Although noted earlier, somehow I forgot to read this review article by Simon Head in The New York Review of Books. I found this article hard to read because it intentionally leaves out important details:
In the only known case of union success at Wal-Mart, in 2000 workers at the meat-cutting department of a Texas Wal-Mart somehow managed to circumvent this corporate FBI, and voted to join the UFCW in an election certified by the National Labor Relations Board. A week later Wal-Mart closed down the meat-cutting department and fired the offending employees, both illegal acts under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB ordered Wal-Mart to reopen the department, reemploy the fired workers, and bargain with the union, but Wal-Mart has appealed the NLRB decision and the litigation continues.Of course, WM also eliminated butchers companywide, which is not illegal under the NLRB. All WM meats are now packaged outside of stores. WM's retaliation was arguably specifically structured (probably with unionization in mind) in such a way that it is entirely compliant with NLRA. Here are some links from both sides 1,2,3)
Also, I have some problems with the closing:
As things stand now, the National Labor Relations Act, the toothless federal law governing the right to organize, allows union-busting corporations like Wal-Mart to break the law with virtual impunity. Since 1995 the US government has issued sixty complaints against Wal-Mart at the National Labor Relations Board, citing the illegal firing of pro-union employees, as well as the unlawful surveillance and intimidation of employees. But under the present law persistent violators of government rules such as Wal-Mart are responsible only for restoring the lost pay of fired workers �in most cases, not more than a few thousand dollars�and these penalties do not increase with successive violations.This is really convoluted; union busting is not illegal. (Please, before commenting, show me the law that makes what WM actually does illegal). Is Mr. Simon insisting that WM breaks the laws but is not charged? Yes and No. He is insisting that WM breaks laws, is charged, convicted and pays fines that are too small for his idea of positive social change.
Someday, I will have enough time to write essays of this length and competence.
Posted by Kevin on February, 14 2005 at 03:04 PM
