By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Apr 30 2007 (IPS)

The retail giant Wal-Mart exploits weak U.S. labour laws to prevent union formation and violates the fundamental human rights of its U.S. workers, says a report released Monday on the eve of the May Day labour holiday.

Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) “Discounting Rights: Wal-Mart’s Violation of U.S. Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association”, found that many U.S. companies exploit weak labour laws to prevent the formation of unions, but Wal-Mart stands out due to the size and strength of its anti-union capabilities.

HRW acknowledged that Wal-Mart doesn’t always run afoul of U.S. labour laws – and when it does, it only violates laws with minor penalties – but says that its actions are designed to undermine the ability of its workers to organise and be exposed to union representatives and information.

Contacted for comment, Wal-Mart referred IPS to a written statement that reads, “This pro-union report uses incomplete interviews and unsubstantiated allegations from as much as 6-7 years ago to support a union-backed bill before congress that eliminates workers’ rights to a private ballot vote on unionisation.”

“Contrary to the allegations in this report, Wal-Mart respects our associates’ right to a free and fair unionisation vote through a private, government supervised process and we remain committed to compliance with U.S. laws regarding workers’ right to unionise,” the company statement said.

But Carol Pier, a senior researcher on labour rights and trade for HRW, said that, “Wal-Mart workers have virtually no chance to organise because they’re up against unfair U.S. labour laws and a giant company that will do just about anything to keep unions out. That one-two punch devastates workers’ right to form and join unions.”

The report describes how individuals or groups of workers who attempt to organise eventually come into contact with Wal-Mart’s Labour Relations Team, who almost immediately present seemingly compelling reasons to avoid unions and stick to internal sources to address labour disputes.

Team members hold meetings which workers are strongly urged to attend, in which they hear of the terrible consequences of union formation.

Most of the activities of the Labour Relations Team comport with U.S. law, but HRW is quick to point out that U.S. labour laws are weak and porous.

“Saying, ‘If you organise, the store will close’ – that’s illegal. But saying, ‘If you organise the economic conditions will make the store close’ is legal,” Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor of history at the University of California Santa Barbara and director of the Centre for the Study of Work, Labour and Democracy, told IPS.

“Saying ‘if you do a union, we’ll cut your wages’ – that’s illegal. But saying, ‘All the expenses (to Wal-Mart) of (workers) joining the union will come out of your bonus’ – that’s legal.”

Wal-Mart has also consistently banned union representatives from their stores. “Employers can make their anti-union case loud and clear in the workplace, while banning union reps from company property,” said Pier.

The company’s anti-union campaign “creates a climate of fear at its U.S. stores,” and employees are often afraid they could face retaliation or even firing if they attempt to unionise, despite Wal-Mart’s efforts not to transgress U.S. labour laws, says the HRW report.

“You get an indication of union activity at a store and they send in their team which stay in the store and overawe and intimidate and interrogate the workers. It’s something out of a sort of Stalinist Russia,” said Lichtenstein.

HRW says that managers have been know to eavesdrop on employees, surveillance cameras have been repositioned to monitor union supporters, and workers have been told they will lose benefits if they organize or talk about unions. Flyer distribution has been banned at certain stores, workers have been disciplined for policy violations that have been overlooked for union opponents and workers have been illegally fired for their union activities.

Penalties under U.S. labour law for such infractions are minimal and many argue their deterrent effect on Wal-Mart amounts to a slap on the wrist.

Employers found in violation of such laws are often simply required to post in-store notices promising to abide by the law in the future and restore the status quo before the illegal acts occurred. Wal-Mart can be forced to rehire wrongfully fired employees and pay them lost earnings, but the company usually faces no fines or other punitive sanctions.

HRW calls on the U.S. Congress to pass and President George W. Bush to sign the Employee Free Choice Act which would increase penalties for labour law violations and require employers to recognise a union if a majority of workers signs cards showing their support.

The report also urges the National Labour Relations Board to seek more court injunctions when allegations of employer misconduct arise against repeat offenders such as Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest company, had 351.14 billion dollars in revenues and 1.3 billion in profits in the past year, and is the largest private U.S. employer with more than 1.3 million workers here and close to 4,000 stores nationwide.

Excerpt: