Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

[dcarrigg]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

The bailout using hundreds of billions of taxpayer money to bail out the banksters also is never mentioned by the left.

Leftists: "Facts" check in but they don't check out.

You don't read a lot of literature from the left, do you? I can assure you, using taxpayer money to bail out banks ain't popular over here either. In fact, a few million people mostly on the left sort of made a big loud stink about that at ground zero a couple years ago.

[flintlock]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

Almost all Walmart debates are proxies for debates about the larger economy itself. When I lived in Japan you could get in a Walmart cab which took you to the Walmart bus line that stopped in front of a….Walmart and the coupons on the bus gave you discounts at the Walmart pharmacy.

America will probably never have a zaibatsu economy, but it might get a few steps closer with Amazon.

Five companies are making shoes in Arkansas. Sam Walton goes to one and says, “I’ll buy and sell more of your shoes than you ever dreamed of and you will still make a ton of money, but you have to lower your prices.” And, years later there’s one shoe company. Competition?

I agree. Perhaps the discussion should be about "how big is too big?" Is there is a reason we see so many huge companies today vs the past. Or are we all just so much smarter now? Was the East India Company good or bad for India? They did provide jobs you know. All these type discussions have their pros and cons. The real question is where does it ultimately lead down the road. Take your pick, higher taxes or higher prices? Which if any is sustainable? i'm not that optimistic.

[GRG55]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

Almost all Walmart debates are proxies for debates about the larger economy itself. When I lived in Japan you could get in a Walmart cab which took you to the Walmart bus line that stopped in front of a….Walmart and the coupons on the bus gave you discounts at the Walmart pharmacy.

America will probably never have a zaibatsu economy, but it might get a few steps closer with Amazon.

Five companies are making shoes in Arkansas. Sam Walton goes to one and says, “I’ll buy and sell more of your shoes than you ever dreamed of and you will still make a ton of money, but you have to lower your prices.” And, years later there’s one shoe company. Competition?

Let's look at this argument from the opposite side. No WalMart to come and offer volume market access. Instead the shoemakers say let's raise prices, and pretty soon the market for shoes is booming and there's 10 companies makings shoes in Arkansas?

I doubt it...

[flintlock]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

Poverty sucks but poverty has also probably been the greatest motivator in human history. Since the sixties, Welfare has gone from a helping hand up to a lifelong way of life. Something is wrong with that. And I dont put all the blame on the poor. Something has changed in the economy but also in our expectations. Compare the average house size today with the 60s. We all take so much for granted now and frankly, a lot of people who think they are poor are really not. They are just relatively poor by the standards of the day. Most would probably not trade their lot for that of a 14th century land owning farmer in England. Funny how we judge ourselves based on how others are doing around us. Despite all our materialism, what people really want is financial stability. In that regard as a nation we are as poor as we have been in some time. That hangs over most of us like a bad dream.

[GRG55]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

Havent they been on the decline? Or are they back? Sometimes I think its a case of "you can fool some of the people some of the time..." A lot of people have realized that there is something called value and it is not always all about price. You could say "even price has its price"! Also when Mexicans flowed back across the border during the recession, so did a lot of Walmart business. Dont know how much that has bounced back.

For me, the crappy shopping experience usually makes Walmart the last place I will shop. I just dont spend enough at any retail shop to justify it. I have no problem with people paying less. I Just realize it aint all a free lunch. We need to quit ignoring the rising number of "working poor" because they are not going to just go away meekly. I certainly dont claim to know the answer. I just point out the problems, I expect you smart guys to come up with the solutions.

The experience of shopping at WalMart is becoming one of their problems. Their much vaunted distribution system doesn't work any more. The local WalMart here almost always has large expanses of bare shelves, and it's not because there is a frenzy to buy and they can't keep stuff on them. Weeks and weeks can go by and they will be out of an item. I avoid the place as much as possible, but it's still the cheapest place to buy lip balm, toothpaste, garbage bags (if they have them in stock) and other consumables, so I grin and bear it a few times a year.

[flintlock]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

Let's look at this argument from the opposite side. No WalMart to come and offer volume market access. Instead the shoemakers say let's raise prices, and pretty soon the market for shoes is booming and there's 10 companies makings shoes in Arkansas?

I doubt it...

So now Arkansas has no shoemakers. You happy?

But lets pretend they wouldn't all move production to china anyway.


shoemakers cant raise prices without increased demand. Who would buy them? Or by forming an illegal cartel. Were shoes that expensive in the 60's? Were People clamoring for cheaper shoes OR was Walton just good at convincing them they needed more shoes? People do buy a lot of crap they dont need at Walmart and other stores. You could make an excellent argument for Walmart if their goods were made here. Too bad they are not. Or if the Chinese bought an equal amount of our goods. They do not. I suppose the poor should be grateful to Walmart or they'd have nothing. But then thats like saying a man dying of thirst should be grateful to find a pool of stagnant, filthy water. It all relative. I dont think walmart should be praised for anything. They aren't in it for the charity. But neither would I want them eliminated. I'd rather see them step up and compete with the like of Amazon than just squeeze their employees and suppliers. They have a web store too. It just sucks by comparison.

[vt]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

DC, I'm well aware of OWS, but they were two years too late on the bailouts. I been complaining about the banksters for 16 years plus.

We had regulations that weren't enforced. The right and left was in bed in the legislative and executive branches with the banksters for decades.

I have a particular disdain for the left because they kill people (see Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler) Oh yeah, Hitler was not a small government democrat. Facism and Communism are basically the same; brutal dictatorships that enslave people.
I have an extensive understanding of political science.

I want smaller, less intrusive government is all phases of my life. I do believe the government has some valuable functions.
I do want people to be protected, the disadvantaged taken care of, and job opportunities for the low and middle class.

The Republican right tries to tell me how I can live socially, and the Democrat left wants to control every economic issue.
A pox on both their houses.

[Woodsman]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

I have a particular disdain for the left because they kill people (see Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler) Oh yeah, Hitler was not a small government democrat. Facism and Communism are basically the same; brutal dictatorships that enslave people.I have an extensive understanding of political science.

Fascism, Communism, Liberalism, Socialism all "basically the same"?

You don't evidence much understanding at all, vt, with statements like that. Lots of ideological rigidity and selective reading, but no, not much understanding. And considering the body count of the 20th Century, you do them no justice by your emotive oversimplifications and knowing conflations. I don't understand the point? What's the motivation? And just when we're starting to agree .

[vt]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

"Facism and Communism" is what I said. I did not say liberalism or socialism! Liberals are not leftists. Please don't put words in my writing; that's a tactic of the left.

"Most scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarianform of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist."

"Facism and Communism are basically the same; brutal dictatorships that enslave people"

BOTH are authoritarian governments. I did not say they are the same economically, merely that they enslave. Plus they do not work.

Neither does socialism:

"Marxist theory holds that the lower-phase of communism, colloquially referred to as SOCIALISM, being the new society established after the overthrow of capitalism, is a transitional stage in human social evolution and will give rise to a fully communist society, in which remuneration and the division of labor are no longer present."

As for killings:

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million." Facists killed too. Both sides are condemned.

Small, democratic governments don't kill people. Small, democratic governments with a rule of law where gun ownership is in the people's hands do not see government killings. Please show me a body count for these type of governments.

Here's the key:

Communists and fascists want total control. Socialism want control of production. Liberals want intrusive regulation and large inefficient governments.

What we need is reasonable regulation, with teeth for wrongdoers.

Free markets, free speech, free (objective &
truthful) press.

Public-private partnerships

Transparency

Social freedoms

The Constitution and amendments

I believe the majority of Americans are moving towards this ideal.

[Woodsman]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

"Facism and Communism" is what I said. I did not say liberalism or socialism!

That's correct and I should be more accurate. Apologies for that. You have in the past, vt, but you're correct here.

Liberals are not leftists. Please don't put words in my writing; that's a tactic of the left.

Come on now. On what planet? Sure it varies over time and geography and there's no Pope of liberalism maintaining ideological discipline (diversity is a liberal virtue), but for some 400 years liberalism has been firmly planted on the center left. In North America, some liberals lean more to the center left orientation (J. William Fulbright as an example) and some to the center right (Scoop Jackson comes to mind). With no Paul Wellstone or Ted Kennedy, there really aren't any meaningful liberals in the Senate now (and the House is a hopeless mess of right wing insanity), so it's hard to point to an example. Of course, that's just how far right this country has moved since the first Nixon administration. I understand the confusion if you attempt to apply the current understanding of the word as it applies to 21st Century US electoral politics, but as heirs to the Enlightenment liberals see all social and political order arising from human interactions, not from divine will or tradition. And that's a leftist POV. Now there's a distinction between classical and modern liberalism, and that's been muddied up by neocon activists for political purposes. Maybe that's the source of the confusion?

Please show me a body count for these type of governments.

Not disputing it. Not claiming any different. I got a copy of "The Great Terror" and "The Black Book of Communism." Bad guys. We're good here.

[LorenS]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

You don't read a lot of literature from the left, do you? I can assure you, using taxpayer money to bail out banks ain't popular over here either. In fact, a few million people mostly on the left sort of made a big loud stink about that at ground zero a couple years ago.

I was fairly sympathetic to the OWS folks at first, however, all they did was raise a stink. They did a horrible job of raising awareness of the true problem (and in my opinion most of them didn't get it anyhow). Eventually it just degenerated into an embarrassment and I was left looking pretty idiotic for even giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

I'm in the "Walmart is an okay place to shop" camp; I"m probably one of the few 5% in my 1% neighborhood in NJ who buys his clothing there. But as you may know, I'm an engineer and you can get away without chasing labels where I work.

Maybe it is a outgrowth of the politics, but I think what is feeding the presence of big box stores getting away with this is they are filling a void where the bar is pretty low. The employees on food stamps is here and is the confluence of the greater skimming of the cream (we're well into the milk at this point) by the FIRE sectors, which in effect have obtained an ability to tax the citizens of the country, destruction of good jobs within our border due to globalization, a general increase in the cost of everything driven by cheap peak oil, and the loss of good ideas that are replaced with bad ideas from the left and right. I'll add, too, as an agnostic, I think that the decrease of communities centered around religous faiths has been a bad trend for this country; I wonder to what degree gov't is growing to fill that void, but doing so in an intrusive manner than ultimately has terrible economic and social cost for everyone.

While I fault a retail organization that can't find a way to increase the wages paid to their employees (COSTCO is a great example of a retail organization that "gets it" and pays better wages), I think people have to realize that working full time is not feasible for many people in the economy. Single parents with kids struggle to work a routine 9 - 5 40-hr week. That they chose to work at all speaks positively to their values and innate work ethic; and that their co-workers wish to help them speaks well of the other Walmart employees. That the senior management at Walmart are not SHAMED into addressing this is a bigger problem.

Somewhere along the way we lost that sense of shame in our country....not sure when but it is a pretty rare feature, at least as presented before us in media.

Was the loss started when Nixon lied and departed from the White House, probably believing all along that he was "right", later going on to write and have published many books, weighing in on international matters? Was it when Rob Lowe and pal filmed an exploit with a young lady, was shunned for a short period of time but now is a beloved actor in Hollywood produced TV/movie features? The list goes on and on, not sure why I picked those two. The former was captured in iconic images, the latter conveniently forgotten. I know on this site we talk of (and I agree) how the American Way includes a culture of "getting a second chance", but along the way, some of those getting the second chance didn't deserve it, but they got it anyway.

We seeing it in spades now with the rather limited prosections of crimes committed on Wall Street. Cause all of that damage to the US Economy, and the future of this country, and WALK? Phooey!

[dcarrigg]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

I believe we're talking past each other again, perhaps due to definitional difficulties, and perhaps due to us holding widely differing beliefs.

Let me clarify: By the left, I was not referring to communism or any such thing. I've told you repeatedly that I neither believe nor espouse any such thing. But like old Joe McCarthy, you just keep throwing it at me, hoping it will stick.

And now, apparently in your mind, I must bear the crooked cross of the Nazi too? It all seems just too much, and Godwin's Law has been fulfilled, so let's back up to basics.

We need common definitions or we cannot communicate effectively.

What I mean by "left" is the common meaning of the term in America. This refers to someone, like me, who supports republicanism, democratic values, and social liberalism.

Now, these are all loaded concepts, so let me do the bare minimum of unpacking them:

1) Republicanism:

In political theory and philosophy, the term ‘republicanism’ is generally used in two different, but closely related, senses. In the first sense, republicanism refers to a loose tradition or family of writers in the history of western political thought, including especially: Machiavelli and his fifteenth-century Italian predecessors; the English republicans Milton, Harrington, Sidney, and others; Montesquieu and Blackstone; the eighteenth-century English commonwealthmen; and many Americans of the founding era such as Jefferson and Madison. The writers in this tradition emphasize many common ideas and concerns, such as the importance of civic virtue and political participation, the dangers of corruption, the benefits of a mixed constitution and the rule of law, etc.; and it is characteristic of their rhetorical style to draw heavily on classical examples—from Cicero and the Latin historians especially—in presenting their arguments. (In light of the last point, this is sometimes referred to as the ‘classical republican’ or ‘neo-roman’ tradition in political thought.)

2) Democracy:

To fix ideas, the term “democracy,” as I will use it in this article, refers very generally to a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making. Four aspects of this definition should be noted. First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which I mean decisions that are made for groups and that are binding on all the members of the group. Second, this definition means to cover a lot of different kinds of groups that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations. Third, the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight to it. It is quite compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not settle any normative questions. Fourth, the equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for representatives to an assembly where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building. “Democracy” may refer to any of these political arrangements. It may involve direct participation of the members of a society in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those members in selecting representatives to make the decisions.

3) Liberalism:

There are two major currents of thought within Liberalism, Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism:

• Classical Liberalism holds that the only real freedom is freedom from coercion, and that state intervention in the economy is a coercive power that restricts the economic freedom of individuals, and so should be avoided as far as possible. It favours laissez-faire economic policy (minimal economic intervention and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security and property rights), and opposes the welfare state (the provision of welfare services by the state, and the assumption by the state of primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens).
• Social Liberalism argues that governments must take an active role in promoting the freedom of citizens, and that real freedom can only exist when citizens are healthy, educated and free from dire poverty. Social Liberals believe that this freedom can be ensured when governments guarantee the right to an education, health care and a living wage, in addition to other responsibilities such as laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, all of which would be supported by a progressive taxation system.

As with many political philosophies, there are several forms and variations of Liberalism, including the following:

• Conservative Liberalism is a variant of Liberalism representing the right-wing of the Liberal movement, and combines liberal values and policies with conservative stances. Unlike Liberal Conservatives, however, who tend to be more committed to authority, tradition and established religion, Conservative Liberals are supporters of the separation betweenchurch and state. It also differs from Libertarianism in that it is far less radical in its economic program, and in its support for an active defense policy and military interventions.
• Economic Liberalism is the theory of economics in Classical Liberalism, developed during the Enlightenment, particularly by Adam Smith, which advocates minimal interference by government in the economy. Libertarianism,Neoliberalism and some schools of Conservatism, particularly Liberal Conservatism are often referred to as Economic Liberalism.
• Neoliberalism refers to a program of reducing trade barriers and internal market restrictions, while using government power to enforce opening of foreign markets. In some ways it is a modern attempt, championed by Conservatives likeRonald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher since the 1970's, to revert to a more pure Classical Liberalism.
• American Liberalism is largely a combination of social liberalism, social progressivism, and mixed economyphilosophy. It is distinguished from Classic Liberalism (see above) and Libertarianism, which also claim freedom as their primary goal, in its insistance upon the inclusion of positive rights (such as education, health care and other services and goods believed to be required for human development and self-actualization) and in a broader definition of equality.
• National Liberalism is a variant of Liberalism commonly found in several European countries in the 19th and 20th Century, which combines nationalism with policies mainly derived from Economic Liberalism (see above).
• Ordoliberalism is a mid-20th Century school of Liberalism, developed mainly in Germany, emphasizing the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential.
• Paleoliberalism is a term that has at least a few distinct, though largely ambigious, meanings, including extremeLiberalism, and very socialist or socially libertarian Liberalism, and opposed to Neoliberalism (see above).
• Cultural Liberalism is a liberal view of society that stresses the freedom of individuals from cultural norms.

The Stanford definition of liberalism was a bit more complex and muddled due to the complications in the simpler version you can see above, but if you want to read it, here it is.

The point here is that none of this implies anything you're on about. There is no communism or socialism or anything else of the sort here. And I implied none of it either.

But, just in case the term socialism is not clear, let me unpack that one to. To be clear, this is expressly what we are NOT talking about right now:

Types of Socialism:

• Democratic Socialism advocates Socialism as an economic principle (the means of production should be in the hands of ordinary working people), and democracy as a governing principle (political power should be in the hands of the people democratically through a co-operative commonwealth or republic). It attempts to bring about Socialism through peaceful democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection, and represents the reformist tradition of Socialism.
  It is similar, but not necessarily identical (although the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably), to Social Democracy. This refers to an ideology that is more centrist and supports a broadly Capitalist system, with some social reforms (such as the welfare state), intended to make it more equitable and humane. Democratic Socialism, by contrast, implies an ideology that is more left-wing and supportive of a fully socialist system, established either by gradually reforming Capitalism from within, or by some form of revolutionary transformation.
• Revolutionary Socialism advocates the need for fundamental social change through revolution or insurrection(rather than gradual refom) as a strategy to achieve a socialist society. The Third International, which was founded following the Russian Revolution of 1917, defined itself in terms of Revolutionary Socialism but also became widely identified with Communism. Trotskyism is the theory of Revolutionary Socialism as advocated by Leon Trotsky (1879 - 1940), declaring the need for an international proletarian revolution (rather than Stalin's "socialism in one country") and unwavering support for a true dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic principles. Luxemburgism is another Revolutionary Socialist tradition, based on the writings of Rosa Luxemburg (1970 - 1919). It is similar to Trotskyism in its opposition to the Totalitarianism of Stalin, while simultaneously avoiding the reformist politics of modern Social Democracy.
• Utopian Socialism is a term used to define the first currents of modern socialist thought in the first quarter of the 19th Century. In general, it was used by later socialist thinkers to describe early socialist, or quasi-socialist, intellectuals who created hypothetical visions of perfect egalitarian and communalist societies without actually concerning themselves with the manner in which these societies could be created or sustained. They rejected all political (and especially all revolutionary) action, and wished to attain their ends by peaceful means and small experiments, which more practical socialists like Karl Marx saw as necessarily doomed to failure. But the early theoretical work of people like Robert Owen (1771-1858), Charles Fourier (1772-1837) and Étienne Cabet (1788–1856) gave much of the impetus to later socialist movements.
• Libertarian Socialism aims to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies, in which every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production. This would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions and private property, so that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole. Most Libertarian Socialists advocate abolishing the state altogether, in much the same way as Utopian Socialists and many varieties of Anarchism (including Social Anarchism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Collectivism and Anarcho-Syndicalism).
• Market Socialism is a term used to define an economic system in which there is a market economy directed and guided by socialist planners, and where prices would be set through trial and error (making adjustments as shortages and surpluses occur) rather than relying on a free price mechanism. By contrast, a Socialist Market Economy, such as that practiced in the People's Republic of China, in one where major industries are owned by state entities, but compete with each other within a pricing system set by the market and the state does not routinely intervene in the setting of prices.
• Eco-Socialism (or Green Socialism or Socialist Ecology) is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, Socialism,Green politics, ecology and the anti-globalization movement. They advocate the non-violent dismantling ofCapitalism and the State, focusing on collective ownership of the means of production, in order to mitigate the social exclusion, poverty and environmental degradation brought about (as they see it) by the capitalist system, globalizationand imperialism.
• Christian Socialism generally refers to those on the Christian left whose politics are both Christian and socialist, and who see these two things as being interconnected. Christian socialists draw parallels between what some have characterized as the egalitarian and anti-establishment message of Jesus, and the messages of modern Socialism.

As Sartori said, we are prisoners of the words we pick, we had better pick them well.

And I think we're on much better ground trying to begin from a basis in old philosophy rather than trying to begin by defining things the way the think-tank propaganda machines do.

Otherwise, we cannot even have a meaningful conversation.

[Woodsman]

Re: Walmart holds Food Drive for its Own Employees

I believe we're talking past each other again, perhaps due to definitional difficulties, and perhaps due to us holding widely differing beliefs.

Let me clarify: By the left, I was not referring to communism or any such thing. I've told you repeatedly that I neither believe nor espouse any such thing. But like old Joe McCarthy, you just keep throwing it at me, hoping it will stick.

And now, apparently in your mind, I must bear the crooked cross of the Nazi too? It all seems just too much, and Godwin's Law has been fulfilled, so let's back up to basics.

We need common definitions or we cannot communicate effectively.

What I mean by "left" is the common meaning of the term in America. This refers to someone, like me, who supports republicanism, democratic values, and social liberalism.

Now, these are all loaded concepts, so let me do the bare minimum of unpacking them:

1) Republicanism:


2) Democracy:


3) Liberalism:


The Stanford definition of liberalism was a bit more complex and muddled due to the complications in the simpler version you can see above, but if you want to read it, here it is.

The point here is that none of this implies anything you're on about. There is no communism or socialism or anything else of the sort here. And I implied none of it either.

But, just in case the term socialism is not clear, let me unpack that one to. To be clear, this is expressly what we are NOT talking about right now:



As Sartori said, we are prisoners of the words we pick, we had better pick them well.

And I think we're on much better ground trying to begin from a basis in old philosophy rather than trying to begin by defining things the way the think-tank propaganda machines do.

Otherwise, we cannot even have a meaningful conversation.

Great stuff, DC. Wish we could make it a "sticky" post.

[aaron]

Walmart Broke Labor Law And Retaliated Against Workers, NLRB Charges

Walmart Broke Labor Law And Retaliated Against Workers, NLRB Charges

WASHINGTON -- The federal agency that enforces labor law said Monday it has decided to pursue charges against Walmart for threatening and punishing workers who planned to go on strike last year.

According to officials at the National Labor Relations Board, the agency's general counsel investigated and "found merit" in workers' claims that Walmart "unlawfully threatened" employees for taking part in walkouts surrounding last year's Black Friday shopping season. The agency said that Walmart intimidated, surveilled or punished workers in 14 different states, violating U.S. labor law.

The agency also said that Walmart illegally threatened workers in statements made in two news broadcasts. That charge appears to refer in part to an interview that Walmart spokesperson David Tovar gave to CBS Evening News last year, saying "there could be consequences" for workers who are expected to show up for work and don't.

Brooke Buchanan, a Walmart spokeswoman, said the company disagreed with the general counsel's position.

"This is just a procedural step and we will pursue our options to defend the company because we believe our actions were legal and justified," she said. “The fact is, we provide good jobs and unparalleled opportunities for our associates. This is our busiest time of the year and we're focused on serving our customers and helping them have a great holiday season."

The labor board said it found no merit in some of the other charges that workers filed, with the backing of the United Food and Commercial Workers, a longtime Walmart foe. The NLRB dismissed one claim that Walmart violated employees' rights by pushing protesters off of store property, and another that Walmart illegally changed employees' work schedules in retaliation for striking.

The general counsel's charge amounts to an allegation by a prosecutor -- not a ruling by the board. Such cases are often resolved before the board actually moves to prosecute a company, usually through a settlement to which the parties agree. If Walmart and the workers' representatives can't come to terms, then the labor board will file its complaints.

In a call with reporters before the NLRB's announcement Monday, Joseph Hansen, president of UFCW, said the charges were evidence that "workers who've joined together to improve conditions have been targeted."

"Walmart is on their heels," Hansen said. "Does Walmart treat its workers fairly? It is a debate that we welcome, and one that we plan on winning."

An estimated 400 Walmart workers took part in Black Friday strikes last year, arguing that the company provides unlivable wages, scant benefits and erratic scheduling. The UFCW and its non-union Walmart affiliate, OUR Walmart, say they're planning more strikes this holiday shopping season, although they wouldn't estimate on Monday how many workers might take part.

This wouldn't be the first time that the NLRB pursued charges against a company for statements it made in the media. In one highly politicized charge made in 2011, the board's general counsel accused Boeing executives of illegally threatening workers in the press for having gone on strike in the past. That case was eventually settled.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4298387.html