From the Murdoch Street Journal (formerly known as the Wall Street Journal):
“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 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.”
View Comments (19)
Thank you. :)
No need to apologize for your opinion. You're entitled to it, just as I am to mine. I envy your optimism about what an Obama victory would mean, I really do.
My opinion is to wait and see. Nothing is set in stone. Getting a Democrat into office is the MOST important item on my agenda. Everything else will fall into place AFTER he's elected. We have to keep our eyes on the prize and not let the ins and outs of Democratic turns in the road bother us. Remember, you don't play a game by only running wearing blinders. When Obama is attacked there is a "24 hour" focal point where the Democrats must respond and/or fight back. That's how the political "game" is played. I heard that on TV. Sometimes each side must concede a little to gain something else. That's the way of politics. Dirty? Yes, I think so. But, it is our America way and is much better than fighting a military civil war every four years. I personally hope that you and others on the fence or having second thoughts, will seriously reconsider what will happen if the Republicans make it in again. Sorry. Just my opinion.
I don't expect perfection in any person, candidate or otherwise, but I do believe that Obama's current standing in the polls has less to do with any negative campaigning by McCain or resentment from Hillary supporters and more to do with many of Obama's primary supporters feeling like they've been had. That said, I just finished reading this article from the NYT on Obama's economic policies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?em=&pagewanted=all
and I may yet change my position and vote for him. Not very enthusiastically, though, which is a shame.
What's really sad is that there is no person on this earth who is perfect, or who will perfectly fill the bill. That's why we all have to settle whenever politicians vie for power. In fact, if you or I ever ran for President, I'm sure we wouldn't please all the people all the time even within our party. It's the pits, huh?
Well, I would argue that the VP choice is very important, because that's who becomes president if anything happens to the elected president, and history has shown us that something happening is always a possibility.
But your other points are well taken. Perhaps by November I won't care so much anymore and I'll decide to go ahead and vote for the guy and dispassionately watch the crapshoot fallout.
Sorry. Typo. "Running mate's STANCE IS" should be typed, instead of "it".
It chokes me to think that Obama is kissing posterior to get elected; however, he HAS to do what he has to do. That is discusting, but it's reality. I agree with Darrin in that AFTER he's elected, he may change. But we need to realize that it will take YEARS to clean up after Bush's bigoted and brash changes to our usury laws, our constitution, and our reputation in the world. THEN he may, and just may, make the changes we Democrats want put into place (he needs to roll back what Bush did first). Let's worry about his running mate's pro life stance later. In fact, why even worry. It won't matter what his running mate's stance it anyway. The VP doesn't have the power to effect very much in the way of bills, laws, or appointments to the Supreme Court, right? So, bottom line. With Obama we have a MAYBE there will be change. With McCain we have a FOR SURE there will NOT be change. I think the maybe is the better risk.
Well, it is astounding how far we have already come in tolerating abuse from the government. But Americans are definitely tiring of losing their homes and retirement funds and not being able to afford gas to get to work and having their banks go under. I think they are both more fed up and more resigned at the same time. As any 12 stepper knows, you have to hit bottom before you are willing to do the hard work to get help.
I don't know if I'd call that cynical. Maybe this is more cynical: I don't believe we'd be shaken by another eight years of war-mongering, corruption, assaults against the Constitution, and scandal. I think Americans become accustomed to it. I think we adapt. I think the more we experience that kind of abusive government, the more we're willing to tolerate abuse from government.
Obama's disappointed me, particularly when he implied the Bush administration hasn't done anything impeachable, and when he rolled over along with the rest of the Democrats on FISA. But I don't believe that as president, Obama would subvert the constitution himself. I believe the Democrats have decided not to challenge the White House because they think they're going to have the White House themselves in January, and THEN they can set things straight.
It's cowardice. It's scheming. It's moral compromise. It's politics. And there's no way anyone's going to make it to the White House without either compromising or hiding some of their morality. Not if they want people in places as disparate as San Francisco, CA and Selma, AL to vote for them. George W. Bush disguised his ambitions. He argued against nation-building and interventionism, and look at him. He argued against big government, and look what he did. Franklin Roosevelt sounded like a corporate, modern-day DLC Democrat when he ran in '32, but look what HE did once in office. History shows that you often can't judge a candidate by the way he moves toward the center during general elections.