This is the second entry in a series of posts looking at China as it relates to Wal-Mart in the aftermath of the Olympic games.

Today, we'll take a look at product safety.

Wal-Mart's business model is based on low prices. That means both how much they pay for a product, and how much they sell a product for. In the first post in this series, we looked at how this frenzied urge to reduce labor costs drove manufacturing to China. Today, we look at how Wal-Mart, based on the same desire for cheap goods, is responsible for a myriad of dangerous products.

When Wal-Mart goes looking for the cheapest products, or forces their vendors to do so, they don't consider things like safety, treatment of workers, or labor violations. They are looking for the lowest price, period. And as they pit factories against other factories to get the cheapest price, factories start to cut corners in order to keep their prices down and make an acceptable profit.

This has resulted in an astounding list of unsafe products reaching consumers, often with terrible consequence. Pet food sold at Wal-Mart, for instance, sickened or killed what could be thousands of pets. Wal-Mart had Aqua Dots on their top toys for Christmas list, but it turns out that when kids ate the little plastic pieces they went into a coma. Wal-Mart sold lead laced Christmas lights and Christmas trees and Key Chains. Wal-Mart was also selling salmonella tainted snack food that was made in China. This is just a small sample of the dangerous products sold at Wal-Mart. You can see a full list of recalled products here.

The problem got so bad that it was announced just a few days ago that the United States would be posting product safety inspectors in three Chinese cities.

This is great news in terms of products coming from China. In the future, products coming from that country will likely be less dangerous. Unfortunately, as mentioned in the last post of this series, China is swiftly becoming a more expensive option for manufacturing, and this will only serve to make it more expensive. That means major companies like Wal-Mart will simply move to other countries with lax guidelines and cheap labor. It means Wal-Mart will continue to put its consumers at risk by manufacturing and selling dangerous goods.

Wal-Mart has long been plagued with recalls of dangerous products, and it has often been implicated in taking too little action about such products. Now it seems Wal-Mart is still selling a dangerous crib that is responsible for two deaths.

Consumer Affairs has the story, here are a few excerpts:

Simplicity bassinets that are still being sold at Wal-Mart and on Wal-Mart's Web site have been blamed for killing two babies...

...The product appears to be sold exclusively at Wal-Mart and on Wal-Mart's Web site. As of yesterday, ConsumerAffairs.com found the product at two Washington, D.C.-area Wal-Marts we visited. The bassinet comes in two different Winnie the Pooh fabrics with the product identifications 3123DOH8 and 3112DOH7 and sells for between $100 and $110.

It seems that not only is Wal-Mart set to run ads during the conventions to try and capitalize on undecided voters, but they are also pulling out an old line they've been trying to push, that of "Wal-Mart as government". Of course their ads come right after they were caught trying to intimidate their employees into voting against Democrats.

The new ads will apparently be in a campaign style and focus on Wal-Mart's ability to save consumers money and gas, and cast themselves as a champion for its consumers. In other words, Wal-Mart is playing at government once again, this time with their very own campaign ad.

Check out the article from The Morning News:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Friday it is launching a series of economy-focused TV ads during the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

The 15-second ads highlight some of the company's top initiatives, including its $4 prescription drug program, and communicate how supercenter shopping saves on gas.

The ads will run on cable news networks including CNN, MSNBC and Fox News during the Democratic convention in Denver and the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn.

The campaign is part of a larger effort by Wal-Mart to communicate price savings, the company said.

The ads, stylized like campaign ads, cast Wal-Mart as a consumer advocate in a challenging economy.

Wal-Mart declined to say how much the company is spending on the ad campaign, but reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it spent $540 million in advertising last year. Wal-Mart is the fifth largest spender on retail advertising behind Macy's, Nextag.com, Target and Sears, Roebuck and Co., which owns Kmart.

Data collected by The Nielsen Co. shows the retailer last year spent 25 percent of its advertising budget on network TV, 20 percent on cable TV and another 18 percent on other TV broadcasts, including Spanish-language channels.

Wal-Mart U.S. Chief Executive Eduardo Castro-Wright said in a release that the new ad campaign reinforces for its customers that the company is "there for them" through economic hardship.

Analysts had months ago predicted that Wal-Mart would fare well as consumers became increasingly strained by inflation, as well as housing and credit woes. Many continue to be encouraged by its strong quarterly sales compared to the retail industry overall.

"While we still think it is too soon to say that Wal-Mart is back on top of its game, the company is posting its strongest sales numbers in recent memory despite, or potentially because of, the weakening economy," Joseph Beaulieu, analyst with Chicago-based Morningstar, said in an Aug. 7 note.

For the last few weeks, all eyes have been on China. They hosted a stunning Olympic games and won tons of gold medals to boot. It is understandable, then, that there would be a renewed focus on China in the media and in the minds of the American people. We thought we'd take a look at China too. Over the next few days, we'll look at China as it relates to Wal-Mart.

Today, we'll look at the role of China in manufacturing.

If you've followed our campaign you undoubtedly know that more than 70% of the goods Wal-Mart sells come from China. If Wal-Mart were a country, it would be China's 8th largest trading partner ahead of Canada, Russia and Australia. They are responsible for roughly a tenth of the US imports from China, and import almost twice as many products from China as any other company.

Wal-Mart has a long history of forcing it's suppliers to accept low prices for its goods. Suppliers typically accept these prices because of the number of products Wal-Mart can sell. But when they aren't making quite as much as they should be, they have to make up the difference somehow, and that means looking for cheap labor. Wal-Mart pits its vendors against one another to look for the cheapest labor, creating a race to the bottom. Recently, looking for cheap labor means going to China, and that is just what many Wal-Mart vendors have done.

But with China's rapidly modernizing economy, there has been quite a bit of speculation recently that China will no longer be the cheapest source of labor anymore. Today's Kansas City Star had an article about manufacturers looking elsewhere for cheap labor and speculating that Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and others were set to become major centers of manufacturing in the future.

As manufacturing shifts from China to other countries, Wal-Mart and its vendors are sure to follow. It is important to remember that it is not China that is the problem. Rather the problem stems from a system that takes advantage of workers to benefit large corporations like Wal-Mart. The labor in these countries is cheap because factories cut corners on safety, and are not regulated and can demand long hours of workers and pay them little.

A recent Reuters article starts with this paragraph:

TV viewers may be undecided about how they will vote in the upcoming presidential election, but if Wal-Mart has its way, they should not be undecided about where to shop.

If Wal-Mart has its way, you'll also vote against Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

While the article goes on to mention the FEC complaint we filed, it seems to miss the massive amount of irony involved, so we'll point it out.

Wal-Mart has been intimidating their employees into voting a certain way, and now they're trying to capitalize on the party's conventions, and in particular undecided voters.

We'll keep an eye out for these ads and let you know just how hypocritical Wal-Mart is being.

Here's the article from Reuters:

TV viewers may be undecided about how they will vote in the upcoming presidential election, but if Wal-Mart has its way, they should not be undecided about where to shop.

As the Democratic and Republican National Conventions get underway, Wal-Mart is preparing to launch a series of TV ads that will highlight how consumers, worried about the economic climate, can save money by shopping at the discount retailer.

The ads will run on cable news networks like CNN and MSNBC during the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, and the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. The ads will start on Aug. 25 and run through Sept. 7.

In rolling out the ads, Wal-Mart cited a survey by Voter/Consumer Research of Washington, DC according to which more than half of all Americans surveyed – including three quarters of African-Americans and about two thirds of Hispanics — said they are more likely to shop at Walmart discount stores now compared with six months ago. It also said that nearly half of registered voters who are currently undecided between presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain say they are more likely to shop at Walmart today than they were six months ago.

“Americans are facing unprecedented financial challenges and we see them in our stores every day — working men and women living paycheck to paycheck and faced with difficult decisions,” said Walmart U.S. CEO Eduardo Castro-Wright in a statement. “… This new advertising campaign reinforces that we will continue to be there for them.”

The ads will highlight Wal-Mart’s $4 generic prescription drug program, which it says has saved Americans an estimated $1 billion. It will also tout how consumers can save money and gas by taking a one-stop shopping trip to its stores.

It is an interesting time for Wal-Mart to link itself with the presidential election.

Labor groups have asked federal regulators to look into whether Wal-Mart broke the law during company meetings with store managers where it warned about the consequences of a proposed labor law backed by Democrats. At issue is whether Wal-Mart’s discussion of the law, which would make it easier for workers to unionize, amounted to an effort to dissuade employees from voting for Obama.

Wal-Mart denies that it tried to influence voting.

The battle between Wal-Mart and Coughlin has finally ended.

You may recall that Coughlin embezeled from the company, was fired, and convicted of stealing from Wal-Mart. And after all that, he pushed to keep his retirement package of more than $17 million. Now you may be thinking "wow, this guy stole from the company AND he wants millions in retirement benefits, what gall!" You'd be right, but Wal-Mart just settled with Coughlin and will cough up $6.7 million.

I guess Wal-Mart can afford millions for a former executive who stole from them, but paying their hard working hourly associates a little more? Or providing affordable health care for them? That is simply out of the question.

Here's the article from The Morning News:

BENTONVILLE - Tom Coughlin settled with Wal-Mart for $6.75 million Thursday, minutes before jury selection was to begin in a lawsuit the retailer filed to void a 2005 retirement agreement worth more than $17 million to the former executive.

Terms of the settlement won't be released for 20 days, by court order, but the retailer filed a report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday afternoon disclosing the payout amount.

"Mr. Coughlin will forego all outstanding rights and claims under the Retirement Agreement, as well as any additional unpaid or withheld benefits ... estimated at a value of approximately $17 million, not including health benefits," the filing stated.

Coughlin is satisfied with the outcome, although he was looking forward to his day in court, attorney Tim Brooks said shortly after the mid-day settlement announcement.

Wal-Mart attorneys wouldn't speak to reporters, but a spokeswoman issued a brief comment Thursday afternoon. "We are satisfied the settlement is fair to both parties and we are ready to put this one behind us," said Daphne Moore.

Carl Tobias, a civil litigation specialist at the Richmond School of Law, said Thursday he wasn't surprised the case settled, as neither side would gain from trial publicity. He called the payout amount reasonable.

"When you go to trial, it's always risky. I'm sure the Wal-Mart lawyers would have been good, and aggressive, and may have new information," Tobias said. "That sounds like a lot of money in the abstract but, if I were he, I'd feel pretty fortunate - given that he pled to the criminal charges."

Questions that remain include whether Coughlin will receive health benefits, and who will pay two years' worth of attorney fees. Coughlin's reported poor health led a federal judge to sentence him to home confinement, rather than prison.

Wal-Mart filed the fraud, misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit in 2005 in Benton County Circuit Court, attempting to void the retirement agreement made with Coughlin, now 59, when he ended his 28-year employment in January 2005.

An internal investigation uncovered years of fake invoices and expense accounts for items ranging from all-terrain vehicles and hunting club memberships to a taxidermy bill for stuffing a wild boar for Coughlin.

Results of that internal investigation were forwarded to federal authorities and led to a criminal conviction in U.S. District Court.

Coughlin is serving a 27-month sentence of home confinement and was ordered to pay $411,218 in restitution to the company and a $50,000 fine.

As executive vice president, Coughlin was earning more than $4 million annually in salary and bonuses. He was vice chairman of the board of directors and reported to Lee Scott, president and chief executive officer.

The retirement deal promised medical care until age 65, millions of dollars in transition payments, and 186,407 shares of restricted stock Coughlin otherwise would have forfeited, according to the suit.

Coughlin maintained rights to the retirement deal, which was drafted by Wal-Mart attorneys and released both parties from liability for claims related to Coughlin's employment, "whether known or unknown."

Jury selection in the civil trial was to begin at 1 p.m. Thursday. The settlement was announced minutes before, and prospective jurors were turned away from the courthouse steps.

For three hours Thursday morning, Coughlin sat at a courtroom conference table with attorneys Steve Vowell and Tim Brooks. Coughlin's wife, Cynthia, and daughter were also in the courtroom, which was otherwise empty. His other two attorneys, Bill Putman and W.H. Taylor, went in and out of the courtroom throughout the morning.

Coughlin and his family left the courthouse about 12:30 p.m. He moved slowly, which Taylor attributed to recent surgery to have both knees replaced.

So apparently Wal-Mart has been forging back to school shopping lists complete with details making it look like an official school list. One imagines that this was an attempt to get parents to buy a few extra supplies, but why in the world did they think they could get away with this? Perhaps the best detail of this story is that the fake list included items banned from schools.

The full story is posted below from Kelby Carr. Enjoy!

My daughter is about to start kindergarten, so naturally we did some back to school shopping. Our state sales tax break weekend happened recently. When we noticed the local Wal-Mart had shopping lists not only specific to school and grade level, but to teacher, we were thrilled. We started tossing items in the cart to spend, spend, spend.

Weren’t we a little surprised to learn afterwards that Wal-Mart invented those lists. Not only were we a bit surprised to learn they did not, in fact, base the lists on anything remotely suggested by the school. Wal-Mart, in fact, put items on the list that are BANNED from being brought to school.

Our daughter’s school said Wal-Mart makes up those lists on their own, and a number of items (such as crayons) are on a list from the school. A list of items parents are specifically told not to have their child bring to school. Seriously?

The real back to school list also featured several items that are not on Wal-Mart’s list.

So these lists are, in essence, a trick to get parents (and I can only assume, being that it’s a discount store like Wal-Mart, a great many parents who are on a tight budget) to drop cash on unnecessary purchases. That really aggravates me. It isn’t a big deal if I buy a few extra supplies. I can afford it, and I am sure we will use these items elsewhere. I wouldn’t have bought them otherwise, but it isn’t the end of the world.

But what if I was broke? Or a single mom living on a low income? Or both? I truck over to Wal-Mart thinking I will stretch my precious dollars, only to drop cash on crap I don’t need just because I am trying hard to be sure my poor child isn’t embarrassed by missing needed supplies. That part of it sickens me.

I can imagine they would say that they are making these lists as suggestions to assist shopping parents. (In fact, Wal-Mart officials can feel free to comment and explain the rationale here. I will definitely approve your comments, and would frankly love to hear your explanation).

Here is the problem with that, however. I have done things like create registries and so forth. Often there is a suggested list of items to get or add to the list. Always, it is clear to me these items are not necessary. So, for example, Wal-Mart could make a list that is titled something like, “Suggested Back to School Items for Kindergartners.” Shoot, even then I would make the top of the page have a statement along the lines that these are suggestions and are not an official list from the school.

Instead, there is no way to describe these lists except as ones that are trying very hard to look official. They have a fax send line at the top of the page (who on earth faxed these, if not the schools?). They not only state the school, but also the grade level and they have various lists based on teacher. Each teacher has slightly different supplies required. If that doesn’t look like something official from the school, I’m not sure what would. Perhaps adding a medieval wax seal to each list?

I also presume other retail stores are doing the same thing, but I honestly haven’t checked.

Either way, be sure you get your back to school shopping list from the school itself. And let me know what’s on it. Because right now I have a shopping bag packed with crap I don’t need. Classy.

In Sunday's New York Times editorial section, the paper called on the FEC to investigate Wal-Mart's voter intimidation and union busting meetings. We're glad the Times is with us. As you'll recall, last week we filed an official complaint with the FEC. If you haven't already, go sign our petition. Over 60,000 concerned citizens have already signed, add your voice!

Here's the Time's editorial:

Mixing Politics and Wal-Mart

It is hardly news that Wal-Mart will do whatever it takes to keep unions out of its stores, from closing down a unionized outlet to firing pro-union workers. The National Labor Relations Board has already ruled several times that Wal-Mart has violated the law by retaliating against workers for supporting a union.

Facing the prospect that union-friendly Democrats could win both the White House and Congress, the retail giant is now turning its attention to this year’s election.

Last week, several labor groups filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, accusing Wal-Mart of violating election rules. They acted after The Wall Street Journal reported that thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads had been called to mandatory meetings and told that if Democrats won in November they would likely pass a law to make it easier to unionize companies. According to The Journal, Wal-Mart executives warned that could force the company to cut jobs, while workers would be forced to pay union dues and might have to go on strike.

Telling workers who are paid by the hour — Wal-Mart department supervisors are hourly workers — how to vote is prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Wal-Mart acknowledges that it summoned employees around the country to warn them about the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow unions to organize companies if more than half the workers signed cards agreeing to join, dispensing with the need for a secret ballot. But in a memo to managers, Bill Simon, the chief operating officer, said that any executive who might have appeared to be suggesting how to vote was “acting without approval.” Employees, a spokesman said, were merely told which members of Congress supported the legislation.

The vast majority on that list are Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who co-sponsored the bill.

The Federal Election Commission should investigate the allegations swiftly and aggressively. The “rogue executive” defense is a well-trodden excuse that should fool no one. Providing workers with a list of members of Congress who, in Wal-Mart’s view, support bad legislation that would worsen workers lives seems indistinguishable from telling them who to vote against.

Even if the F.E.C. eventually rules against Wal-Mart, the case underscores what a paltry deterrent election law provides. According to legal experts, the rules call for fines of only a few thousand dollars per violation. Even if thousands of violations were committed, the fine would amount to pocket change for Wal-Mart.

The F.E.C. needs to tighten its rules. Companies like Wal-Mart need to respect those rules and their workers.

Darrin Bell, creator of Candorville daily comics, a nationally syndicated comic strip, has just released a truly hilarious series titled "Gall-Mart". The series pokes fun at a massive corporation named "Gall-Mart," which busts unions, tells its workers how to vote, and is just plain mean. We suspect that, just maybe, Candorville is making fun of Wal-Mart, given the similarity between the names and business practices of the fictitious Gall-Mart and the real life Wal-Mart. But don't believe me, check out the comics below and decide for yourself!

From Monday

From Tuesday

From Wednesday

From Thursday

And last but not least, Friday!

The news that Wake Up Wal-Mart and other worker friendly groups filed a complaint with the FEC is making quite a splash. Check out all the articles about the complaint so far:

WakeUpWalMart.com asks FEC to investigate Wal-Mart [Reuters] This piece was also picked up by Forbes

Labor Groups File Complaint Against Wal-Mart [Washington Post's The Trail Blog]

Unions Seek Probe of Wal-Mart Over Election Law [Wall Street Journal]

Groups to File Complaint Against Wal-Mart [New York Times Politics Blog]

Unions seek Wal-Mart probe over election law: report [Washington Post]

Did Wal-Mart Violate Federal Election Laws? Labor Groups Want to Know [Wall Street Journal Law Blog]

AFL-CIO files complaint against Wal-Mart [The Hill]

Groups file elections complaint against Wal-Mart [Associated Press]

Wal-Mart busted on video for lying to employees about their rights [The G-Spot Blog]

Unions Demand Investigation Of Wal-Mart “Info” Campaign [Donklephant Blog]

Groups file election complaint against Wal-Mart [USA Today]

Unions file complaint against Wal-Mart in labour law dispute

Also, our official statement is up on Digg, can you digg it and help get the word out?

Today Wal-Mart posted their 2nd quarter sales figures and it seems they are doing quite well. They've posted a 17% rise in net income over last year. What is the explanation for this? Well, according to Tom Schoewe, Wal-Mart's Chief Financial Officer it is because "tough times are actually a good time for Wal-Mart" (AP 10/24/07). Yes, Wal-Mart does well when American citizens are struggling.

Here's the article from Dow Jones Newswire via CNNMoney:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) posted a 17% rise in fiscal second-quarter net income, topping raised expectations and prompting the company to boost its fiscal-year target.

But the company gave cautious initial guidance for the current quarter, largely falling below analysts' estimates, as the world's largest retailer expressed some caution about how U.S. shoppers will fare in coming months now that a boost from federal stimulus checks is running its course.

Nonetheless, Chief Executive Lee Scott said, "While inflation and higher fuel costs are pressuring suppliers, retailers and customers worldwide, we're confident that Wal-Mart is well positioned for this economy."

For the quarter ended July 31, Wal-Mart reported net income of $3.45 billion, or 87 cents a share, up from $2.95 billion, or 72 cents a share, a year earlier.

Earnings from continuing operations, excluding gains last year, rose to 86 cents a share from 73 cents a share. In July, Wal-Mart boosted its earnings outlook to a range of 82 cents to 84 cents a share.

Net sales climbed 10% to $101.6 billion.

Gross margin edged up to 23.6% from 23.3%.

Excluding fuel sales, U.S. same-store sales increased 4.5%, better than the company's May estimate for flat to up 2%. The increase was 4.6% at namesake stores and 3.7% at the Sam's Club warehouse chain.

International sales and profits both jumped 17%. Meanwhile, earnings at Wal- Mart U.S. stores grew 11%, but Sam's Club's profits fell 2.9%.

Looking forward, Wal-Mart expects fiscal third-quarter earnings of 73 cents to 76 cents a share; analysts, on average, were expecting 76 cents a share. Wal- Mart also projected U.S. same-store growth will be 1% to 2%. Chief Financial Officer Tom Schoewe said same-store sales will reflect "some sales volatility from week to week."

For the fiscal year, the company boosted its earnings guidance to a range of $ 3.43 to $3.50 a share, up from February's forecast of $3.30 to $3.43 a share. Analysts' latest estimate was $3.49 a share.

Wal-Mart, which is often viewed as a barometer for the retail industry, has been faring better than most non-discount retailers as economy-battered consumers trade down and seek bargains. The big-box chain has benefited from its strategy of focusing on low prices, using the tagline "Save Money. Live Better." to lure budget-conscious shoppers grappling with rises in food costs and gasoline prices. Federal rebate checks, as well as store-layout improvements and recent product launches, have been cited for helping boost Wal-Mart's performance.

In contrast, sales at department stores and specialty retailers have been lagging, in part because of their bigger exposure to discretionary merchandise. But after Wal-Mart issued a cautious outlook last week for its August same-store sales, shareholders have begun worrying the big-box chain may stop standing out so far from the pack as the effects of the stimulus checks wane and as commodity costs continue to rise.

That presents Wal-Mart - which has pegged much of its success to its low-price advantage - with a common retailer dilemma: whether to raise prices at the risk of losing shoppers or to hold price increases in check at the cost of profit margins.

But Eduardo Castro-Wright, chief executive of Wal-Mart's U.S. division, has maintained that Wal-Mart "will do whatever it takes to retain price leadership." Instead of announcing any price increases to cope with the tough economy, the company has slashed its expansion plans. In June, Wal-Mart cut its forecast for capital outlays this year, as it continues to put the brakes on its once- breakneck growth in building stores.

Shares of Wal-Mart closed Wednesday at $57.88, and there was no premarket activity.

Check out this piece about Wal-Mart's illegal political meetings from the American News Project. In particular take note of the comments they got from folks they talked to outside of Wal-Mart. The consensus from regular people is "Wal-Mart should stay out of politics." We agree, and we also think they should stop union bashing and they should treat their workers better...much much better.

The news that Wake Up Wal-Mart and other worker friendly groups filed a complaint with the FEC is making quite a splash. Check out all the articles about the complaint so far:

WakeUpWalMart.com asks FEC to investigate Wal-Mart [Reuters]

Labor Groups File Complaint Against Wal-Mart [Washington Post's The Trail Blog]

Unions Seek Probe of Wal-Mart Over Election Law [Wall Street Journal]

Groups to File Complaint Against Wal-Mart [New York Times Politics Blog]

Unions seek Wal-Mart probe over election law: report [Washington Post]

Did Wal-Mart Violate Federal Election Laws? Labor Groups Want to Know [Wall Street Journal Law Blog]

Also, our official statement is up on Digg, can you digg it and help get the word out?

AFL-CIO files complaint against Wal-Mart [The Hill]

This morning Wake Up Wal-Mart, along with several other groups, hand delivered an official complaint against Wal-Mart to the FEC. Along with the complaint were 60,000 signatures from our members and concerned citizens demanding that the FEC investigate Wal-Mat's illegal meetings where they intimidated workers and attempted to scare them into voting against Democrats.

Following is our statement:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 14, 2008

WAKEUPWALMART.COM FILES OFFICIAL COMPLAINT AGAINST WAL-MART WITH THE FEC AND CALLS FOR AN INVESTIGATION

WakeUpWalMart.com today, along with American Rights at Work, Change to Win, and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, jointly filed an official complaint with the Federal Election Commission. The groups filed the complaint of unlawful federal election activity against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. after a recent Wall Street Journal article reported that the company had been using mandatory meetings to discuss political issues and candidates.

In the official complaint, WakeUpWalMart.com, and its 430,000 members nationally, call on the Federal Election Commission to “immediately open an investigation to determine whether a violation occurred and, if so, to take all appropriate steps to remedy that violation of federal election law.”

Along with the complaint, the groups delivered more than 60,000 petitions signed by citizens who want the FEC to investigate Wal-Mart’s illicit behavior.

The following statement can be attributed to Meghan Scott, spokesperson for WakeUpWalMart.com.

“Wal-Mart may be the world’s largest retailer, and America’s number one private employer, but it is not above the law. Wal-Mart has intimidated its workers and attempted to scare them into voting against a particular party and candidate, and from what workers tell us, these meetings haven’t stopped. This behavior proves that Wal-Mart is willing to go to any lengths to put profits ahead of its workers. These meetings, which left many Wal-Mart workers feeling bullied and intimidated, are not just inappropriate, they are likely in violation of federal election law and the world’s largest retailer must be held accountable.

“We hope the FEC will act upon our complaint and open an investigation into Wal-Mart’s activities as soon as possible.”

###

Thanks for all you do, and if you haven't already signed the petition, check out our action page for the FEC petition.

Ridiculopathy.com's feature story right now is a satirical look at Wal-Mart and the Olympic games. In the "story" they suggest that the IOC votes to give Wal-Mart country credentials to compete in the Olympics and that the "world's only publicly traded nation" is doing incredibly well in the medal count. The article suggests that Wal-Mart's winning streak is due to the team's ability to recruit a huge worldwide team by "luring athletes away from their home countries with false promises of overtime pay and limited healthcare coverage" and "the fact that they can procure as many medals as they want from cut-rate manufacturers just a few miles outside of the Olympic Village."

Like all good humor, this article is hilarious because it is rooted in truth. Whether it is the fact that Wal-Mart is large enough to be a country (over 2 million employees at their stores not to mention the workers who manufacture the goods sold), the fact that 70% of Wal-Mart's goods are made in China, or the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't offer overtime pay or affordable healthcare.

But like all good Satire, in addition to making you laugh, this piece should make you think. The truth behind the joke that Wal-Mart's Olympic athletes compete "as a display of Wal-Mart pride- and to keep their hours from being cut," is disturbing.

Enjoy the article, posted in full below:

Obligatory Olympics Report: Wal-Mart Now Leads Medal Standings

BEIJING, CHINA- In its very first Olympics since receiving official IOC permission to compete as a sovereign nation, Wal-Mart is cleaning up in the Medal standings at the 2008 Summer Games. Much to the surprise of traditional powerhouses such as the U.S. and China, blue-smocked associates are tearing their way through one event after anther, earning piles of bronze, silver, and gold medals. This remarkable success is partly due to Wal-Mart's ability to pull talent from the four corners of the globe, not to mention the fact that they can procure as many medals as they want from cut-rate manufacturers just a few miles outside of the Olympic Village.

For even the most jaded among us, it is difficult not to get excited about the Olympics. It's a time when, if only for one brief and glorious moment, the world stands united- a global village with a giant super-store on the outskirts of town homogenizing culture and artificially depressing wages.

"Olympics and genocides are pretty much the only times Americans pretend to care about other countries," said President Bush. "So, it's nice to all the people marching around in their funny colorful hats. It's just like I imagined Epcot would be."

Wal-Mart's surprisingly strong showing has become one of the top stories fueling the drama and spectacle of this year's Games. On Monday, for example, a 24-year-old stock clerk from store #1427 ran the 100 meter hurdles in an impressive 12.9 seconds and then sold 150 vinyl shower curtains to people in the nearby grandstands. In many ways, performances like these harken back to the original Olympiad in ancient Greece. Unlike other athletes who compete for love of country or the lure of lucrative endorsement deals, the men and women who represent the world's only publicly traded nation go out there and give it their all as a display of Wal-Mart pride- and to keep their hours from being cut.

If the giant retail chain can keep up this pace, they stand a good chance of coming out on top- as long as they can find a way to halt the advance of the legendary U.S. swim team.

"Now I finally have something in common with mark spitz," said Wal-Mart President H. Lee Scott. "We're both rooting against Michael Phelps."

Like most quadrennial global sporting events, there is an element of controversy to all of this, especially the setting. Many of the American and European attendees of this year's Olympic Games have openly grumbled about China's smog-choked skies and poor human rights record, but Wal-Mart's athletes don't seem bothered by it at all.

"I don't think anyone would dispute that China is a terrible bully that throws its weight around to further its own aims and distract the public from the terrible way in which it treats its own people," said champion shot-putter and Wal-Mart greeter Wayne G. Slaive. "In other words, we're right at home here."

Several countries have filed a protest with the IOC over Wal-Mart's presence at the Games, particularly their recruiting practice of luring athletes away from their home countries with false promises of overtime pay and limited healthcare coverage. For Wal-Mart's top brass, however, the decision to participate in the Games has nothing to do with medals or records but rather the company's sincere desire to celebrate the ideals for which the modern Olympics stand: ruthless competitive practices and the slow erosion of the human spirit.

As you all probably know, Wal-Mart is in the midst of a massive PR campaign to convince consumers that they are green. They've put out a whole set of green ads, done "green audits" on state capitals, and produced a sustainability report (showing that it's carbon emissions actually increased globally, oops).

When the Federal Trade Commission decided they wanted to update the guidelines for using green marketing terms, however, Wal-Mart showed that they don't really care about the environment unless it makes them money. The FTC wants, in their updated Green Guide, to define how marketers can use the phrases "carbon offsets" (paying for actions that will remove carbon from the atmosphere, like planting trees, to offset the amount a product or company has made), and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)(a tradeable certificate proving a company generated electricity using renewable energy). Defining these terms would throw a wrench in Wal-Mart's green washing, however, and so they are lobbying to keep such phrases vague.

Following is an excerpt from the comments Wal-Mart submitted to the FTC. When reading, notice the circular logic that Wal-Mart uses, essentially saying "you want to define these terms because they're vague, but you can't define them because they're vague".

There are currently four proposed U. S. regional greenhouse gas cap-and-trade programs, approximately thirty mandatory U.S. State renewable portfolio standards, and voluntary REC and carbon offset markets, all with varying, and sometimes conflicting, requirements. As a result, standards for what constitutes an offset or a REC are not necessarily consistent from one provider to another. In addition, these current programs could all change or be eliminated with the enactment of federal legislation, or they could continue in forms that supplement any forthcoming federal programs. Although some may urge otherwise, the Commission should resist the temptation to define what constitutes an eligible offset or REC. Doing so would require the Commission to resolve highly technical environmental debates that are beyond its expertise.

Rather than attempting to define offsets or RECs, the Commission should rely on the flexibility inherent in the "reasonable basis doctrine." The fact that standards may differ from one seller to another simply reflects the fact that there is no consensus about what does, or should, constitute a carbon offset. Different authoritative and expert institutions have adopted different, but reasonable, approaches. Although the Commission should insist that all carbon offset claims are supported by a reasonable basis, FTC precedent provides no reason to choose one reasonable approach over another.

In 2004, Wal-Mart employees in Jonquière, a city in the Canadian province of Quebec, made history when they became the first workers to successfully unionize an entire Wal-Mart store in North America. Rather than bargain with their workers in good faith, in 2005 Wal-Mart decided to close the store instead, just as contract negotiations were entering a period of binding arbitration.

Three years later, The Gazette reports that the Wal-Mart workers who lost their jobs when the company closed its 190-employee Jonquière store have taken their case all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court. They contend that, in closing the store, Wal-Mart violated their right to freedom of association and the Quebec labor code.

The court's decision will be hugely important, not just for the laid off workers in Jonquière, but for Wal-Mart employees throughout Canada. 10 employees at a Wal-Mart garage in Gatineau (another Canadian city) recently formed a union and there have been rumors that Wal-Mart may close that store as well, rather than negotiate a union contract.

I, and likely anyone concerned with justice and workers' rights, hope the Canadian Supreme Court will rule on the side of the workers.

Blogger Kathy G just published her first in what will be a series of posts titled "Wal-Mart: Why They Stink" (I edited the last word of the title to make it more PG). Kathy G has decided to write this series because she believes Wal-Mart is:

the single institution that, above and beyond all others, represents the despotism, moral depravity, and sheer viciousness of American life in the 21st century

Needless to say, it's a pretty scathing indictment of the Behemoth from Bentonville and I strongly encourage our readers to check it out.

Also, if you haven't yet, please take a minute to write a letter to the FEC and demand that they investigate Wal-Mart for their possibly illegal and certainly immoral intimidation of its workers. Thanks a lot to everyone who's already written a letter!

We sent you an e-mail (posted below) asking you to write to the FEC and demand that they investigate Wal-Mart for their possibly illicit and definitely inappropriate, immoral behavior, and thousands of you have! We just wanted to take a minute to thank all of you that got involved and decided to send a letter.

If you haven't already, take a minute to click on the box to the right and write a letter to the FEC. We need your help to stop Wal-Mart from using their same old dirty tricks.

Many of you are as upset about Wal-Mart trying to intimidate their employees to vote a certain way as we are, and here's what you've been saying:

C. S. writes
Don't let Walmart get away with browbeating people who work there into voting against their beliefs and conscience. People are entitled to both go to work and vote as they believe, not as their employer believes. The time and money Walmart spends doing this must be counted as an election contribution, on top of all the money it already gives.

J. I. writes Voting is every citizen's individual right and it is no one's business to influence their decision making process, especially not their employer's. If these reports are accurate the meetings must be stopped.

K. B. writes I demand an investigation into WalMart's mandatory employee meetings and its attempts to tell employees how to vote. If it is true, it amounts to an invisible donation to McCain's campaign. WalMart should be taken to task for this outrage!

M. B. writes I am horrified to find out in this day and age a company would try to influence the vote where an employee might feel his job is in jeoperdy for how he votes.

S. V. writes Tell Wal-mart to stop intimidating their employees and let their employees vote in their self interest. This is terrible, where do they draw the line? No employer should tell their employees how to vote.

A. A. writes This is just WRONG!!!!!!

H. M. writes WalMart is unfairly exploiting the ignorance and fear of its workers in order to further its own agenda and not be held accountable for their numerous abuses. They must be stopped!

Back in 2005, a Wal-Mart in Canada voted to unionize and just a few months later Wal-Mart shut the store down. Wal-Mart claimed the store wasn't profitable, but it's not terribly hard to put 2 and 2 together. It looks like the same thing may happen again. Today's Montreal Gazette has a story about a mechanic shop run by Wal-Mart that has voted to unionize. They've been waiting for the union to start negotiating for a collective bargaining agreement and now that it's on the horizon, Wal-Mart has started talking about shutting the garage down.

It is not a surprise, they've done it before. Not only did they shut down the store in Canada, but they've also decided to fire meat counter workers and only sell prepackaged meat because a meat department in a Texas store voted to unionize. It is not surprising, but it is deplorable. Wal-Mart should not be allowed to fire workers just because they want 3rd party representation. They should be held to their responsibility to provide fair wages and affordable benefits to their employees.

Here's the article from the Montreal Gazette:

Union expects Wal-Mart to shut soon-to-be unionized garage

MONTREAL - Union leaders say they expect Wal-Mart Canada Corp. to shut down a garage it operates in Gatineau after workers are presented with their first collective agreement.

Guy Chénier, president of the union local representing garage workers, said Wal-Mart has already hinted it will close the shop. In 2005, Wal-Mart came under fire for closing a store in Jonquière after workers won union accreditation.

In Gatineau, across the river from Ottawa, Wal-Mart garage workers have been unionized since 2005, and are now waiting for their first collective agreement following binding arbitration that ended in June.

It's not clear when the contract will be imposed, but the union says it expects it to be soon.

The contract will be a first in North America and is expected to have an impact on Wal-Mart unionization efforts across Canada.

"I have the impression that they will want to close the garage," said Chénier, president of local 486 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada. "But if they do this, we will help the workers find other places right away."

A Wal-Mart executive has already said the retailer might be forced to close the garage, depending on what's in the agreement, said Louis Bolduc, a UFCW spokesperson in Quebec.

"We are eager to see how Wal-Mart behaves," Bolduc said.

"We hope they will act like good corporate citizens."

Yanik Deschênes, spokes-person for Wal-Mart in Quebec, said the retailer could only comment on the arbitrator's decision when it's announced.

"The arbitrator is now working on the file, so we cannot speculate on the outcome," Deschênes said. "We respect the process and we want to wait for the decision."

Arbitrator Alain Corriveau's decision will have implications not only for the 10 garage employees in Gatineau, but potentially for Wal-Mart employees elsewhere in Canada and around the world.

Corriveau is also overseeing the arbitration process for Wal-Mart workers in St. Hyacinthe, who are waiting for their first collective agreement.

While Wal-Mart workers in China belong to a state union - as is required by law - the world's largest retailer is opposed to its employees unionizing.

"If this happens in Quebec, this will be a big shot in the arm for Wal-Mart workers everywhere," said Andy Neufeld, a spokesperson for UFCW local 1518 in British Columbia.

"If this had been a regular file, we would have had a collective agreement in 2005," Chénier said. "A few years later, we wouldn't even be talking about it any more."

At stake are salaries and benefits. On average, workers at the Wal-Mart garage in Gatineau earn $9.25 an hour.

In case you missed it, we just sent out an e-mail to our members asking them to write to the Federal Election Commission and demand an investigation into Wal-Mart's shady tactics. If you haven't heard, the Wall Street Journal broke a story on Friday about mandatory meetings Wal-Mart was having where they were telling their employees not to vote for Democrats. This is, hands down, a disgusting abuse of power, and it may just be illegal too! So take a minute or two to write to the FEC.

Below is the full message that went out to our members, if you didn't get it, you should sign up!

Mandatory political indoctrination, Democrat-bashing, voter intimidation. Yes, it's business as usual at Wal-Mart.

This summer, Wal-Mart has organized mandatory meetings across the country, all with one purpose: to intimidate rank-and-file employees into voting Republican. The company's workers have been forced to attend ideologically-charged, Wal-Mart-sponsored rants against Democrats, Barack Obama, and landmark legislation that would allow workers to vote for or against representation.

We have received several calls from workers, their stories are very similar and similarly unsettling. As one worker put it, “they were telling me how to vote.” Another Wal-Mart worker, Beth from Alabama, was told by Wal-Mart management that if she “voted for John McCain, then everything would be okay.”

We believe that ideological indoctrination and political scare tactics are completely inappropriate for the workplace. Yet again, Wal-Mart’s management has crossed the line, possibly breaking the law in the process. In light of these developments, we are calling for an immediate FEC investigation into Wal-Mart's political bullying at work, but we need your help to make a real impact.

Please tell the FEC to investigate Wal-Mart’s mandatory political meetings today.

Outright political intimidation may seem too risqué for a global corporation. Not for Wal-Mart. Stories like the above are actually an emerging part of Bentonville's corporate culture.

Take 2006, when Wal-Mart organized a “voter education program” for employees. The company placed Terry Nelson at the helm: formerly George W. Bush's political director, and later fired for making racist ads about a Democratic politician. Unsurprisingly, Wal-Mart's “education” program amounted to a thin veneer over strident attacks against Democratic candidates nation wide.

Why has Wal-Mart made such an effort to control its workers' voting habits? For one, The company is terrified that Democratic gains will ensure passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. For Wal-Mart, an organized workforce could spell higher wages and better benefits—two things the company has fought tirelessly to avoid.

In the end, Wal-Mart's motives are a moot point. The company has crossed the line, again, and it's time to hold them accountable. You can help us end Wal-Mart's sleazy political schemes by taking a moment to write the FEC today.

Please write the FEC and demand an investigation into Wal-Mart's mandatory employee meetings

Thanks for joining us in support of justice in the workplace, for Wal-Mart workers everywhere,

The Team
WakeUpWalMart.com

As many of you likely know already, the Wall Street Journal published a front page article last week which revealed that Wal-Mart has been intimidating its workers into voting against Democrats in the upcoming election. WakeUpWalMart.com strongly condemned Wal-Mart's behavior as coercive and immoral but many observers have also questioned whether Wal-Mart's behavior was illegal. In response, American Rights at Work, a non-profit which seeks to protect and advance workers' rights, has just launched a petition calling on the FEC to investigate Wal-Mart's meetings with its workers, in which Wal-Mart warned them not to vote for Democrats. If Wal-Mart has committed a crime, they must be brought to justice. Please click on the frowny face to the right to demand that the FEC investigate Wal-Mart's shady, abusive business practices!

In a front page article, The Wall Street Journal exposed today that Wal-Mart has been holding shady meetings throughout the country in which workers are effectively intimidated into voting against Democrats this fall. Since the story broke, it has become a veritable media sensation.

It's one of the top stories on The Drudge Report, The Huffington Post, even Fox News

Reuters has written not one but two articles

It's also been the subject of blog posts on/from

Salon.com,
Matt Yglesias,
Ezra Klein ,
MSNBC First Read,
The Guardian,
The Moderate Voice,
The Raw Story,
Go Earth,
Think Progress,
Blogging Stocks,
Clusterstock.com,
Digg,
The Arkansas Times,
Christian Political View,
US News and World Report,
Businessmemo.com,
Booman Tribune,
WataugaWatch,
CBS's Political Animal

and many, many more.

Wal-Mart's coercive behavior is nothing less than unconscionable, but it's great to see that Wal-Mart is being exposed for the vicious, utterly irresponsible behemoth they truly are.

Today on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, a story exposed Wal-Mart's shady intimidation of its workers, proving that Wal-Mart is using the same old strong arm tactics that they've always used. What is worse is that they're using these tactics to scare their employees into voting against Democrats. We think it's a disgusting abuse of power, but not terribly surprising. Here's our official statement about the article:

For Immediate Release August 1, 2008

WAL-MART EXPOSED: RETAILER CAUGHT INTIMIDATING WORKERS AND SCARING THEM INTO VOTING AGAINST DEMOCRATS

Today a Wall Street Journal article revealed that Wal-Mart is using mandatory meetings with its employees to spread its political message, warning them not to vote for Democrats for fear of new legislation that would make it easier to have a union voice on the job to improve wages, benefits and working conditions. According to those who attended these meetings across the country, the message was that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in.

The following statement is attributed to Meghan Scott, Spokesperson for WakeUpWalMart.com.

"For all its PR moves and gimmicks over the last year, it is still business as usual at Wal-Mart. The retailer has been caught red-handed trying to intimidate workers and scare them into voting against Democrats.

"Wal-Mart has once again been exposed for what it really is: a corporation that will go to any length to put profits ahead of its workers. Wal-Mart has talked a lot about changing its ways on health care, the environment and workers rights, but this article shows that all that talk hasn't translated into action.

"This is a wake-up call for anyone who thought Wal-Mart was somehow new or different."

###

The following article is from the front page of today's Wall Street Journal

By ANN ZIMMERMAN and KRIS MAHER

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

The actions by Wal-Mart -- the nation's largest private employer -- reflect a growing concern among big business that a reinvigorated labor movement could reverse years of declining union membership. That could lead to higher payroll and health costs for companies already being hurt by rising fuel and commodities costs and the tough economic climate.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval," said David Tovar, Wal-Mart spokesman. Mr. Tovar acknowledged that the meetings were taking place for store managers and supervisors nationwide.

Wal-Mart's worries center on a piece of legislation known as the Employee Free Choice Act, which companies say would enable unions to quickly add millions of new members. "We believe EFCA is a bad bill and we have been on record as opposing it for some time," Mr. Tovar said. "We feel educating our associates about the bill is the right thing to do."

Other companies and groups are also making a case against the legislation to workers. Laundry company Cintas Corp., which has been fighting a multiyear organizing campaign by Unite Here, relaunched a Web site July 14 called CintasVotes. The site instructs visitors to take action by telling members of Congress to oppose the legislation.

"We feel it's important that our employee partners fully understand the implications that the Employee Free Choice Act could have on their work environment and benefits," said Heather Trainer, a Cintas spokeswoman.

Business-backed organizations are also running ads aimed at building opposition to the bill, including the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which counts several hundred industry associations as members. Another group, the Employee Freedom Action Committee, is run by former tobacco lobbyist Rick Berman. The groups, which aren't affiliated with each other, say they have a total of $50 million in funding. Neither will disclose which companies or individuals have provided funding.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made defeat of the legislation a top priority. In the past six months, it has flown state and local Chamber members to Washington to lobby members of Congress. On Thursday, the Chamber began airing a television ad in Minnesota and plans to run ads in other states as part of a broader campaign.

The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity. The AFL-CIO and individual unions such as the United Food and Commercial Workers have promised to make passage of the new labor law their No. 1 mission after the November election.

First introduced in 2003, the bill came to a vote last year and sailed through the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, but was blocked by a filibuster in the Senate and faced a veto threat by the White House. The bill was taken off the floor, and its backers pledged to reintroduce it when they could get more support.

The November election could bring that extra support in Congress, as well as the White House if Sen. Obama is elected and Democrats extend their control in the Senate. Sen. Obama co-sponsored the legislation, which also is known as "card check," and has said several times he would sign it into law if elected president. Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and voted against it last year.

Wal-Mart's labor-relations meetings are led by human-resources managers who received training from Wal-Mart on the implications of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Fine Legal Line

Wal-Mart may be walking a fine legal line by holding meetings with its store department heads that link politics with a strong antiunion message. Federal election rules permit companies to advocate for specific political candidates to its executives, stockholders and salaried managers, but not to hourly employees. While store managers are on salary, department supervisors are hourly workers.

However, employers have fairly broad leeway to disseminate information about candidates' voting records and positions on issues, according to Jan Baran, a Washington attorney and expert on election law.

Both supporters and opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act believe it would simplify and speed labor's ability to unionize companies. Currently, companies can demand a secret-ballot election to determine union representation. Those elections often are preceded by months of strident employer and union campaigns.

Under the proposed legislation, companies could no longer have the right to insist on one secret ballot. Instead, the Free Choice, or "card check," legislation would let unions form if more than 50% of workers simply sign a card saying they want to join. It is far easier for unions to get workers to sign cards because the organizers can approach workers repeatedly, over a period of weeks or months, until the union garners enough support.

Employers argue that the card system could lead to workers being pressured to sign by pro-union colleagues and organizers. Unions counter that it shields workers from pressure from their employers.

On June 30 the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Wal-Mart illegally fired an employee in Kingman, Ariz., who supported the UFCW and illegally threatened to freeze merit-pay increases if employees voted for union representation. The decision came eight years after the organizing campaign failed, and four years after the case was originally heard.

"We've always maintained the termination was not related to the union and that there was nothing unlawful about an answer provided an associate about merit pay," said Mr. Tovar, the Wal-Mart spokesman. "Following the decision, we were considering offering reinstatement, but that is on hold, since the [union] appealed the decision."

Unions consider the Employee Free Choice Act as vital to the survival of the labor movement, which currently represents 7.5% of private-sector workers, half the percentage it did 25 years ago. The Service Employees International Union said the legislation would enable it to organize a million workers a year, up from its current pace of 100,000 workers a year.

The Underdogs

The business-backed lobbying groups are running ads in states where a win by a Democratic Senate candidate would boost support for the legislation in the Senate, saying the loss of secret ballots exposes workers to bullying labor bosses. In one, they use an actor from the "Sopranos" TV series about mob life to hammer home their point.

Business groups say they're the underdogs since they will be outspent by unions by a wide margin. Labor has pledged to spend $300 million on the election and securing passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, compared with under $100 million by business groups, according to Steven Law, chief legal officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber's strategy is to focus on the Senate, where labor needs eight more supporters of the legislation to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"This is a David-and-Goliath confrontation, but we believe we'll have enough stones in the sling to knock this out," said Mr. Law.

Wal-Mart is a powerful ally. Through almost all of its 48-year history, Wal-Mart has fought hard to keep unions out of its stores, flying in labor-relations rapid-response teams from its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters to any location where union activity was building. The United Food and Commercial Workers was successful in organizing only one group of Wal-Mart workers -- a small number of butchers in East Texas in early 2000. Several weeks later, the company phased out butchers in all of its stores and began stocking prepackaged meat. When a store in Canada voted to unionize several years ago, the company closed the store, saying it had been unprofitable for years.

Labor has fought back with a campaign to portray Wal-Mart as treating its workers poorly. The UFCW helped employees file a series of complaints about the company's overtime, health-care and other policies with the National Labor Relations Board. Dozens of class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of workers, many of which are still winding their way through the courts.

Wal-Mart has been trying to burnish its reputation by improving its worker benefits and touting its commitment to the environment. On the political front, it's hedging its bets, spreading its financial contributions on both sides of the political divide.

Twelve years ago, 98% of Wal-Mart's political donations went to Republicans. Now, as the Democrats seem poised to gain control in Washington, 48% of its $2.2 million in political contributions go to Democrats and 52% to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that tracks political giving.