Walmart unionbusting? You don't say...

So I’d kind of want Josh Eidelson to be my boyfriend. The Frisky has this sarcastic “be my boyfriend” column, but while I’m joking there is no sarcasm here. We could just talk about why Walmart blows for hours. Le sigh.

Eidelson wrote a piece Monday on a VP over at Walmart potentially admitting to union busting. Walmart Vice President of Communications David Tovar told reporter Susan Berfield, Bloomberg Businessweek, when asked about the labor campaign facing Walmart:

“We have human resources teams all over the country who are available to talk to associates, and we will get questions about joining a union. We would say, ‘Let us remind you of all that Walmart offers, and of what might go away. Quarterly bonuses might go away, vacation time might go away.’”

 So that is about all the article in Businessweek says. Walmart didn’t respond immediately to any of Eidelson’s requests for comment. However, they eventually responded. My favorite Walmart spokesman Dan Fogleman responded to Eidelson’s request for comments. He said that Tovar’s quotes “as published: lack “additional context.” Additionally, Fogleman said, “David’s comments were intended to illustrate that there are no guarantees in the collective bargaining process. Everything is on the table and subject to negotiation, up or down, by both sides. We believe that is an important fact for our associates to know, especially given that Walmart’s pay and benefits package typically meet or exceed those at a majority of our competitors, including those that are unionized.”

After I read that I heard Dwight Schrute say “FALSE.”

Of course, we already know that Walmart and companies like it threaten their employees to prevent unionization. It is a large concern of labor leaders because US law doesn’t restrain companies from threatening workers who aim to unionize. This is because minor threats to punish workers for organizing yield minor penalties and employers can intimidate workers though threats as predictions without breaking any laws. It looks like usually the employers threatened wage cuts or plant closures according to Cornell Director of Labor Education and Research Kate Bronfenbrenner.

Former NLRB attorney Jeff Hirsch was asked about Tovar’s Businessweek’s comments and said: “These types of comments (and worse) are extremely common and effective.” Hirsch pointed out this isn’t a far cry from the mandatory on-the-clock “captive audience” meetings, and the implicit threats.

Now, back to the legality of this. So can employers threaten actions like these? No, but they can predict them. So you can’t say if you want a union we’re going to cut your wages, but you can say if you get a union then we might have to cut your wages.

Lance Compa, a labor law professor at Cornell, believes the comments described by Tovar might be a violation of labor law, but depending on the context. Compa said, “To be safe management normally has to couch the possible loss of benefits in a discussion about collective bargaining, saying that bargaining is a two way street, wages and benefits are negotiable, management has to right to bargain hard, you might lose some benefits, you might gain some benefits, maybe nothing will change except you’ll be paying dues, and so on.”

Last month OUR Walmart filed an NLRB charge that noted a different statement Tovar made to the media as a threat, specifically if workers didn’t show on Black Friday, “depending on the circumstances, there could be consequences.”