Hello Monday, the Feds are charging Walmart with workers’ rights violations in 14 states.

Damn fine way to start a week, but we’ll get back to our regularly scheduled depression inducing news tomorrow. Al Jazzera has an article written by Lucy Nicholson for Reuters, which was posted on Thursday (I try to blog in advance).  The national Labor relations Board (NLRB) issued complains on Wednesday alleging Walmart violated labor laws in 14 states through actions taken against striking workers. BOOM!

NLRB’s general counsel’s office issued a complaint related to Walmart representatives appearing on national news broadcasts threatening to retaliate against workers if they went on strike. Seriously? I kind of expected more from Walmart…getting sloppy. Additionally, they fired and disciplined workers for participating in the strikes. According to the complaint 19 employees were fired “allegedly as a result of their participation in activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act.”

Walmart has known about the impending complaints since November 2013. Spokewoman for Walmart, Brooke Buchanan said, “We believe that our actions were valid. We take out obligations very seriously. We look forward to sharing our side of the facts in these cases with a judge.”

Reminder that the NLRB is a federal agency; they investigate a lot of allegations made by employees. More than half are dismissed. I’m not saying this will be dismissed, just setting up the context.  The Walmart investigation looks like the allegations hold water, and settlements failed. Most of the allegations focused on Walmart’s management after the strikes in stores in California, Kentucky, Texas, Washington, etc. in May and June of 2013.

Employees received verbal and written warnings of formal reprimands and were disciplined after the strikes. [As you remember the strikes were for, heathcare, fair wages, and improved working conditions.] The complaints also allege that Walmart misclassified the workers’ absence as unexcused instead of participating in legally protected strikes. I’m not surprised by this allegation at all, but it is kind of a big deal, if employers can just decide your strike doesn’t have merit.

Walmart has until January 28^th to respond to the NLRB’s fining. Next step will be for an NLRB administrative law judge to oversee a trial and determine if any laws were violated. Then a five-member board will adopt or reject the judge’s findings. 

Note: Apparently, Walmart joined the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. 

Employers win one in the New Orleans Court of Appeals

US Court of Appeals in New Orleans issued a decision that permits employers to require workers, as a condition of their jobs to agree to arbitrate all workplace disputes and to do so as individuals standing against their employers. This ruling could be the end of employment class actions, which were so important in addressing barriers of race and sex discrimination after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and of course are still important to enforcement of labor standards including minimum wage.

I read about this from a Politico post by Craig Becker.  The actual cases involved D.R. Horton, a home-builder which operates in 27 states with annual revenue of more than $6 billion. The company required all employees to sign an agreement providing that the employment disputes would be resolved by binding arbitration and that the arbitrator “may hear only Employee’s individual claims.” One employee attempted to pursue a claim the D.R. Horton misclassified an entire category of workers as exempt from the protection of federal overtime regulations, the company insisted each worker had to file an individual claim.

So what’s an employee to do? To the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) Bat Signal. The NLRB found that the “agreement” to waive the right to join with co-workers for workplace claims violated federal labor law saying not only do employees have the right to join a union, but they can “engage in…converted activates for the purpose of…other mutual aid or protection.” The NLRB found that as employers can’t require employees not to join a union via a “yellow dog contract,” the employers can’t require employees to “agree” not to file class action suits.

The New Orleans Court of Appeals reversed the NLRB’s decision in a 2-1 vote. They found the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) trumps the employee’s right to act collectively. The FAA doesn’t actually address class action suits. The court’s holding is in line with the Supreme Court’s decisions expanding their interpretation of FAA. If the court’s holding becomes governing rule, no employer will permit its employees to bring class action suits. Many employers already require these waivers such as J.P. Morgan and United Healthcare. However, all those represented by unions will have to yield their rights.

One federal judge said, “each employee would have to…undertake the person risk of litigation directly against his or her…employer. Many employees would likely be unable to bear such…risks.” Oh good, some states the reasons for all of this. It is perfect, employers can cheat employees they keep in poverty and there is nothing the poor can do about it, suckers. No one reading this blog would be surprised to hear me say workers in the US are vulnerable to a host of labor violations and it is just getting worse. This is particularly true of low-wage workers. We also have to remember that organized labor continues to weaken almost across the board, the only hope really is to organize unskilled service workers, which is very difficult because the Walmart business model where unionbusting is key.

Becker concludes by suggesting Congress might do something about this when it takes up the Arbitration Fairness Act this year.  I’m a far more cynical person. I worry that one Congress is alerted to this problem they will make it worse by banning unions or individual suits against employers, ok so I’m being a little tongue and cheek here, but the point remains. I don’t believe Congress will help especially the House of Representatives, remember who pays the bills here.

The Rights of Women (and by extension employees) Part Duos

Get ready for what might become kind of dense. SCOTUS is going to hear a case about birth control and Obamacare: Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby.  First, get all the laughing out now, I know Hobby Lobby, personally I’m much more a Michael’s kind of girl myself…but they have some labor issues too. Actually, you’re going to be hard pressed to find many stores without labor issues.

Amanda Marcotte has a post up over at RawStory on how this case is about a lot more than birth control access for employees, and though I give exactly zero fucks about being “fair and balanced” instead I favor just and accurate, Hobby Lobby’s website for their perspective.

Marcotte asserts that the attack on the birth control mandate by the right wing would be seen by their supporters as an attack on women who do not conform to the rigid roles assigned to them by the right wing. They dress it up as “religious freedom” of course because no one can really say, we hate women and think they should have no rights, unless you’re on the Internet. Marcotte goes onto say that people won’t and don’t think twice about the larger implications of employers being able to “tailor your compensation for you labor to his religious beliefs.”

I disagree in a way. I think this is one of the many intended consequences the corporate run right wing had in mind. First, take a step back and ask yourself, can a business have a religion? Because that is the central question of the SCOTUS case. I say no, because I do not believe corporations/business of any size are people or citizens (coming back to this below). But if businesses can have a religion then can it use that religion to discriminate against its employees?

At think point in the post, Marcotte asks some questions about where this ends just limits on compensation or can they refuse to employ people based on beliefs: can a business refuse to hire women?; if a business believes people of color carry the mark of Cain can they refuse to hire people of color (actually a belief held by some)?; gays?; etc.

If SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby it gives employers a huge amount of control to dictate how employers can live their lives. And, while Twitter is amazing and people were going back and forth about the medical ramifications to vaccinations and homeopathic treatments, there is an even darker side to this. Can businesses dictate the decisions people make in their personal lives? We’ve seen Walmart try with the indoctrination videos that Walmart forces their employees being captive audiences to, but if the business decides belonging to a union is idolatry or interferes with tithe (giving a portion of your income to the church)?  Holy hell, what it a business decides to keep 10% of your income and donate it to their church? Also if businesses are people with the right to religion, can it start its own religion?

I know this all sounds crazy, but these are legit questions if Hobby Lobby wins this case. Below is a tweet from Marcotte on Wednesday morning point out that Hobby Lobby’s insurance covered birth control pre-Obamacare, because why not.

A Thing Everyone Should Know: Hobby Lobby insurance used to cover birth control. Then Obamacare became an issue & they pulled coverage.
— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) November 27, 2013

Alright, let’s talk citizenship and what that means legally and in practice. As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, there can be a lot of discussion about what citizenship looks like and how that changes depending on who you are. Often legal and cultural citizenship are pushed together, but for example, citizens pay taxes, but so do undocumented laborers, and that doesn’t mean the latter have legal citizenship or natural born citizens have the right to vote, but many don’t while cultural citizens may not have that right, but want to use it.

If corporations are deemed about to have religious freedoms, what is the impact or expectation of these new citizens in contrast to the already residing citizens? In yesterday’s post I mentioned the troubling effect of fetal personhood on the rights of women; will we see this between corporations and its employees? It is all quite science fictiony to me.

Another day, another act of Walmart stupidity

Don’t get me wrong. I hate Walmart, but sometimes I wonder about their PR people. Do they have PR people? Are these people being paid minimum wage? Or is Walmart so powerful and eliminated so much of the competition that they no longer need PR people? The answer to these questions doesn’t really matter. What matters is the meta experience of Walmart employees that are aware them make a poverty wage and the store that employees them is collecting food for them.

Take a minute. Throw something. I’ll wait. I threw a mug…it didn’t break.

So this is happening in Canton, Ohio. Walmart claims that it is proof employees are looking out for one another by trying to provide Thanksgiving meals to their coworkers. Of course, everyone else things it is proof the company doesn’t pay enough to survive. Olivera Perkins wrote the story for The Plain Dealer.

This food drive is in employee only areas out of the line of sight of customers, because can’t let your customers know something like that. It should be noted that Walmart employees go on strike  today (Monday) in Cincinnati and Dayton.

Naturally, employees and those trying to organize them are pretty angry about all this because I don’t know pay your employees. Kory Lundberg, Walmart spokesman, claims the food drive is proof employees care about one another: “It is for associates who have had some hardships come up. Maybe their spouse lost a job.

“This is part of the company’s culture to rally around associates and take care of them when they face extreme hardships.”

Lundberg asserts that the food drive was decided at a store level in Canton. This is all in the wake of more Walmart strikes across the states. The people involved in these strikes are looking for fair pay, safe working conditions, etc. The activists and organizers are working on something for Black Friday, but no one is talking about specifics at least to the press.

This isn’t a new drive at the Canton Walmart, and some people are wondering why it is a big deal now. Employees seem mixed; some think it is useful and kind while others feel ashamed and demoralized by it. I’m not going to get into pay rates, but even by the spokesman’s assert average rate still only comes about to about $25,000 per year, and it is assumed he went high on his rate.

You can read more from Allison Kilkenny. I really don’t understand how anyone can be in favor of the Walmart model, which is essentially short-term profits over long-term sustainability resulting in inequity, poverty, and hunger. Good job guys.

UFCW is considering rejoining the AFL-CIO next month

I know. I read that and went what? But it looks like it is true. Mike Elk had the exclusive for In These Times. I know what you’re thinking, wait they are separate to begin with? Just kidding, I make my own fun.

The UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers) broke off from the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations) back in 2005, but UFCW frequently cooperates with the AFL-CIO because that’s kind of how things have to be done to get anywhere. However, Elk’s sources within the AFL-CIO say the UFCW are in talks to rejoin the AFL-CIO bringing its 1.3 million members with it. The UFCW are expected to vote at the annual convention in Chicago this August, and it is expected to pass because of the support from leadership.

So back in 2005, several large unions split from the AFL-CIO including the UFCW, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Brotherhood of Carpenters, the Laborers’ Union, Unite Here, and the United Farm Workers of America to form Change to Win, a rival federation. There is some controversy over the split including allegations an underlying motivation was to cut down on dues; Change to Win charges about half the dues per member as the AFL-CIO does.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has pushed for the reunification of the labor movement (and its 14 million members) since his election in 2009 so this would be a pretty big victory for him. Change to Win has lost some of its membership including Unite Here, who voted to rejoin the AFL-CIO. However, the UFCW would be the largest to come back. Elk rightly points out this begs the question: will any of the other members, the SEUI, the Teamsters, or the United Farmworkers, enter talks to rejoin the AFL-CIO? Elk’s requests for comment went unanswered.

Trumka has courted the UFCWs for a while; memorably back in March when he joined the UFCW in criticizing the Obama administration public relations event emphasizing jobs for returning veterans with Wal-Mart. UFCW launched Our Wal-Mart.

The details of the potential union aren’t known yet. Elk expects the AFL-CIO to offer some kind of deal like discounted dues, as motivation. Other discussions to be had are about leadership, where UFCW officers will fit in and if the AFL-CIO will take on issues the UFCW cares about.

The Wal-Mart question is where this all gets the most interesting. The AFL-CIO have vast resources, which could be used to really take on Wal-Mart, but at this point we don’t know how much of their resources will be devoted to that. All that said, Wal-Mart isn’t going down without a fight, and it will probably be bad. As we've seen with before and most recently with their threats to the DC Council.

I go back on forth on labor unification. Part of me thinks labor (like everyone) is more powerful when acting as one. Of course, this can happen through coalition building. There is also a history of a power struggle within organized labor with special populations not getting much attention, recognition, or power. Of course, at this point everyone recognizes that low-wage women and people of color are the future of organized labor. But that means, old labor is going to have to be more inclusive, and while they are running to embrace the low-wage retail and service industry, I haven't seen them do quite as much in other highly gendered and raced fields such as home health aids and domestic care work. The later of which has been scoring some pretty huge victories in recent years with the Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights (New York, Hawaii, and Oregon have passed it with California still trying, I think). I’m looking forward to what is going to happen.