One of their TV ads shows a character from "The Sopranos" looking over the shoulder of a guy in a voting booth. You don't want mobsters watching you vote, do you?

Well, union elections are not federal elections. Federal elections come with secret ballots plus laws that protect political speech and other standards of fairness. Union elections come with secret ballots plus an almost completely one-sided, employer-dominated campaign. I stole the following chart from American Rights at Work, and it helps demonstrate my point:

 

If we're just dead set on having secret ballots for every union election, then let's remake our workplaces and overhaul labor law, so that the column on the right side of this chart is full of green checks. Then we can drop the card-check provision from Employee Free Choice. Would industry representatives join us in this effort, seeing how they are such champions of free and fair elections? The answer, of course, is hell-to-the-double-no. The captains of industry know that truly fair union elections would require reforms running much deeper than the Employee Free Choice Act's modest majority signup provision. The bill that would make the chart above full of green checks would be one of the most radical, leftist laws our country has ever seen.

A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall

The battle lines have been drawn for one of the most important fights of President Obama's first term: The Employee Free Choice Act. The opposing sides continue to bolster their ranks and bring more troops to the front. The only question now is when will the battle begin in ernest, in other words, when will this bill come up for debate in Congress.

It's hard to find any other issue where the battle lines are so clear. 

On the Left:  President Obama, unions, virtually all Democratic politicians, and nearly every non-union progressive organization--from the Sierra Club to the NAACP, from Human Rights Watch to the United Methodist Church. 

On the Right:  Congressional Republicans (hailing mainly from the Deep South and Great Plains), every conservative advocacy organization, and the overt representatives of big business--the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and corporate lobbyists.

At stake:  A landmark piece of legislation that would 1) remove employers' most convenient tactics for preventing workers from starting unions, 2) increase penalties against employers who engage in illegal labor practices, and 3) mandate federal mediation and arbitration in the case of an employer refusing to bargain with a new union. 

Both sides are working hard to make sure their people don't drift to the other side or forget that there's a fight. Every week you can read a panicked blogger somewhere on the Left saying that Obama is already throwing in the towel and backing away from Employee Free Choice. The very next day you'll see an article like this one, quoting the latest pro-labor statement from Obama, appearing to demonstrate his unwavering support.

On the Right, you read about the frantic ravings of Newt Gingrich and others trying to marshal the shock troops of big capital. At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Newt said, "This bill is a mortal threat to American freedom and we will never forgive somebody who votes for cloture or for passage." He is speaking of course to the few moderate Republicans (apparently there are still a few) who might join with Democrats to vote for cloture on the bill, thereby sending it to an up-or-down vote that would certainly pass the heavily Democratic Senate. 

The way conservatives have modified their attack on Employee Free Choice has been instructive. 

At first, their line was that America simply "can't afford" stronger unions when the economy is weak. The antiquated logic of the top-floor corner office crowd was that, if anything, workers should gladly accept cuts in wages in benefits right now. The message was that the economy has tanked, in part, because businesses can't compete globally thanks to these outdated institutions called unions weighing them down. (Which is--ahem!--B.S.) But the problem was that the public simply doesn't buy that argument anymore. The American people are supportive of unions, and they just elected the most pro-labor president since FDR. 

Too many people know the truth: The decline of unionization rates since the 1970s has coincided with the ascendency of Reagan-Bush conservatism and Gilded Age-esque wealth inequality. What do you know? When unions wither, so does the middle class. Most Americans may not have thought of it in exactly that way. But they do know that corporations are too powerful--in the workplace and in the halls of congress--and that regular people have been squeezed tighter and tighter while the wealthiest Americans have done better than ever.

So conservatives had to change their tune. Lately, their line of attack is to say the Employee Free Choice Act would "take away the secret ballot" in union elections. Now, before we even explain why this is a lie, stop and think about who is saying it. The great corporations and the right wing are suddenly  concerned with protecting workers' rights? The perennial opponents of organized workers want to promote workplace democracy? How suddenly benevolent of them! (I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.)

By the way, it's a lie. Employee Free Choice doesn't take away the secret ballot. It puts the choice between secret ballot or card-check/majority signup in the workers' hands instead of the employer's. As I've said before:

What [the anti-unionists] really mean is, the Employee Free Choice Act would "take away the employer's right to require workers to sit through a long anti-union campaign of bribery and intimidation before voting on a secret ballot, even if all of the workers have already indicated they want a union." But yeah, "take away the secret ballot" has a better ring to it.

I don't think the American people will buy the "remove the secret ballot argument" either. For one, the argument implies that workers are scared of being intimidated by union organizers forcing them to sign up for the union. That happens less in reality than in right-wing dreams. But if people really start thinking about intimidation in the workplace, they realize it comes almost entirely from their employer. And too many employers use the NLRB election process to pull out all the stops against their workers. Why not give the employees another choice about how to start a union that would avoid the bosses' wrath? 

This post is already longer than I intended. I have to actively restrain myself from turning BTM into an entirely Employee Free Choice Act blog. 

On a final note, I don't think the Right will stop us on this one. The growing tide of support for a fair economy and a larger say for ordinary people seems, to me, too big to push back. Even if they can temporarily stall the Employee Free Choice Act--just one part of the tide--they can't stall everything else that will come up at them. Stuff is gonna happen. The humiliation of the Bush years and the presidential election have awakened something that isn't going to die easily. I know I'm painting in broad strokes here. But think about it. Working people are marching in the streets of Europe chanting "Yes We Can!" In American cities, grassroots organizations are resisting foreclosures with civil disobedience. No one knows exactly where this is leading, but we can say for sure that we've entered a new era of political possibilities. 

Get Your Name On This List

That scrolling one, over on the right.

On February 4th, thousands of union members rallied on Capitol Hill in support of the Employee Free Choice Act. They delivered boxes to Congress carrying some of the 1.5 million signatures in support of the bill. On the internet, American Rights at Work created the banner you see on the right side of this page, which is scrolling through each of the 1.5 million names, one by one. It will take 11 days to scroll through all the names.

Having met the original goal of 1 million signatures before the rally, now the goal is to gather 2 million signatures before Congress takes its February break. 

So add your name. Then grab some popcorn and wait for your name to scroll by!

The main feature of the Employee Free Choice Act is that it would make it easier and quicker for workers to form a union, by allowing workers to choose whether to decide on a union through majority sign-up or an election. Currently that choice belongs solely to the employer. In most cases, the employer opts for a secret ballot election, where almost everything is stacked in the employer's favor. In the run-up to the election, the employer pulls out the traditional anti-union techniques: illegally firing pro-union employees, illegally threatening to close worksites if the union is formed, and bribing workers to oppose the union. Perhaps most importantly, in the pre-election period the employer controls the debate. Before an election, 92 percent of employers force workers to attend mandatory meetings to listen to anti-union propaganda, while pro-union meetings are not allowed.

You've probably seen ads on TV both for and against the Employee Free Choice Act. You can understand why the pro-labor ads use phrases like "a level playing field," since the act would give workers a fighting chance to form a union. 

On the other hand, the anti-labor ads have simply repeated the lie that Employee Free Choice would "take away the secret ballot." What they really mean is, the Employee Free Choice Act would "take away the employer's right to require workers to sit through a long anti-union campaign of bribery and intimidation before voting on a secret ballot, even if all of the workers have already indicated they want a union." But yeah, "take away the secret ballot" has a better ring to it.      

This is going to be a big fight--a throw-back to some of the great labor struggles in our history. It's people-power versus all the hired guns and publicity money can buy. Big business has already shown that they are willing to pull out all the stops against this legislation, but labor appears to be standing firm. More on that later. It may simply come down to a numbers game in the Senate: Can Democrats get 60 votes? But it's a numbers game in a larger sense too: Can a large number of people overcome an enormous amount of money? 

The Auto Crisis and Senate Republicans

Talks on the auto industry bailout, which died in the Senate on Friday, will continue this week. Senate Republicans killed the $14 billion bailout bill mostly because they want the UAW to accept harsher wage and benefit cuts than the ones the autoworkers have already offered. (They also said the original bill contained "unacceptable" environmental regulations, which raises the obvious question: Are there any environmental regulations that are acceptable to Senate Republicans?)

The fact that Republican senators made their beef with the UAW the foundation of their opposition to the auto bailout bill illustrates two important facts about them.

First, Senate Republicans have both short-term and long-term interests in tarnishing the public's perception of organized labor. They know that the Employee Free Choice Act is on Democrats' agenda for 2009, when a progressive Democrat will occupy the White House and worker-friendly Democratic majorities in Congress will be bigger and stronger. Both sides, Democrats/Labor and Republicans/Management, talk as though passage of the EFCA--which would make it easier for workers to create unions and would put some teeth into existing labor law--would significantly alter the political landscape for a long time to come. And both sides are pouring tons of resources into the fight. 

Democrats/Labor recently got a lot of positive attention when laid-off union workers refused to leave their Chicago factory until they were payed the money the company owed them. Combine the public's positive attitude toward unions with some actual success stories about workplace activism and you start building momentum that Republicans/Management can not allow to continue. It would be tremendously helpful for Republicans if they could generate some negative press about unions before the coming EFCA debate. 

In a smoke-filled room somewhere in DC, you can bet a scene like this probably played out recently: 

"Hmm, any ideas boys?" 

"Hey! We could make a big push to blame the auto industry's problems on the UAW! That let's us use the bailout bill's 'industry restructuring' to crush the union and sets us up nicely for the EFCA next year."

"Good idea. How 'bout another glass of Cristal?"

Second, the financial conservatives who wear the pants in the Republican Party are philosophically bothered by the very existence of solid, middle-class, blue-collar jobs. I have no way to quantify this. It's just the impression I get from everything they say and do. I believe it seems unnatural to them that folks who aren't "from money," who didn't go to their elite schools, who don't live in their gated communities are able to stand with both feet firmly on the ground and speak out about the direction of this country. I mean, the gall!

Congressional Republicans and their financial-conservative clients would prefer that jobs like those of the unionized autoworkers did not exist. They know that they can't just make the middle class and poor disappear--who would do all the work? So, instead they try to Wal-Martize our economy and hand us all McJobs. And that's the direction nearly all of their proposals are aiming for.

Remember this?

Everyone laughed because they knew exactly what he meant and knew that it was true. Today's national Republicans, especially the senators, are primarily emissaries of the investor class. They operate mostly from the narrow, conservative perspective of great wealth and privilege, their interests primarily about protecting and expanding large fortunes. You can see how the UAW might seem to them like a threat and how they might wish it would just go away.

These are just a few things to keep in mind about where the other side (the haves and have-mores, the elite, Bush's base) is coming from in the auto bailout talks and why they've chosen to make the UAW a boogeyman. 

More to follow on some of the specific proposals that are--or should be--on the table.