But the company also said it was not telling those on their payrolls who to vote for. According to Reuters, management meetings over the past few weeks have outlined how a bill backed by Obama could make it easier for Wal-Mart employees to unionize.
The result could be higher labor costs which, in addition to the obvious and implied drain on the bottom line, would result in layoffs.
Keeping overall labor costs flat while having to pay individual workers more would mean Wal-Mart could keep fewer people on the payroll.
Again, the company says it's not telling employees who to vote for. But then again, how else is could a statement like "we would have to eliminate jobs if a union comes in and does its job" come across to John Q. Worker?
Do you think that is going to hurt Obama come November? Do you think it's right for Wal-Mart do do? And do you think the only reason we know about this is because it's at Wal-Mart, and similar conversations are happening at smaller businesses all over the country?
Leave a comment