We all know that WM has a staunch anti-union stance, but one can carry that characterization too far:
Wal-Mart has been much in the news recently in China, with the government insisting that it do what it refuses to do in the United States: allow all its workers to join unions."Refuse" is a stupid term in this context, since it implies that Wal-Mart has decisive control over the unionization process. It doesn't.
In the U.S., Wal-Mart has no legal authority to "refuse" unions, although it can oppose them, and shut down stores in which they gain influence. Also, as far as I know, WM has not been charged with using illegal means to prevent their workers from using labor law to require Wal-Mart to recognize and deal with a union that they join. Wal-Mart does engage in many aspects of "Union-Busting", but contrary to the long-held beliefs of many union members, these tactics are legal.
Posted by Kevin on December, 29 2004 at 01:04 PM
