|
|
Wal-Mart threatened workers that they loose benefits if they unionise - must now answer in court Is Wal-Mart threatening workers who unionise that they will lose benefits? Yes, say several workers who wanted to form a union at the company's tire and lube center in Kingman, Arizona. They can also present written documentation proving their case, documentation produced by Wal-Mart itself. A judge in Wal-Mart's home state Arkansas had already decided that the dispute cannot be brought to court, but has to be dealt with only by the National Labor Relations Board. Now, a U.S. Appeals Court in St. Louis has reversed the decision and ordered the Bentonville multinational to answer to the workers' lawsuit. The lawsuit against Wal-Mart is based on the company's benefit booklets, which said that unionised workers would not qualify for certain pensions, profit sharing and health care rights. Already in 2003, an administrative court ordered Wal-Mart to change this union busting practice, stating that it was intended "to ensure, to the extent it could, that its employees were fearful of losing their benefits, and thus continued to reject union representation". Wal-Mart's systematic and heavy-handed union busting is infamous both in the United States and Canada, where the closing of its store in Jonquière rather than negotiating a collective agreement is still in fresh memory. Word about walmartization is fast spreading all around the globe, and resistance against the retail giant establishing itself in new countries is growing. Socially responsible investors are getting rid of their Wal-Mart shares and stock prices have gone down. In Germany and the United Kingdom, the two European countries where Wal-Mart is present, the results have not been what they could have. Year after year, the company has made important losses in Germany, and in the United Kingdom, they remain far behind market leader Tesco.
|
