It’s well known that Walmart is viciously anti-union. It’s not much known is that the company is much more accomodative to organized labor in other countries that have more labor-friendly policies.
The Washington Post is good to report on that difference, showing that Walmart stores have unions in the UK, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, China, and South Africa. Why does Walmart play along with labor in those countries but not in the U.S. or Canada, where it will shut down a store rather than let workers organize?
“We recognize those rights,” said John Peter “J.P.” Suarez , senior vice president of international business development at Wal-Mart. “In that market, that’s what the associates want, and that’s the prevailing practice.”
So Walmart doesn’t “recognize those rights” in the U.S. That tells you something about the climate here for organized labor, which has been almost snuffed out in the private sector.
But elsewhere:
In some countries, such as China, recognition of unions is required by law. Wal-Mart said about 70 percent of its employees there are members of the All China Federation of Trade Unions. In other cases, the political and social climate of a country makes union membership more palatable. Wal-Mart said that 18 percent of its workers in Mexico have chosen to organize, and British labor leader Paul Kenny said in recent news reports there that its dealings with Wal-Mart have been “honest.”
I think “recognition of unions is required by law” in the U.S. too, though it’s not much followed anymore. But it’s interesting that a union leader in Britain would call Walmart “honest.” Certainly that would never happen here.
And that’s where this story falls down. There’s no evidence, beyond the above boilerplate quote about “prevailing practice”, that Walmart was really pushed to discuss the disparity between its U.S. labor policy and its policies in other countries—much less the lengths to which it will go here to keep its American workers from organizing. That includes blatantly breaking the law.
I too often find these days that Post business stories seem thin, leaving me wanting quite a bit more. This one’s not an exception. It could have used more reporting and more space.


I'm loving that penultimate paragraph. Double-standardize much? In fact, there is "no evidence" that WalMart has been "blatantly breaking the law." The Reuters story is heavy on charges, light on evidence, and void of proof. Imagine my shock.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 9 Jun 2011 at 01:57 PM
Another day, another amazing trip through Chittum's Liberal La La Land...
Where "Group accuses Wal-Mart of illegal anti-union tactics" transfoms into Walmart "blatantly breaking the law"...
See how it works people?
An accusation from a leftist activist interest group somehow mutates into a settled fact in this strange realm of "professional journalism"...
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 9 Jun 2011 at 03:38 PM
Wal-Mart ... its a real freaking sweatshop thats despised by its workers.
#3 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 9 Jun 2011 at 04:05 PM
Not quite accurate to say that Wal-Mart workers in Mexico have "chosen" to organize. Like many other employers, Wal-Mart in Mexico has established company unions, known as "protection unions," which the workers ahve no say in and often do not ecen know exist. See various articles by Chris Tilly at UCLA and the study by Prodesc at http://www.prodesc.org.mx/sala-de-prensa/materiales-y-publicaciones/
#4 Posted by Ben Davis, CJR on Thu 9 Jun 2011 at 08:34 PM
I'm afraid the case in Mexico might be similar to China.
"Trade unions in China, it should be noted, are not the same as those in the West. They are all controlled by the Communist Party. "Trade unions are not simply about workers' economic interests, they also have to do with political, cultural and democratic rights," said Guo Wencai, an ACFTU official in charge of formation of grassroots unions.
Indeed, China's trade unions are known for their tameness and obedience to the party. The activities they organize for the workers are usually no more than social events or entertainment. They are often criticized as being more like showcases of corporate culture than organs to protect labor rights."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HH24Cb03.html
"Wal-Mart, which has allowed only "a few" unions into its stores elsewhere around the world, "isn't afraid of strikes in China," Dong said. "China's unions are different from unions elsewhere. The goal of China's unions is to build a harmonious society.""
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080901924.html
The differences between labor unions in the countries wal-mart allows them in and the countries it doesn't should have been covered more by the Washington Post, as they've done in the past.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 9 Jun 2011 at 09:09 PM
Here in Canada, myself and family members have not shopped at Walmart in years due to their behaviour as an employer. If Walmart doesn't want to respect Canada, its workers and our laws then it should pack its ugly yellow smiley face and go back where it came from.
#6 Posted by Alex, CJR on Tue 14 Jun 2011 at 09:21 PM
Walmart employees need stock options, not just minimum wage union increases. Then sell their Walmart stock high and buy Costco, Sams and McDonalds low. Buy back their Walmart shares low. Do this over and over again until the workers have majority company ownership. That's true union leverage. That's what the big boys do. Then add domestic manufactured products in each country. They will never see growth-based franchise opportunities offered to employees. Buffet and Geico.
#7 Posted by Jeff Borick, CJR on Sun 18 Nov 2012 at 03:42 PM