VII. Case Study I: Defeating Union Organizing Through Tactics Comporting with US LawUnion activity began at a Greeley, Colorado, Wal-Mart in the spring of 2005. When Human Rights Watch visited Greeley in July 2005, the organizing drive was still underway. Current and former workers described in detail how their store managers and Wal-Marts Labor Relations Team were systematically implementing the companys strategy to thwart the organizing efforts at the store. No unfair labor practice charges were filed, however, and it appears unlikely that Wal-Marts conduct ran afoul of US law. Instead, this case is one of many examples of how Wal-Mart violates workers internationally recognized right to freedom of association by taking advantage of weak US labor laws and the inherently coercive power of the employment relationship to mount anti-union campaigns that deny workers the right to choose freely whether to organize. As in other cases, Wal-Mart accomplished its goal primarily by inundating workers with anti-union information, highlighting the possible downsides to organizing and clearly articulating the companys opposition to unions, while limiting workers access to contrary views. Workers, for the most part, heard only Wal-Marts side of the story and with little if any information to contradict their employers dire warnings about unions, many reportedly grew to fear the detrimental effects of union formation. Through the anti-union mantra of its store managers and Labor Relations Team members and lack of opportunity to air pro-union views, Wal-Mart created an atmosphere in which a free and fair union campaign was impossible. By reminding workers repeatedly of its opposition to unions, Wal-Mart also helped create a climate in which workers began to fear potential repercussions for organizing against their employers wishes. The company never made any explicit threats of retaliation, but it did not have toWal-Marts hostility towards union formation was perfectly clear, and workers feared that if they supported self-organizing, they would be crossing their powerful employer at their own peril. As one Greeley, Colorado, Wal-Mart worker told Human Rights Watch:
In this case, as in others, the companys strategy to derail worker organizing achieved its goal: the organizing efforts diminished and ultimately completely stalled.428 Greeley, Colorado, Store Number 5051
In February 2005, Greeley, Colorado, Wal-Mart garden center worker Jared West contacted the UFCW to inquire about organizing workers at the store. West and his fellow union supporters explained to Human Rights Watch that they wanted to organize because of seemingly random and unfair raises, a new pay scale that they perceived as hurting long-term workers, a recently imposed cap on merit raises per store, management failure to follow company rules on granting promotions, and lack of management accountability.430 Electronics worker and organizing committee member Casey Minor summed up the workers sentiments, telling Human Rights Watch, I just dont think what Wal-Mart does is right with its employees. For a company that makes as much as they do, they dont treat employees as well as they could.431 The Anti-Union Campaign and Store ManagementWal-Mart workers in Greeley told Human Rights Watch that they believe that store management detected their union activity before the UFCW sent official notification in June 2005 that an organizing committee had formed at the store.432 They described to Human Rights Watch changes that they observed in management behavior that they attributed to suspicion that organizing was underway, including the increased management presence in the stores garden department, where most of the union supporters worked. The store manager, co-managers, and the assistant manager reportedly came out to the garden department to help after rumors of the union started and before store management received the UFCW letter.433 Angela Steinbrecher, a garden department worker and union organizing committee member, recalled that the store manager put on a vest and helped with the fork truck.434 Christine Stroup, another Greeley, Colorado, Wal-Mart worker and organizing committee member added, That was the first time I saw him doing physical labor, throwing freight. Hed [only] walked around before.435 West, Steinbrecher, and Stroup recounted that, after helping out, the store manager told garden department workers that if they had a union, he would not be able to pitch in anymore because, as West and Stroup recalled, it would not be in his job description.436 West told Human Rights Watch, Pretty much until the small meetings started, he was out there about every day for at least a couple of hours, just helping out. Most of us on the [union] list are in electronics and garden.437 On June 10, 2005, the UFCW sent the Greeley, Colorado, store managers a letter that formally announced workers intent to campaign for a union and listed the fifteen workers on the organizing committee.438 According to West, the reaction of the store managers was dramatic: When the organizing letter first came out, they allowed department managers to cry, literally, at store meetings about how much they hate unions.439 Steinbrecher described to Human Rights Watch a store-wide meeting held very shortly after management received the organizing letter:
Management also reportedly emphasized Wal-Marts Open Door Policy in the days and weeks that followed the UFCW letter, suggesting that with a union, workers could lose the benefits of the Open Door. Steve Stockburger, a worker in the garden center and another member of the organizing committee, told Human Rights Watch:
Steinbecher concurred, noting:
Wal-Mart management also reportedly highlighted the uncertainty inherent in a union-led collective bargaining process.443 Bridgid Carpenter, speaking to Human Rights Watch on condition of anonymity, explained, They said we have so many benefits, discount cards, hotline, [and] if the union came in, we could either keep that or it could be taken away.444 Carpenter, who said that although she signed a union card, she is now neutral on the union, added that Wal-Mart managers told them that during negotiations, nothing is guaranteed. We could make more; we could make less; or just stay the same. But the one thing thats guaranteed is dues.445
Although several union supporters told Human Rights Watch that their increased interactions with managers were unusually friendly and personable,448 Stroup described to Human Rights Watch a particularly hostile reaction that she received from her department manager in the layaway department in response to her involvement in union activity. Stroup said that she arrived at work two days after management received the union organizing letter and was asked by her department manager if she knew anything about the union. Stroup told her manager that she was part of it. According to Stroup, her manager became rather irate and decide[d] not to talk about it because she doesnt agree with my stance.449 Stroup said that the following day when she arrived at work, there was a letter in a notebook on the layaway counter. The letter reportedly did not have Stroups name on it, but Stroup explained that her manager told her that she had written the letter for her and that when she picked it up to read it, she recognized her managers handwriting.450 Stroup told Human Rights Watch, Many of the facts contained in the letter are false. She wants to know why I believe a union will make a difference in Wal-Mart, and she continually comes back that I am just a kid that didnt take any of the Wal-Mart lifers into consideration.451 In relevant part, the letter stated:
Stroup concluded, Honestly, that letter really upset me.453 Dividing the StoreAccording to workers, Stroups department manager was not the only member of the stores management team to underscore the divide between the younger workers earning money to pay for college and older workers whose careers were with Wal-Mart. Stroup and several of her co-workers explained to Human Rights Watch that they felt that Wal-Mart capitalized on this divide and its inherent tensions to foster opposition to worker organizing and create a store atmosphere increasingly uncomfortable for union supporters and hostile to pro-union views. West explained that he believed that managers purposefully pitted the younger pro-union workers against career workers: Wes [Labor Relations Team member] said at the meeting on Fridayhe worded it carefullyhe said, There are people who want this who wont be here very long.454 Bridgid Carpenter, Wests co-worker speaking on condition of anonymity, recounted, He [my assistant manager] said most of the people on the committee are college kids who wont be at Wal-Mart that long and arent trying to make a career of Wal-Mart. So, they wont have to deal with the long-term effect of a union, as opposed to people wholl be there ten to twenty years.455 Stroup added, [On] June 17, [an] article is published in the Greeley Tribune on our attempts at organization. I arrived at work at 7:00 a.m., and the talk on the floor is how these kids do not understand or know what . . . they are bringing in here. They are just a bunch of troublemakers, and this never needed to get leaked to the press.456 Stroup explained:
The Anti-Union Campaign and the Labor Relations TeamDemonstrating to workers how seriously Wal-Mart takes the matter of worker organizing, the store manager reportedly announced at an all-store meeting the day after receiving the union campaign letter that he had called out a team of experts from the home office to give us [workers] valuable information about unions.458 Casey Minor, a worker in the electronics department, added that the manager talked about people coming from Arkansas just to talk to us about why they do not believe in the union and give us more facts.459 Approximately three days later, three members of Wal-Marts Labor Relations Team reportedly arrived at the store.460 On their first visit, they remained for a week, and in subsequent weeks, one or two would reportedly return to run small meetings with workers.461 As of mid-July 2005, members of the Labor Relations Team had conducted four sets of small-group meetings with workers about the union. In each case, the meetings reportedly began on Tuesday and ended on Friday, and workers were scheduled to attend the meetings at designated time slots, with generally only one or two union supporters assigned to each slot surrounded by increasingly hostile anti-union co-workers.462 Wal-Mart characterized these anti-union captive audience meetings as educational. Because the company is not legally required to allow union representatives a proportional opportunity to respond, it could virtually ensure that Wal-Mart alone framed most workers opinions of self-organizing, thereby precluding the possibility of a free, fair, and democratic union campaign at the store. Stroup told Human Rights Watch, They [Labor Relations Team members] kept explaining that they wanted us to make an educated decision, so during the Q&A, I posed the question: [Doesnt] an educated decision involve knowing both sides of an issue and weighing both to make a decision? I was told that they didnt know the unions stance, so they couldnt help me.463 Stroups co-worker Bridgid Carpenter added, Home office kept saying this is an educational class. It should not just give one side of the union. They should give pro and con, not just con. Its not fair to the associates.464 First Meeting: The VideoDuring the week of June 14, the first week that the Labor Relations Team was in the store, the team reportedly showed a video created by Paul French & Partners, a firm specializing in videos that help employers defeat worker organizing, and held question and answer sessions after the viewings.465 According to West, All of the associates saw the video. They say [that] its your option to go, but we really, really recommend that you go.466 Summarizing the video, Carpenter explained, The video, in my opinion, was saying if you sign the union card, youre selling your soul.467 Workers told Human Rights Watch that the video provided a brief history of the US labor movement. According to West, the video concluded that while unions once enjoyed an important place in American society and are an important part of US history, unions are no longer needed.468 He explained:
Stockburger added that the video conveyed the impression that the union isnt really needed any more because of labor laws. They said the union did do a lot of good in the early twenties, but now that we have laws and such, we dont need them anymore. Now, theyre just a business that wants your money.470 According to West, the video started with a guy walking into his ten-year-old sons room.471 Stroup added that the father was shown holding a baseball, saying, This is my sons baseball thats worth $15 unsigned, but signed [it] is worth a lot more. She explained, Their comparison is that the union card is worthless without your signature, and organizers will do anything to get this signature.472 Stroup and West recounted that the video continued by explaining that store-level union organizing begins with disgruntled employeesusually looking to get even by hurting the store.473 West added that the pro-union, disgruntled workers are presented as angry people who want to hurt the business. . . . How can that be good for you?474 The video also reportedly described extraordinary efforts to which union organizers will go to convince workers to sign union cards. For example, Stockburger, Stroup, and West recounted a scene in the video in which the union was throwing a party for workers and the ticket into the party was a signed union card.475 West, Stroup, Stockburger, and Carpenter also recalled that the video depicted union organizers as persistent and harassing, chasing workers, making calls to workers homes, and relentlessly pressuring them to sign union cards. Stockburger told Human Rights Watch, They made the union and the union organizers look real evil. It wouldnt have been much worse if theyd put horns on their actors.476 Carpenter commented:
Stroup added that the video depicts union organizers as bothersome people with an anti-employer agenda, . . . stalking people for signatures.478 Stockburger concurred, They made everyone involved with the union look really bad. They [were] . . . so desperate to have the signature.479 Workers specifically recalled for Human Rights Watch the various scenarios developed in the video in which union organizers harassed workers to obtain their signatures on union cards. West recounted:
Stockburger also recalled, They would have union people coming up to peoples cars when they were driving away from work and running after their cars and saying they needed the union.481 In their discussions with Human Rights Watch, Stockburger and Carpenter emphasized that the videos depiction of union organizing tactics was inaccurate. Carpenter, in particular, expressed her frustration, telling Human Rights Watch:
Also commenting on the portrayal of union organizers in the video, Stockburger explained, It wasnt, of course, like that at all. We would just talk to people and explain the benefits of a union and ask if they were interested, and if they said no, we wouldnt hassle them at all. We wanted to get them information that wasnt Wal-Mart information.483 After the video showings, there were reportedly question and answer sessions. According to Stroup, during these exchanges, the Labor Relations Team would talk in circles about how Wal-Mart is not anti-unionthey are pro-associateand how many of our customers and family members of associates work for companies that are union. Also, Wal-Mart uses union contractors to build their stores, so how could they possibly be anti-union?484 Carpenter commented, When I said this is very one sided, one of the Labor Relations Team members replied, Well, you can always get on the Internet and research it.485 Subsequent Meetings: PowerPoint and Management PresentationsDuring the three meetings that followed the video showings, Labor Relations Team members and other Wal-Mart senior staff continued to underscore the limitations to and drawbacks of self-organizing. West and Stockburger recalled that the second meeting stressed union dues and highlighted UFCWs boycotts and protests of Wal-Mart, asking, How can this be good for you? and explaining, UFCW Local 7 has a dual agenda. . . . They have continually tried to stop Wal-Marts from being built and even protested our Wal-Mart the day it opened. . . . How could the UFCW truly care about our needs?486 The third and fourth meetings reportedly described Wal-Marts wages and benefits, telling workers that their compensation packages were comparable to those at non-union retailers and alleging that, in some cases, they were also even better than those at unionized grocery stores.487 Stroup described one of the meetings as detailing how Wal-Mart workers make more than union workers. She summarized, This one was about how if you go union, we wont make more, but if you stay regular, you would make more.488 West remembered that management characterized the healthcare plan for part-time workers at Safewaya unionized competitoras the not-so-good Plan C and the plan for which part-time workers must wait three years to qualify as the rich Plan A, implying that Wal-Marts existing healthcare plans were better.489 Minor commented:
Without a meaningful opportunity to hear from union supporters or representatives, however, workers were unable to weigh both sides of the issue and assess Wal-Marts benefits claims for themselves. ConclusionAs it has many times before, Wal-Mart violated its workers' right to freedom of association in Greeley, Colorado, by employing its sophisticated array of anti-union tactics that go to the very brink of what weak US labor law allows. As soon as rumors of union activity surfaced, store-level managers began to circulate more frequently among workers, increasing contact, in particular, with suspected union supporters. After receiving official notification of organizing efforts, store management began to highlight the companys Open Door Policy and the risks of union-led collective bargaining, warning workers of a real possibility of benefit loss. Managers emphasized the divide between the mostly young union supporters and the mostly career Wal-Mart employees opposed to union formation, playing on existing tensions among workers and making the atmosphere increasingly unpleasant for pro-union workers. At the same time, the Labor Relations Team arrived and through small-group captive audience meetings caused the anti-union drum beat to crescendo further. Opposition to union formation grew as workers were inundated with anti-union information delivered by their powerful employer and exposed to few if any contradictory views. Ultimately, the organizing drive collapsed. 427 Human Rights Watch interview with Angela Steinbrecher, July 17, 2005. 428 Email communication from John P. Bowen, general counsel, UFCW Local 7, to Human Rights Watch, May 25, 2006. 429 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 430 Human Rights Watch interview with Casey Minor, July 19, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Scott Smith, July 18, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 431 Human Rights Watch interview with Casey Minor, July 19, 2005. 432 Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview with Scott Smith, July 18, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Angela Steinbrecher, July 17, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 433 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 434 Human Rights Watch interview with Angela Steinbrecher, July 17, 2005. 435 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 436 Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview with Angela Steinbrecher, July 17, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 437 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 438 Ibid. 439 Ibid. 440 Human Rights Watch interview with Angela Steinbrecher, July 17, 2005. 441 Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005. 442 Human Rights Watch interview with Angela Steinbrecher, July 17, 2005. 443 Human Rights Watch interview with Bridgid Carpenter, July 18, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 444 Human Rights Watch interview with Bridgid Carpenter, July 18, 2005. 445 Ibid. 446 See, e.g., Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 447 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 448 See, e.g., Human Rights Watch interview with Casey Minor, July 19, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Scott Smith, July 18, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Angela Steinbrecher, July 17, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 449 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 450 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Christine Stroup, Denver, Colorado, January 31, 2007. 451 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 452 Letter from Greeley, Colorado, Wal-Mart layaway department manager to Christine Stroup, June 13, 2006. 453 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 454 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 455 Human Rights Watch interview with Bridgid Carpenter, July 18, 2005. 456 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 457 Ibid. 458 Ibid. 459 Human Rights Watch interview with Casey Minor, July 19, 2005. 460 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 461 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 462 Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview with Bridgid Carpenter, July 18, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 463 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 464 Human Rights Watch interview with Bridgid Carpenter, July 18, 2005. 465 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. According to the companys web page, Paul French & Partners labor relations videos help clear the air and present the actual facts concerning: Union Card Signing; 25th Hour Presentations; Contract Negotiations; Last, Final and Best Offer; and other sensitive subjects. The company advertises the videos as having a proven record of motivating, educating, and convincing individuals who would ordinarily turn a deaf ear to a company spokesman. One sample video highlighted is touted as easy to watch and informative and express[ing], in plain language, the downside of union membership and the changes workers can expect if they vote in the union. Another is [d]esigned to show the work force of a major employer in a small town that they are not immune to union strikes, no matter how small the town or how insulated they may feel. Paul French & Partners, Labor Relations, 2004, http://www.pfandp.com/laborrelations.shtml (accessed May 31, 2006). 466 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 467 Human Rights Watch interview with Bridgid Carpenter, July 18, 2005. 468 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 469 Ibid. 470 Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005. 471 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 472 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 473 Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 474 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 475 Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 476 Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005. 477 Human Rights Watch interview with Bridgid Carpenter, July 18, 2005. 478 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 479 Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005. 480 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 481 Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005. 482 Human Rights Watch interview with Bridgid Carpenter, July 18, 2005. 483 Human Rights Watch interview with Steve Stockburger, July 19, 2005. 484 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 485 Human Rights Watch interview with Bridgid Carpenter, July 18, 2005. 486 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 487 See, e.g., Ibid.; Human Rights Watch interview with Bridgid Carpenter, July 18, 2005; Human Rights Watch interview with Angela Steinbrecher, July 17, 2005. 488 Human Rights Watch interview with Christine Stroup, July 18, 2005. 489 Human Rights Watch interview with Jared West, July 17, 2005. 490 Human Rights Watch interview with Casey Minor, July 19, 2005. |