The following is a guest post by John Logan, Professor and Director of Labor and Employment Studies at San Francisco State University.
In a recent opinion column on Forbes.com, Peter Schaumber, a persistent critic of the National Labor Relations Board, claims that the world’s largest corporation is the "victim" of the actions of a "partisan" labor board. Nothing could be further from the truth.
By issuing a consolidated unfair labor practice complaint – naming over 60 supervisors and one corporate officer -- against the retail giant, the Board’s General Counsel was simply upholding the law.
The real victims here are Walmart employees who, according to the NLRB's complaint, face retaliation and even termination if they speak out against poverty wages and poor working conditions.
What’s Behind the Board Complaint Against Walmart?
The decision to issue the complaint appears to confirm what its employees have long alleged: Walmart uses unlawful intimidation and coercion to silence workers. The charges are sweeping: it’s the largest ever complaint issued against the company in both size and scale.
Adopting allegedly unlawful behavior in fourteen states throughout the nation, from Massachusetts to Texas to California, Walmart store managers "threatened, disciplined and/or terminated employees" who had participated in lawful protests.
Walmart allegedly conducted this behavior over a period of many months, starting before the Black Friday protests in November 2012, continuing into actions around the company’s AGM in June, and ending in September 2013.
According to the General Counsel, the evidence indicates that Walmart violated the law.
The case will now go to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, where Walmart says it "looks forward to sharing the facts" of the cases.
This behavior wasn’t simply the result of overzealous actions by a few rogue managers at isolated stores. It was allegedly part of a concerted and systematic company-wide effort to intimidate, coerce and silence employees.
In fact, the complaint alleges statements made by Walmart’s own senior spokesperson were illegal: he said on national television that workers might suffer "consequences" for participating in legally protected protests.
The Labor Board’s complaint against Walmart is important not only for the dozens of employees who suffered reprisals, but also for the company’s 1.3 million employees who have for years faced the threat of intimidation if they speak against poverty wages and bad jobs.
The Board must demonstrate to employees that Walmart will not be allowed to violate the law with impunity.
Walmart’s Checkered History Before the NLRB
Schaumber makes no mention of Walmart’s extensive record before the NLRB. Walmart is no stranger to allegations of unlawful intimidation of its workers.
Between 2000-2005, NLRB regional directors issued 39 complaints accusing the retail giant of unlawful behavior. These complaints involved 101 separate incidents of anti-union conduct at dozens of Walmart stores across the country.
The number of complaints declined after 2005 only because, after several years of management coercion, workers’ efforts to organize had largely fizzled out – i.e., Walmart’s behavior had the intended effect.
Schaumber blames the "partisan" Board under Obama for the complaint, but the Bush NLRB, which was certainly no friend of unions, handled many of the earlier complaints against Walmart. These were eventually resolved by settlements that required the company to remedy the alleged violations and post notices in its stores promising not to engage in any further unfair labor practices.
Unfortunately, as the new complaint demonstrates, this penalty does little to deter allegedly unlawful behavior by powerful corporations such as Walmart.
Who Are the Real Victims?
Only the most blinkered of observers could conclude that the world’s largest corporation, owned by the country’s wealthiest family, is the real victim here.
The real victims are not just workers who experienced retaliation but the hundreds of thousands of Walmart employees who earn under $9 per hour, frequently can’t get full-time work when they want it, and are forced to work irregular schedules that prevent them taking a second job or going back to school.
Schaumber argues that the fact that Walmart’s current CEO started as a "warehouse clerk" shows that accusations of dead-end jobs are false. In reality, he spent two summers in the warehouse as a teenager. Only a tiny number of employees ever reach the level of store manager, never mind senior management.
According the to the company’s own data, well over half a million of its hourly-paid employees earn less than $25,000 per year. So much for career opportunities at Walmart.
Management retaliation ensures that wages and working conditions at Walmart remain poor, and taxpayers pick up the tab for the company’s low-road competitive strategy. Walmart employees are often so poor that they and their dependents are among the nation’s biggest users of food stamps, low-income health programs and other forms of public assistance.
This public subsidy of Walmart costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars per year. The nation’s largest corporation is also its biggest recipient of corporate welfare.
According to the respected international organization Human Rights Watch, "Walmart has repeatedly used tactics that run afoul of U.S. law and directly infringe on workers’ right to freedom of association."
By expressing concern for Walmart’s billionaire owners rather than for its impoverished workers, NLRB critic Peter Schaumber has it backwards. Walmart is not the "victim" of a partisan NLRB. Rather, Walmart employees are the victims of a powerful and vindictive corporation that will go to almost any length to silence those workers who dare to speak up against its poverty wages and poor working conditions.
Editor's Note: Here is Walmart's response to the NLRB complaint. "The merits of the cases have yet to be heard," said Walmart spokesperson Kory Lundberg. "There hasn't been a single NLRB judgment against Walmart in five years."
John Logan is a Professor and Director of Labor and Employment Studies at San Francisco State University.
