New York Times: 2nd Effort at Canadian Walmart

(login: babblers8 , password: audrarules)

quote:

---

OTTAWA, March 2 - Workers at a Wal-Mart store in Windsor, Ontario, will try to form a union for a second time, union officials said Wednesday.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Canada filed on behalf of the employees with the Ontario labor board Tuesday.

Andrew Mackenzie, the union representative who led the organizing drive, said Wednesday that the union delayed its application more than two weeks after Wal-Mart said that a unionized store in Jonquière, Quebec, would be closed in May. Workers at that store are in the process of negotiating their first contract.

Andrew Pelletier, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada, said the company would challenge the petition on the ground that the union's definition of the store's bargaining unit was undemocratic. According to Mr. Pelletier, the union wants to exclude 50 hourly workers from the unionization vote. About 200 people work in the store.

Mr. McKenzie said the 50 were excluded because they all had the word "manager" in their titles.

In 1997, the Windsor store, which was then in a different location, was organized by the Canadian arm of the United Steelworkers of America.

After the union and the company failed to negotiate a contract, employees voted to remove the union in 2000.

---

Hope that clarifies it a bit.

After U.S. unions took a beating in the 80s, RWDSU lost a lot of their department store members outside of a few big cities. I believe they also lost their large New York pharmacists and health care workers Local 1199 (which became an independent union) around the same time. Faced with declining membership numbers and revenues, RWDSU decided at the International level to merge with their longtime rival the UFCW.

The Canadian branch of RWDSU split on whether to go along with this merger. The Northern Ontario locals (along with the Prairies, I believe) decided to go ahead and merge with the UFCW. But the rest of the Canadian RWDSU decided to look elsewhere. In B.C. a bunch of them joined the Longshore Workers. In Ontario and on the East Coast, RWDSU formed a "partnership" with the United Steelworkers.

In the mid-90s, it was the USWA/RW group that organized the Windsor Walmart store. However, around the same time, the RW members in the USWA were reconsidering their internal arrangements. There was years of litigation around the Windsor Walmart store and during that time period, the RW members who were "partners" with the USWA voted to end the relationship and join the CAW instead.

In 2000, the now CAW/RW union finally gave up on the Windsor Walmart store.

I don't know what impact all this internal politicking had on the union's ability to focus on the Walmart campaign, but I can't imagine it was helpful. Anyway, like Blue Collar said, it now appears that the UFCW is the union that has taken on the Walmart challenge in Canada, as it has in the US.

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

As to the Windsor Walmart, I think its disappointing that things didn't work out better the first time through. I generally have a lot of respect for CAW, but that particular campaign didn't seem to go well at all and I think that's too bad. Of course, things were different back then. Walmart was relatively new on the scene in Canada and I don't think everybody appreciated what a threat they were, in the same way we do now. The Ontario government was Conservative and anti-union. And the CAW arrived rather late on the scene because of the internal politics going on in RW at the time.

People that work in retail tend to be more laid back versus a plant worker.That is okay though because companies that hire people to deal with public need people that are a bit milder.

But the UFCW has people who work in manufacturing and distrabution centers as well as truck drivers to help our retail brothers and sisters.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blue Collar:
Militancy has less to do with the union and more to do with the membership and there make up.

---

I wish I didn't have to disaggree, but I do. IME, membership are prima facie "cowed" by management. That changes only when there is both a workplace and civic dynamic that puts the union on an equal, or even superior footing with the employer.

I think the NDP may be more outspoken on this than the Liberals.

As seen here.
http://www.ufcw.ca/cgi-bin/full_story.cgi?story_id=407&from_page=142

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Blue Collar ]

quote:

---

I think it would be a great thing for all auto workers if either the CAW or the UAW were to successfully organize a foreign-owned auto plant like Toyota

---

Well actually all auto plants in Canada are "foreign-owned".

The CAMI plant in Ingersoll, Ontario which is a joint venture between GM and Suzuki is unionized, although as I understand they're not under the "master" GM Canada collective agreement.

Back to RW in Windsor. Don't forget that the RWDSU initially "lost" the vote at Walmart. The union layed a couple of dozen unfair labour practice charges against Walmart. The OLRB heard just the first two or three charges and was so disgusted with Walmart that they imposed a certification on Walmart.

Then, the Harris government came along and brought in the infamous "Walmart bill" which removed the power of the OLRB to impose union certifications as one of the penalties they can impose on employers.

Given that the certification was imposed, it would have been very difficult for any union to hang on to the bargaining unit. If you couple that with RW's internal politics then you've got a very tough situation dealing with the world's largest corporation.

quote:

---

Well politically the UFCW has continued to support the NDP where as the CAW backed the Liberals so the CAW may have a bit more voice here in Ontario

---

I think this is a mis-characterization of the CAW position. The CAW, in a couple of Ontario provincial elections supported so-called "strategic voting" to defeat the Tories. Some other unions particularly in the public sector took the same position.

It doesn't happen to be a position that I personally support and yes it did on one occasion help re-elect the Tories and on another occasion help get the Liberals elected. But the CAW continued to give money and recruit workers for NDP campaigns.

In any case I think we've seen the last of the "strategic voting" phenomenon in Ontario. Come the 2007 Ontario election all union activists will be back supporting the NDP.

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
Having one union targetting Walmart across Canada and in this case across two countries makes a great deal of sense to me.

---

It does, of course. I am just hoping that CAW leadership will let bygones be bygones" and step up. Because as I've pointed out elsewhere here, the CAW rules on the ground here. Running for any political office wuthout, at least, benign CAW blessing is Quiotic.

Every city councillor, each MPP (including 2 influential cabininet ministers, and the Members of Parliament, each knows that the CAW could retire them inthe next election.

It's my hope that Kenny, and Buzz, and the other boys are quietly letting Sandra and Dwight and Eddie and others know that "this better happen". If they are, it will. If not, no. It really is that simple.

Edited to add: and, sadly, just that complex, for Buzz and ken also represent the casino workers, and they may be saving their "political powder" to protect them from McSquinty's assinine anti-smoking bill.

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: James ]

As for now we must continue to buy from union employers that pay fair wages that means also though for the time being not buying general merchindise products from Zehrs, as the company rammed a minimum wage contract down the throats with the threat of job loss on people who were not in the position to do anything.

I want so much to agree with you but a part of me says it is the wrong thing to do. Unions must address issues within themselves, i.e. lack of practicing democracy, corruption, etc., otherwise, they will never be strong enough to take a stand against Walmart, and other multi-national corporations.

Well, there's having access (as a regular part of the worker's duties) to confidential information relating to industrial relations, (sometimes) participation in employer policy-making, having the authority to determine the conditions of the workplace, etc.

This does not include the work that is typically done by lower-level supervisors, such as having authority over minor employee grievances, being in charge of monitoring worker absences, etc. And any of the more major duties must form part of the worker's regular duties, so filling in for a manager will not qualify.

You would be surprised how many cases resulted from how crappily the Canada Labour Code (and the provincial acts) define these terms; as a result, employers have often been caught deliberately doing something like giving a bunch of lower-level supervisors some authority to handle employee grievances and then saying that they should be excluded from the bargaining unit due to being "managers," when these workers might only exercise this authority once in a blue moon, or might only handle minor grievances.
Or an employer might put their lower-level supervisors on key committees and say that they should be excluded based on managerial status because they are privy to confidential employer information, when they are little more than sock puppets, and have no real authority over what is actually done with the information.

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

quote:

---

If UFCW had signed up folks who are classified as so-called managers (based on whether or not they have the right to hire and fire), Walmart would have put a challenge before the OLRB to have them excluded from the bargaining unit.

---

In this case, its the reverse. There are about 50 "pet" "team members" who all have the word "manager" as part of their official title. Walmart insists that they are part of the bargaining unit, and should have a vote. UFCW insists they are excluded. Walmart argued against a certification vote on the basis that when those managers are included, the union has not signed the required 40 %. UFCW says, "Hey, it's you, Mr. Employer, that designated these people as management. Thus they can't be part of the bargaining unit".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freedom of Expression:

I want so much to agree with you but a part of me says it is the wrong thing to do. Unions must address issues within themselves, i.e. lack of practicing democracy, corruption, etc., otherwise, they will never be strong enough to take a stand against Walmart, and other multi-national corporations.

I will begrudgingly support the UFCW in their efforts to organize Walmart workers, but, to me, it is a matter of UFCW being the lesser of the two evils. I do not trust the UFCW. If I could see the UFCW addressing their own internal issues, I would feel better about supporting them.

---

Since becoming a member of the UFCW, I hear this complaint about lack of democracy, very often though when I ask someone have they read the constitution of the local to understand the procedures for running in any election the reply I get is "no".If no one files to run against the incumbent then the incumbent is declared the winner.

As far corruption goes I sure the are things such as nepotisim and some reps that may using their exspense account a bit frivously and bad investments made, but then I have seen people complain that the union's support of luekimia research as corrupt or wasteful.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but, back in the 1990's, wasn't it the UFCW union that agreed with Loblaws to bring in the two-tier wage system? I recall this as the beginning of lower wage rates for retail workers.

Blue Collar: you said, "If you work in retail and do not support the UFCW in our struggle against walmart then prepare to have you wages lowered as companies cut labour cost to compete with walmart's labour cost."

I say: Many people in the community that I live in have already had their wages substantially lowered so their employer could compete with the deal that the UFCW made with Loblaws back in the 1990's. What is happening now with Walmart, in my view, is just more of the same.

As bad as the contracts the unions took in retail it still ended up being better than that of those in the manufacturing sectors who lost jobs altogether and the non union workplaces where wages in some case were slashed in half if not more.

Yes the UFCW did agree out west at that time to some two tier wages in some work places, one of the archietects of these type of deals is no longer with the UFCW, I believe he nows works as a secretary for his wife's consultating business.

One of things I have always maintained is this it was the workers who voted for the contracts, so you can not blame a union that bargains for it's existing members that is what they are paid to do.

I have sat through membership meetings where the union has said we ought to think of this group and have had members reply F them, what do I care what happens to them.

If you accept a crappy contract you can not gripe about it after, if you did not show up to vote you can not gripe about the outcome.

The union has suspended him pending the investigation.

Having done organizing in the past, we could be looking at a number things, person could have been management, or someone trying to intimidate other workers from signing cards, could have been a management plant.

A UFCW organizer concedes the union "is in damage control mode".

Many militants bash the idea of the biz union where the union realizes the need for companies to remain in business opting more for the shut them down approach

But the future maybe the biz union model as the membership of unions is better educated and becoming more professional.

Forbes did an interesting piece oh this in regards to the white collar workers and unions.

btw, the guy he hit was on the picket line, sporting his black eye.

And next, I suppose I'll hear that this guy was democratically elected to be there

[ 08 March 2005: Message edited by: James ]

Provocation of union organizers, be they paid by the union or be they employees of the company, by these types is a common practice.

It is a way to try to get these workers to either get into trouble with the law or otherwise discredit themselves.

Hitting someone may not be the right thing to do but aslong as there are companies willing to hire goons we need a few guys who will take the altercations on and not let others or themselves be pushed around.

Funny walmart does not want picketing and other union standby's at their stores until it suits their purpose.

I just hope the workers vote to certify and then we can get to the truth of this matter.

quote:

---

Hitting someone may not be the right thing to do but aslong as there are companies willing to hire goons we need a few guys who will take the altercations on and not let others or themselves be pushed around.

---

quote:

---

post by robbie_dee:
this situation makes the UFCW look like a bunch of amateur thugs. I am absolutely appalled by what has happened.

---

I'm not sure if you are aware of the particulars, Robbie, but if so, they only amplify that impression. The assaulted employee is one of the "maybe-managers" that the UFCW sought to exclude from the bargaining unit. As posted above, the OLRB ruled that they vote, but that their ballots be segregated pending a hearing on the issue,

"maybe-manager was participating in some sort of anti-union petition campaign and was at the trunk of his car getting a fresh supply of paperwork. Mr. brilliant paid organizer approached and asked him what the papers were, "m-m" refused to answer. Organizer then tried to pull the papers out of "m-m"'s grasp, "m-m" resisted and pushed him away, paid organizer slugged "m-m". The rest is history, and will be for some time, I fear. Even without counting the segregated ballots, 74% voted against the union. An incredibly stupid organizer hired by an incredibly stupid organization.

It's hard to justify if for no other reason than that it ends up making the union look like the bad guy rather than rightfully the manager who was trying to intimidate subordinates into signing the petition.

If I was the ufcw here in Canada I would cool it with walmart for at least a year and make public what you do with this organizer.

quote:

---

We will not leave any of our wounded on the battlefield. We will take care of all of our members who are impacted by Wal-Mart’s vindictive decision, by offering them financial support and helping them find new jobs

---

The quote is from Yvon Bellemare, president of UFCW Canada Local 501 and president of the UFCW Québec Provincial Council, in regard to the Wal-Mart employees set to lose their jobs when the Jonquière Québec store closes on May 6, 2005.

QFL backs UFCW Canada program to sponsor Wal-Mart workers in Jonquière

Unquestionably the right decision and money well spent. There are going to be casualties with this bourgeois behemoth before it's finally brought down to reality and prospective members need to know that they will be supported. It also has the effect of building support inside the union, the labour institutions and in the wider society.

The metaphor of "battlefield casualties" is particularly apt and serves to accurately convey the ugly activities of Wal-Mart and the necessity to be vigilant over possible and likely future casualties and workplace atrocities by Wal-Mart. It's going to be a long, dirty fight. Venceremos! (We will win)

[ 12 March 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

How many hours now until WALmart decides to shut down its auto parts unit, claiming it doesn't make enough profit?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
March 11 (Bloomberg) -- Auto-shop employees in Quebec who work for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's biggest retailer, have joined a union.

How many hours now until WALmart decides to shut down its auto parts unit, claiming it doesn't make enough profit?

Harrummmmph.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Reading your post - I imagine the unionized employees will be dancing a jig while everyone else will be thinking, hey, we could do this, too. If a union does take hold in the auto shop, it could be a form of witness to the benefits of being in a union (if the union does well). Just a thought. Of course, if the union falls flat on its face, it'll do just the opposite.

---

From what I read in the Globe, the rest of the store is already unionized.

From the AFL-CIO's Voice@Work Network:

Three-Dozen Members of Congress Publicly Denounce Wal-Mart’s Tactics
In response to Wal-Mart closing a store in Canada after workers chose to form a union in Jonquire, Quebec, three-dozen members of Congress sent a joint letter to company President and CEO H. Lee Scott, Jr.

“This closure sends the dire message to your workers and the public that any attempt to unionize in order to request better healthcare, higher wages, or improved benefits will be met with both the loss of jobs by your employees and the loss of a revenue source for the community,” the letter said. “This is a regrettable precedent to be set by the world’s largest corporation.”

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) described how difficult it is for all workers, including those at Wal-Mart, to freely form unions because of employer interference and weak labor laws.

Story link (en francais)

quote:

---

Employees at a Wal-Mart store near Montreal voted resoundingly against joining a union in a secret ballot yesterday.

It was the first such vote since Wal-Mart's bombshell announcement in February that it will close its store in Jonquière, Que., where a union was attempting to negotiate the U.S. retailer's first contract in North America.

The vote count showed that 149 workers voted against unionizing, while only 51 voted in favour.

"You know, considering what's happened since July, 2004, we're not really surprised," said union spokesperson Louis Bolduc. "Some people were very afraid to lose their job and they probably voted to keep their job."

---

quote:

---

The UFCW announced today it is launching a new grassroots, community-based campaign to wake up Wal-Mart. The campaign’s website “www.WakeupWalMart.com” and the campaign’s blog “blog.WakeUpWalmart.com” will be at the center of this new grassroots movement that will lead and revolutionize the national fight to change Wal-Mart.

---

"The Wake-Up Wal-Mart campaign will give people the tools they need to join together in common purpose in order to change the largest corporation in the world. The campaign will utilize an array of organizing strategies, innovative media, a blog and other internet tools that have been used successfully in previous political and grassroots campaigns." There's even a Wal-Mart Veterans Association. Good stuff.

"The website, WakeupWalMart.com, will offer concerned citizens, community leaders, activists, and workers an online vehicle where they can learn the truth about Wal-Mart’s record, as well as become an active member in this new grassroots movement. The “Take Action” center of the website will even feature a new tool for community leaders to Adopt-A-Store and begin forming community coalitions around every Wal-Mart location in the United States."

It should be a global campaign but you gotta start somewhere.

Wal*Mart. Always High Costs. Always.

[ 06 April 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

quote:

---

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s former vice chairman may have used undocumented expense payments to pay for anti-union activities, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

Thomas Coughlin resigned from the world's largest retailer in March after Wal-Mart (Research) found what it said was a pattern of expense-account abuses and the use of false invoices to obtain reimbursements.

According to the report, Coughlin last year asked a Wal-Mart employee to approve about $2,000 in expense payments without receipts. The employee said Coughlin briefly mentioned the money had been used for an unspecified "union project."

Coughlin told several Wal-Mart employees that the money was actually being used for anti-union activities, including paying union staffers to tell him of pro-union workers in stores, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the matter.

If Coughlin did pay union staffers for information, it would represent a criminal offense under U.S. federal law. Wal-Mart has strongly opposed unions since its foundation.

---

According to this report: A group of Walmart workers in Greeley, Colorado are trying to unionize their store.

quote:

---

June 17, 2005

Fifteen employees at the west Greeley Wal-Mart hope to break the track record of failed union attempts at Wal-Mart.

The group is inviting the 300-plus employees who work at the store at 920 47th Ave. to join them and organize under the United Food and Commercial Workers Local No. 7, the union of choice for many Front Range grocery workers.

"This is a big fight, and that's why I'm doing it," said Jared West, 21, a senior at the University of Northern Colorado who has worked at Greeley's newest Wal-Mart for two years. "I'm not the kind of person who can just sit there and allow (the company) to keep pushing people around. ... It scares me, but I'm not willing to back down. I don't know if I'm going to be able to change it around here, but I'm going to try."

West went to the UFCW in March and began discussing the employees' options then. He and other employees are collecting signatures to organize a union vote. They must get 30 percent of the employees to sign the petitions to have a vote.

If they can get 50 percent plus one vote in an election, they will have won their right to unionize and collectively bargain with the company.

---

Also of note is a report from the UK that Asda, a grocery chain owned by Walmart, has been forced to back down on firing a GMB shop steward.

quote:

---

GMB: ASDA Ince management back down on sacking
Tue, 28 Jun 2005

ASDA Ince Management Back Down On Sacking But Want To Select Who Should Be GMB Shop Steward

ASDA Ince management have today confirmed that they have backed off sacking GMB Shop Stewards Gary Belshaw whom they had accused of organising an unofficial stoppage at the depot on June 6th.

Duncan Edwards, GMB Senior Organiser said, "The unity shown by GMB members at the Ince depot has forced the ASDA management to back off sacking GMB Shop Steward Gary Belshaw. The company say they are not prepared to recognise Gary as the Shop Steward. GMB have news for ASDA management. It is the GMB members at Ince who select who their Shop Steward is. Gary has made clear that he wants to stay on as Shop Steward and he has the full backing of GMB to remain in this position. We are expecting a YES vote in the strike ballot on Thursday next which was for the reinstatement of Gary Belshaw. We are pleased that he has not been sacked but we will insist on his full re-instatement including his role as GMB Shop Steward. ASDA management are not yet out of the woods."

---

[ 01 July 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Wal Mart Workers Win Again (Labor News Network)

"It is another beautiful victory for the employees of Wal-Mart who want to obtain a trade union. We are very happy about this decision, especially as Wal-Mart disputed the composition of the unit which we asked for. This company will have to be made to understand that its employees have the right to oraganize and to claim better working conditions “.

Gatineau, Monday July 4, 2005 - It is in these terms that Mr Guy Chénier, president of the local section 486 of the TUAC, accomodated the decision of the Labour Relations Commission of Quebec.

Local 486 deposited the application for accreditation on 10 May.

UFCW 486 represents more than 2 000 members working in the retail trade sector the Outaouais region. The local is affiliated with the FTQ, the largest trade-union central in Quebec with 500,000 members.

Source: FTQ
Information: Louis Baker [email protected]

quote:

---

VANCOUVER (CP) - Employees in seven B.C. Wal-Mart stores have voted against representation by the United Food and Commercial Workers, the U.S.-owned retail giant said Friday. In a news release from its headquarters in Mississauga, Ont., Wal-Mart Canada said automotive sales and service associates in the stores rejected the union in favour of dealing directly with the company.

The vote took place last year but Wal-Mart challenged it before the B.C. Labour Relations Board, arguing the automotive department's workers should not be treated as a separate bargaining unit.

In a decision this week, the board rejected the retailer's argument and the ballot boxes were unsealed.

Wal-Mart heralded the vote results as the latest example of its workers rejecting union representation, citing five examples dating back two years.

However, one of the cases it cited involved Wal-Mart's Jonquiere store in Quebec, which national union spokesman Michael Foreman said was closed while its unionized employees were negotiating their first collective agreement. The union also represents workers in other Quebec Wal-Marts, he said.

No one from the union's Vancouver local that organized the B.C. stores' automotive workers was immediately available for comment.

---

quote:

---

The union taking on Wal-Mart Canada has established a toehold in Gatineau, successfully organizing two Wal-Mart tire and lube shops.

But United Food and Commercial Workers Canada has had to regroup in the bigger battle to certify the main Wal-Mart store.

In March, Local 486 of the UFCW filed two applications: One to certify the main store, another to certify the Tire and Lube Express connected to the store. The lube shop employs about 10 people, the main store about 200.

---

Montreal Gazette.

[ 19 July 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

The union representing Wal-Mart employees in Saguenay, Quebec, has gone to court to try to get the store re-opened -- with union employees.

The Food and Commercial Workers Union has asked Quebec Superior Court to overturn two Quebec Labour Relations Board decisions that supported Wal-Mart's decision to close the store after the employees were unionized.

In its request for an appeal, the union wants the court to order the labour board to reconsider its rulings.

The store, 250 kilometres north of Quebec City, was Wal Mart's first North American location to unionize since a Windsor, Ont., outlet was briefly accredited several years ago. The Saguenay store was to close May 6, but shut its doors a week earlier.

On May 11, the Quebec Labour Board rejected a request for a provisional injunction to order the store reopened. On July 7, three Labour Board commissioners rejected a union appeal of that decision.

---

The Cranbrook workers are the latest Wal-Mart members of UFCW Canada (United Food and Commercial Workers Canada). Workers at three Wal-Mart locations in Québec are already certified as UFCW Canada bargaining units and first-contract talks with Wal-Mart are underway there.

The Wal-Mart in Cranbrook was certified after a majority of the shop's employees voted to unionize. Under B.C. labour laws, if a majority of the employees within a defined workplace vote to unionize, the Board can certify their workplace as a union shop and certify their union as their agent for collective bargaining.

quote:

---

Bacchus: Why does it always seem that isloated units of a walmart get organized and never the main store (the meat processing, tire repair etc) but not the main store itself?

Im guessing its because there are fewer managers and more workers so the vote doesnt get skewed? Or am I missing some thing here?

---

quote:

---

The Quebec Labour Board has ruled that the closing of a Wal-Mart store this year amounted to a reprisal against unionized workers and has ordered the company to compensate former employees.

The labour board concluded that Wal-Mart Canada, Inc., failed to prove that the closing of its store in Jonquière in April was "real, genuine and definitive" as required under the Quebec Labour Code.

The board will determine the "appropriate remedies" for the former employees later. As many as 79 of the store's 190 former employees filed for compensation under the labour code.

---

quote:

---

Wal-Mart is the world’s largest retail company and is more familiar in the UK as the supermarket chain Asda. Wal-Mart has built a global empire of supermarket stores on an image of ‘always low prices’. This obsession with prices has led to poverty wages, ever-worsening sweatshop conditions and the destruction of local businesses and communities. These policies are well known but now new evidence has emerged on how Asda senior management are planning to deliberately “chip away” at workers’ rights and working conditions in the UK.

War on Want has seen a leaked document titled “Warehouse Chip Away Strategy 2005” that outlines how Asda senior management are planning to drastically undermine labour standards. Asda management plan to breach these rights despite openly acknowledging the risks of trade union opposition and health and safety violations.

Work breaks are to be cut, grievance mechanisms removed and health and safety conditions weakened. The document also proposes removing the right to take individual grievances to external arbitrators. Asda management plans to include “single man loading” despite the fact that their own “risk assessment says 2 men (are) required for loading”. Line managers are advised to “lead by example, not taking all the breaks that hourly paid colleagues get” in order to “take credence away from breaks”.
***

Following Wal-Mart’s 1999 take-over of Asda, the company has sought to restrict the role of general union GMB. After four years of negotiations, a new agreement between Asda and the GMB came into effect in 2004, which does not provide for collective bargaining. In the words of GMB senior manager Harry Donaldson, “We believe that, since the take-over, Wal-Mart has tried to stifle union activity at Asda.” Managers at a unionised Asda distribution depot offered workers a new terms and conditions package which included a 10% pay increase and the requirement that workers give up collective bargaining representation by the GMB. When workers rejected the proposal, Asda withdrew the 10% pay increase.

---

Quote: "Jonathan Scherry, spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, D.C., said, “We certainly respect artistic freedom, but we also have the responsibility to look into incidents when necessary. In this case, it was brought to our attention from a private citizen, a photo lab employee."