Wal-Mart Prepares its Defenses Against Obama

The top worldwide distributor makes it understood to its employees that it would be better not to vote for the Democratic candidate. The company fears that once elected, Obama will work to strengthen the trade union power.

When the largest employer of the country minds its business in the U.S. presidential campaign, it is difficult to act as if nothing had happened. So when the same firm, Wal-Mart, with its 1.5 million employees making 2.3% of the American GNP, makes it understood to its employees that it would be better not to vote for the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, the case can begin to worry the donkey’s party.

This Friday according to Wall Street Journal, specialists in discount, spoke against its low wages and the total absence of the union trade representation, and has effectively held several internal meetings on a mandatory basis to warn against a possible victory by the Democratic candidate in November.

The daily economic magazine heard testimony from a dozen employees of the firm, natives of Arkansas, who attended these meetings held in seven different states. According to them, the core of the distributor’s speech focused on the likely adoption of a bill called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which will facilitate the establishment of a union trade representative in the company if the Illinois Senator is to be elected.

The convener of the meeting explained, “I am not telling you for whom to vote, but if the democrats win, this bill will pass and you will not have your say on the issue of the trade union,” an employee under one of 3,500 supermarket, located in Missouri reported to Wall Street Journal. “I am not stupid, they told me who to vote for,” she said.

Collective Action Nonexistent at Wal-Mart

Since the establishment of its first supermarket in 1962, Wal-Mart, has “paid particular attention to nipping in the bud any collective action involving employees,” explained Jean-Christian Vinel, a lecturer at Paris-VII Denis Diderot*.

But the EFCA bill introduced in 2003 plans to increase the penalties for violations of labor law and facilitate the establishment and membership of unions. Voted in by the House of Representatives and then blocked in the Senate and threatened by a presidential veto, it would more than likely pass under a Democratic presidency. Barack Obama has in fact supported and indicated he would sign if it were presented, once he became president. His Republican opponent, John McCain is however opposed.

But the relationship between Wal-Mart and Barack Obama is not confined to this final episode. In the past, the senator from Illinois has often opposed the firm accused of having contributed to the precarious of work in the USA.

In November 2007, shortly before announcing his candidacy, the senator had responded to the call of the employee defense committee, wakeupwalmart.com, and said :”Delivering a battle against Wal-Mart and forcing them to reconsider their values and company policy is absolutely vital for America today.“

During the Democratic primary campaign, he also accused his rival Hillary Clinton for having been a member of the board of directors of the company between 1986 and 1992

A Pro-Wal-Mart on Obama’s Team

However, despite his opposition against the methods used by Wal-Mart, the attitude of the Senator facing the firm is not always clear. His wife, Michelle, has served for more than two years on the board of Treehouse Foods, a major supplier of Wal-Mart, before resigning under pressure of criticism last May.

As the candidate himself, he recruited in June a certain Jason Furman as chief economic adviser in his campaign team. But this 37-year-old economist, pet peeve of the mid-workers, was talked about in 2005 after putting in text something particularly favorable to the company, “Wal-Mart: a progressive success story.” What emerged was anger from the trade unions and employee’s movements.

Similarly, the altitude of Wal-Mart towards the Democrats is not always clear as notices the director of the Harper Magazine, John R. MacArthur**. “After spoiling the Republicans for a long time, allocating 85% of its donations to federal candidates of George Bush’s party, the king of hypermarkets felt the wind turn and decided starting in February of 2004 to spoil the Democratic Party. In January 2008, payments by Wal-Mart to the Democratic parliamentarians represented 43% of their total donations–a fine example of realpolitik “

* in l’ouvrage collectif, «Les conservateurs américains se mobilisent» (Autrement, 2008)

** in «Une caste américaine» (Les Arènes, 2008)