AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > August > 15
Friday, August 15, 2008
Should companies be allowed to provide political education for employees?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
Who can argue against giving people facts? Yet at some point “training and education” crosses the line into propaganda and coercion. “Save Money. Live Better,” Wal-Mart encourages shoppers; the message they send to employees is another story. I’m not sold on the union legislation as presently drafted. However, we’re not debating the law but rather Wal-Mart’s right to lobby against it.
This is a company that opposes unionization with such fervor that it has already amassed a track record of skirting the lines of legality. As one attendee of these “educational” sessions remarked afterward, “I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote,” she said. If Wal-Mart really wants to arm employees with the facts, why not try this: “If you certify a union we’ll simply find a way to close the related operations, just as we’ve done in the other cases where union votes have passed.” I’m sure they’d be happy to be so blunt, if it wouldn’t bite them in court later.
Wal-Mart workers who push for a union these days have reason to be fearful. From a meat-cutting operation in Texas to an entire store in Quebec, the company has a habit of simply evaporating units that move toward unionizing. So if we have an accurate account of Wal-Mart’s statements at the meeting (“if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won’t get a vote on whether you’ll have a union”), then they’ve clearly already trampled the line between education and fear-mongering. Never underestimate the degrees Wal-Mart will go to in its war against unionization. Thanks to the internet, anyone can take a gander at the no-longer-confidential document “A Manager’s Toolbox to Remaining Union Free.” Marvel at its 53 pages of counter-attack strategies.
Barack Obama’s election would in no way guarantee the legislation passing: it will still require heavy Democratic majorities in both houses, including a filibuster-proof one in the Senate. As for now, if you’re looking to get ahead at Wal-Mart, don’t slap that Obama ‘08 sticker on your car. The company famously adverse to paying overtime is working overtime itself to influence this election.
Save money? Maybe. Live better? Not so much.
Commentary
By Shaunti Feldhahn
Companies should not only be allowed to provide certain types of political education to employees, but they have a responsibility to do so when certain election results will directly affect those employees’ jobs.
Corporate America got an alarming wake-up call last year with the near-approval of the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). With EFCA’s Senate sponsor Barack Obama running for president against a vocal EFCA opponent, it is no wonder that companies are scrambling to educate employees about the likely impact of this election.
The EFCA would radically change America’s union landscape by eliminating regulated secret ballots as the method of unionizing a work force. Instead, union organizers could spend months personally collecting signatures for union membership, and as soon as they got over the 50 percent mark, the work force would automatically be unionized without giving opponents a vote. The Service Employees International Union estimates that it could then organize 1 million workers a year, rather than its current rate of 100,000 a year.
There’s a reason union membership has declined by half in the last 25 years, why we’ve largely moved to a post-union economy, and why major employers like Wal-Mart need to educate their employees about the ramifications of this election. Unionization comes with massive costs that will put many businesses in financial difficulty and lose many employees their jobs.
Cintas Corporation, a corporate supply company, has made Fortune Magazine’s “Most Admired Company” list eight years in a row, and has also been recognized as one of the best employers to work for. In an email interview, public relations manager Heather Trainer said “Cintas believes individuals have the right to say yes, and the freedom to say no, to unionization,” but also that “Cintas feels it’s important that our employee-partners fully understand the implications that Employee Free Choice Act could have on their work environment and benefits.”
Here we have an award-winning company in Ohio that could change almost overnight if Barack Obama wins the race in November. Employers cannot tell employees how to vote, but they can and should give them this pertinent information. Then employees can vote their conscience in secret. Which is more than they’ll be able to do if union organizers get their way.