WALMART ANTI-UNIONISM

Wal-Mart Anti-Unionism

Wal-Mart Anti Unionism

Wal-Mart's tactics in eliminating any and all forms of employee representation

Wal-Mart has received a multitude of criticism based on its antiunion and anti-employee policies. In 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Wal-Mart in which they were denied for the payments of overtime. They were not even allowed to have breaks or take rest. In 2006, around 200 workers of Wal-Mart walked out of the outlet and started protesting on its new policies. They were compelled to accept pay caps, attendance policy, and compulsory availability in all shifts. When Wal-Mart sensed the treats of unionization in the outlets, they use the methods such as preemptive closure and managerial surveillance. When meat-cutters of Texas join hands to form union, Wal-Mart closed the in-house meat-cutting to prevent this unionization scenario.

In essence then, some of the wage increases won by unions come at the expense of lower-paid or unemployed workers. For this reason, many economists argue that the interference of unions in the operation of the market causes inefficiencies. This leads to the conclusion that, on balance, unions play a harmful role in the market. According to Wal-Mart, they do not encourage unions due to this notion (William, 2003).

Wal-Mart also believes that the unionization will decrease its profitability. Many economists believe that unions contribute to inefficiency in a second way by engaging in strikes. When unions call strikes in an effort to increase their bargaining power, productivity falls. At the firm level, this ultimately lowers profitability (Anthony, 2003).

Wal-Mart considers that that encouragement of unions will reduce the efficiency of the business. Economist believes that unions reduce efficiency through the imposition of work rules and work restrictions with which nonunion employers are not saddled. One often-cited example is work jurisdiction rules in which employees have strictly observed job descriptions that prevent them from doing even the simplest of tasks that are not a part of their jobs. Where work jurisdiction rules exist, some economists argue that these provisions have a negative impact on individual and firm-level productivity (Pankaj, 2003).

A brief history of the issue

In the United States, only one group of Wal-Mart employees has successfully organized. In February 2000 ten meat cutters in Jacksonville, Texas, voted 7 to 3 to unionize their tiny bargaining unit. Two weeks later, Wal-Mart abruptly eliminated their jobs by switching to prepackaged meat and assigning the butchers to other departments, effectively abolishing the only union shop on its North American premises. After more than three years, in June 2003, a federal labor judge ruled this move illegal and ordered Wal-Mart to restore the department and recognize the butchers' bargaining unit. Wal-Mart has appealed that decision (James, 2001).

Discussion about the opposite side's justification i.e.: pro-associate

Those who criticize Wal-Mart's antiunion strategy suggest that absence of labor unions in innumerable Wal-Mart stores causes employees to suffer from a number of disadvantages. First they cannot raise their voices about their low wages in comparison with the number of hours they work ...