• Background Image

    News and Updates

June 19, 2013

New Report on Political Contributions Underscores Walmart’s Sharp Turn to the Right

Following the Hiring of Bush Administration Official to Lead External Affairs, 

 Walmart Heirs Donate Millions to Right-Wing Candidates, Anti-Gay Politicians, NRA Supporters

 

UFCWnewsA new report issued Tuesday shows that Walmart and the Walton family that founded and controls the company have dramatically increased their political contributions over the last decade and that the vast majority of those contributions have gone to Republicans and right-wing causes, including anti-gay, anti-environment and pro-gun politicians and causes. The report asserts that Walmart, the world’s largest private employer, and the Walton family have spent over $17 million in federal elections and millions more on state and local initiatives. Since the 2000 election cycle, more than $11.6 million—69% of Walmart and the Waltons’ contributions—has gone to Republican candidates and committees. At the same time, 83% of the Waltons’ contributions, including their contributions to Super PACs, went to Republicans.

The report, “An Analysis of Walmart and Walton Family Political Spending, 2000-2012,” comes after Walmart’s recent hiring of Dan Bartlett, a Bush Administration official known for his work in creating the “weapons of mass destruction” narrative, to replace Leslie Dach as Executive Vice President of Corporate Affairs. Dach worked in the Clinton Administration.

“This new report highlights the degree to which Walmart and the Walton family use their considerable wealth to distort the political process,” said William Fletcher, a member of OUR Walmart and an Associate at the Walmart store in Duarte, California. “The Waltons are the richest family in the world. Instead of putting their money into fair wages for us Walmart workers, they instead pour millions into a right-wing agenda that has nothing to do with business and everything to do with their radical ideology.”

The report further underscores Walmart and the Waltons’ turn to the right and shows that political contributions doesn’t simply stop at supporting Republicans; in 2008, Jim Walton gave $75,000 to the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee, which at the time was supporting a ballot measure to prevent gay families from adopting. Meanwhile, 94% of the Walton family’s contributions to candidates from 2000 to 2012 went to those who were opposed to or silent on the issue of marriage equality.

Aside from their record of supporting anti-LGBT candidates, the Waltons and Walmart disproportionately contribute to candidates with low scores on civil rights, women’s issues, immigration, and those who oppose raising the minimum wage. The Waltons also support NRA-backed candidates; 76% of all their donations from 2000-2012 have gone to candidates or politicians with an A+ or an A from the NRA.

The Walton family, collectively worth $115 billion, has more wealth than the bottom 42% of Americans combined. At the same time, despite more than $16 billion in annual profits and executives making 1,000 times more than the average Walmart employee, a new report released by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce found that the costs to taxpayers at just one Walmart store as a result of Walmart’s inadequate wages and benefits is about $1 million.

Tuesday’s report was issued by Making Change at Walmart, a growing coalition challenging Walmart to help rebuild our economy and strengthen working families, and comes as a growing number of associates and supporters nationwide are calling for the company to end retaliation against employees and for the company to publicly commit to providing full-time work with a minimum salary of $25,000 a year so workers don’t have to rely on tax-payer funded programs to support their families.

 ###

UFCW and OUR Walmart have the purpose of helping Wal-Mart employees as individuals or groups in their dealings with Wal-Mart over labor rights and standards and their efforts to have Wal-Mart publically commit to adhering to labor rights and standards. UFCW and OUR Walmart have no intent to have Walmart recognize or bargain with UFCW or OUR Walmart as the representative of Walmart employees.

 

June 18, 2013

Member Spotlight: UFCW Steward Takes On Target

The following is the story of Angela, a former Zellers employee, who is now taking action in order to get Target to act responsibly and give better treatment to the Zellers workers in which the company displaced:

Former Zeller's worker Angela Rankine

Former Zellers worker Angela Rankine

My name is Angela Rankine, and for thirteen years, I worked at Zellers in Toronto. But when Target took over the store leases two years ago, I lost my job, along with 25,000 other workers just like me.

When Target came to Canada, they had the opportunity to be a responsible neighbor and help build up our communities. Instead, Target chose to build at the expense of the community.

Target could have chosen to let us keep our jobs. Instead, the company has made workers, with over a decade of experience serving the community, re-apply for entry-level jobs. Those workers who did manage to get their jobs back have lost the pay and benefits that they earned over years of service.

Everybody knows about Walmart’s poor track record of disregarding their workers’ rights. But when it comes to Target’s record on workers’ rights in Canada, the company fares way worse than Walmart, and that’s a pretty scary situation.

Last week, I traveled to Denver, Colorado to ask Target executives to rehire Zellers workers. With the support of Denver-area union members and community allies, I spoke out at Target’s annual shareholders’ meeting. Over one hundred supporters cheered me on as our allies and I walked into the meeting.

I know that we still have a long fight ahead before we will get our jobs back, but I also know that we’re not fighting alone. My union brothers and sisters had my back in Denver, and together, we will keep on fighting.

June 14, 2013

Local 400 Safeway Members Welcome SNAP Challenge Participants

D10781_0518This week, 26 members of Congress have committed to living off of a food stamp budget in order to bring awareness to the House Republican cuts to the  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Already, the SNAP program denies eligibility to 50 million “food insecure households”.  But now, proposed changes to the Farm Bill would strip access to the program from an additional 2 million families.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and the other congress members participating in the SNAP challenge are addressing this alarming issue by attempting to live off of less than $4.50 a day.

On Wednesday, the challenge participants stopped at a Washington D.C. Safeway, where Local 400 members work, to buy a week’s worth of groceries for about $30.  In order to keep to the strict budget of the food stamp program, staples like milk and butter were out of the question.  Representative Lee described the difficulty of the trip in an online blog:

“What I’m thinking about most during this trip is that I’m shopping only for myself.  When I was a young, single mother, I was on public assistance. It was a bridge over troubled water, and without it, I wouldn’t be where I am today. I spent hours debating what to buy and what to skip, all the while keeping my sons in my mind.”

The proposed changes to the Farm bill will send many single parents who are in this position, into a state of utter uncertainty about how to provide food for their families.  A large portion of those affected by the cuts will be under the age of 18.

This is not the first time officials have tried the SNAP challenge, however. Newark’s mayor, Cory Booker did so earlier this year, and Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton found that adhering to the food stamp budget left him feeling tired, and eventually “unable to focus”.  Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) admitted that if this was how he had to live, he would likely be a more unpleasant person, due to his state of hunger. He also lost six pounds in just four days.

The conservatives who claim food stamp programs create dependency on government don’t know what its like to go hungry. Some may joke about those who must rely on government programs, but the reality is that many hard-working people cannot make ends meet without them.

UFCW Local 400 President Mark Federici made a statement following the group’s visit to Safeway this week, commending the challenge participants:

Year in and year out, the SNAP/Food Stamp program proves itself an unqualified success in reducing hunger, alleviating poverty and stimulating the economy. That’s why we are deeply dismayed that the Senate version of the Farm Bill re-authorization cuts SNAP benefits for approximately 500,000 households, and outraged that the House version of the legislation would completely eliminate benefits for two million low-income families. This would be bad enough under any circumstances, but it’s even worse coming at a time when far too many Americans are unemployed and our economic recovery is still shaky.

“The SNAP/Food Stamp Challenge is a critical way for elected officials and other leaders to experience first-hand how hard it is to feed a family on a SNAP budget, and to understand why benefits should be increased, rather than cut. We applaud all the members of Congress who are joining the challenge this week, and we are especially proud that they chose to purchase their groceries at a union shop. They understand that shopping union gets you the most value for your grocery dollar and the best customer service in the industry.

“Local 400 is privileged to join with these members of Congress in educating the public about the persistence of hunger in America and urging lawmakers to restore full funding to the SNAP/Food Stamp program in the Farm Bill.

“We also remind policy makers that the best way to reduce SNAP expenditures is to shop union, and to restore to workers their right to choose collective bargaining. The rise of low-wage employers like Walmart is a big reason why the SNAP program has grown in recent years, because the workers earn so little, they need Food Stamps to feed their families. By contrast, the more workers with union contracts, the fewer workers will need SNAP or any other type of federal assistance. That’s a win-win solution for everybody, because it lowers poverty, eases hunger, bolsters the economy, and improves government balance sheets.

June 12, 2013

UFCW Local 400 Safeway Members Welcome SNAP Challenge Participants

9076958992_dc97a1010b_oThis week, 26 Members of Congress committed to live off of a food stamp budget in order to bring awareness to  House Republican cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Already, the SNAP program denies eligibility to 50 million “food insecure households”. But now, proposed changes to the Farm Bill would strip access to the program from an additional 2 million families.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and the other Member of Congress participating in the SNAP challenge are addressing this alarming issue by attempting to live off of less than $4.50 a day.

Today the challenge participants stopped at a Washington D.C. Safeway, where Local 400 members work, to buy a week’s worth of groceries for about $30. In order to keep to the strict budget of the food stamp program, staples like milk and butter were out of the question. Representative Lee described the difficulty of the trip in a blog post:

“What I’m thinking about most during this trip is that I’m shopping only for myself. When I was a young, single mother, I was on public assistance. It was a bridge over troubled water, and without it, I wouldn’t be where I am today. I spent hours debating what to buy and what to skip, all the while keeping my sons in my mind.”

The proposed changes to the Farm Bill will send many single parents who are in this position, into a state of utter uncertainty about how to provide food for their families. A large portion of those affected by the cuts will be under the age of 18.

This is not the first time officials have tried the SNAP challenge, however. Newark Mayor Cory Booker did so earlier this year, and Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton found that adhering to the food stamp budget left him feeling tired, and eventually “unable to focus”. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) admitted that if this was how he had to live, he would likely be a more unpleasant person, due to his state of hunger. He also lost six pounds in just four days.

The conservatives who claim food stamp programs create dependency on government don’t know what its like to go hungry. Some may joke about those who must rely on government programs, but the reality is that many hard-working people cannot make ends meet without them.

UFCW Local 400 President Mark Federici made a statement following the group’s visit to Safeway this week, commending the challenge participants:

Year in and year out, the SNAP/Food Stamp program proves itself an unqualified success in reducing hunger, alleviating poverty and stimulating the economy. That’s why we are deeply dismayed that the Senate version of the Farm Bill re-authorization cuts SNAP benefits for approximately 500,000 households, and outraged that the House version of the legislation would completely eliminate benefits for two million low-income families. This would be bad enough under any circumstances, but it’s even worse coming at a time when far too many Americans are unemployed and our economic recovery is still shaky.

“The SNAP/Food Stamp Challenge is a critical way for elected officials and other leaders to experience first-hand how hard it is to feed a family on a SNAP budget, and to understand why benefits should be increased, rather than cut. We applaud all the members of Congress who are joining the challenge this week, and we are especially proud that they chose to purchase their groceries at a union shop. They understand that shopping union gets you the most value for your grocery dollar and the best customer service in the industry.

“Local 400 is privileged to join with these members of Congress in educating the public about the persistence of hunger in America and urging lawmakers to restore full funding to the SNAP/Food Stamp program in the Farm Bill.

“We also remind policy makers that the best way to reduce SNAP expenditures is to shop union, and to restore to workers their right to choose collective bargaining. The rise of low-wage employers like Walmart is a big reason why the SNAP program has grown in recent years, because the workers earn so little, they need Food Stamps to feed their families. By contrast, the more workers with union contracts, the fewer workers will need SNAP or any other type of federal assistance. That’s a win-win solution for everybody, because it lowers poverty, eases hunger, bolsters the economy, and improves government balance sheets.

June 12, 2013

Support Union Dads This Father’s Day and Buy Union!

Father’s Day is right around the corner, and you know that means–a great opportunity to support your union! Check out the list of gift ideas, provided by the AFL-CIO.

Among the UFCW-made products dads may enjoy are:

-Jim Beam

-Knob Creek Whiskey

-Naturalizer, Red Wing, and any shoes sold at the Union Boot Pro!

-Old Spice products

-Pierre Cardin cologne

-Omaha Steaks

Carhartt clothing

You can get even more ideas here, and on our Pinterest page!

 

 

 

June 12, 2013

New York City Thrift Store Workers Vote to Join RWDSU/UFCW

Unique Thrift store workers in New York City voted to join the RWDSU for better wages and working conditions.

Unique Thrift store workers in New York City voted to join the RWDSU for better wages and working conditions.

This week, workers at Unique Thrift in the Bronx, New York, voted to join the RWDSU/UFCW. All 64 workers at the Bronx store will be part of the bargaining unit. The workers who sort through the donated goods and staff the Unique Thrift stores in the Bronx, and other parts of New York and New Jersey are speaking out about their working conditions. Workers are paid low wages, receive no paid sick days or vacations, are verbally abused by managers and are often hurt on the job.

“As a single mom living in New York City, it is extremely difficult to survive off $7.50 an hour,” said Joanna Carrillo, Unique Thrift employee. “I was proud to vote yes to join the RWDSU because we deserve respect, better wages, and basic benefits such as health care and paid time off.”

Unique Thrift is a for profit thrift store which contracts with the Lupus Foundation. The company solicits donations in the name of the Lupus Foundation, sells the clothes for profit and sends the charity a comparatively small contribution.

June 10, 2013

Summer of Uncertainty for NLRB

NLRB-rulings“For the first time in (its) history there is a possibility of no board.” Those words were spoken last week by Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, the top prosecutor and investigator at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

President Obama has nominated five well-qualified candidates to the NLRB and Senate Republicans are threatening a filibuster to prevent any of the candidates from being confirmed.

 

To put it plainly, a sizeable group of Senate Republicans are actively attempting to shut down the NLRB.

How did we get here?

Over 75 years ago, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), guaranteeing American workers the right to form and join a union so that they may bargain for a better life. The law provides essential protections for both union and non-union workers. It gives workers the right to stick together and speak up for fair wages, good benefits, and safe working conditions. These rights ensure that people who do the real work in this country see the benefits when our economy grows.

The NLRB is the guardian of these rights. Workers themselves cannot enforce the NLRA – the NLRB is the only place workers can go if they have been treated unfairly and denied basic protections that the law provides.

Over the past decade, the Board has secured reinstatement for 22,544 employees who were unfairly fired and recovered more than $1 billion on behalf of workers whose rights were violated. They’ve also helped numerous businesses resolve disputes efficiently.

In that same decade, the Board has never once had a full slate of five Senate-confirmed members.

In 2011, when the NLRB needed new Board members to satisfy its quorum requirements (three of five spots must be filled), numerous Senate Republicans announced their intention to block any nomination to the NLRB, effectively causing the NLRB to cease functioning. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina summed up the intent of this obstruction saying, “The NLRB as inoperable could be considered progress.”

President Obama had no choice but to make recess appointments to the NLRB in January 2012. These recess appointments ensured that the NLRB would continue functioning, but have spent the year under a shadow of legal scrutiny.

This summer, the NLRB will once again face the very real threat of losing its quorum. NLRB member and Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce’s term will expire in August – crippling the board’s ability to decide hundreds of cases that come before it each year.

It’s time for the uncertainty surrounding the NLRB to end. Filibustering to prevent the NLRB from having a full quorum and being able to function has real consequences for real people.

The NLRB is simply doing its job. It’s time for the Senate to rise above petty politics and do its job of having an up or down vote on President Obama’s NLRB nominees.

June 5, 2013

Huffington Post: Poultry Worker Study Finds Alarming Rate Of Carpal Tunnel As USDA Considers Line Speedup

Poultry Worker Postcard to Vilsack_Page_1WASHINGTON — A recent government study of workers at a poultry plant in South Carolina determined that four out of 10 showed signs of the painful hand-and-arm condition known as carpal tunnel syndrome, a finding that raises fresh concerns about a federal proposal that would allow plants to speed up their slaughtering lines.

Poultry processing work is full of repetitive motion, and numerous reports have documented the job’s health and safety hazards over the years. The recent study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) examined just one plant, but workplace health experts say it offers one of the most granular looks at how the job takes a toll on line workers — and how faster line speeds, currently being considered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, could possibly make things worse.

“This gives you a snapshot of what goes on in one plant,” said Celeste Monforton, a public health expert at George Washington University. “It’s done and it shows damning results. … I don’t know how USDA will dismiss what’s in this.”

NIOSH experts visited the plant twice last year, examining workers who eviscerate, debone and cut chickens to prepare them for sale, according to the report. They interviewed the workers about hand and arm pain and performed nerve conduction tests on them. Forty-two percent had indications of carpal tunnel, and a majority of workers reported “multiple musculoskeletal symptoms,” most commonly hand and wrist pain.

Read the report below.

Out of 318 participants at the plant, 213 “reported pain, burning, numbness or tingling in their hands or wrists in the past 12 months.” Furthermore, two-thirds of those 213 workers reported “awakening from sleep because of these symptoms.”

Despite those findings, public health and labor advocates say these workers may soon see their workloads increase.

Last year, the USDA put forth a proposal to overhaul the poultry inspection process. The change would pull many government inspectors off the slaughtering line where they visually inspect birds, moving resources instead toward the detection of bacteria and other invisible dangers. The rule change would thereby allow poultry plants to speed up their slaughtering lines, delivering savings to poultry companies.

Backers have pitched the proposal as a cost-saver for both government and industry. Critics, however, have called it a giveaway to the poultry business that could have unintended consequences.

Many occupational health experts have objected to the proposal, saying line speeds already move too fast for workers like those in the South Carolina plant that NIOSH visited. USDA officials have told stakeholders privately that the change wouldn’t impact line workers, drawing a distinction between the slaughtering process, where the speedup would occur, and the processing line, where most workers toil.

But critics like Tony Corbo, a lobbyist at the watchdog group Food & Water Watch, say that if chickens are being slaughtered at a faster rate, then it stands to reason they will be processed at a faster rate as well. Corbo told HuffPost he’s skeptical that poultry plants, well-known for their tight controls on labor costs, will be eager to add more workers to the lines to account for a slaughtering speedup. Many plant employees already work essentially shoulder-to-shoulder, he noted.

“If you’re speeding up the lines, guess what — it’s going to impact the speed at which those workers are chopping up the chickens,” Corbo said. “Unless they establish new lines in the factories, those workers are going to be working faster and faster.

“Remember Lucy in the candy factory?” he added.

Poultry line workers are among some of the most vulnerable laborers in the U.S. The polyglot workforces often include immigrants from Latin American and African countries, who generally work for low pay on demanding production schedules. Class-action lawsuits have become common in the industry, with workers claiming they’re shorted on their wages or required to work off the clock.

The NIOSH study was done at the request of the Agriculture Department, and the South Carolina plant was required to undergo the evaluation in order to secure a waiver under the current line-speed rules. A NIOSH spokeswoman said experts will evaluate the workers again after the speedup to determine what, if any, the health effects have been. Those results will be shared with the USDA as well.

An Agriculture Department spokeswoman said the agency “welcomes NIOSH’s work” and is reviewing the study’s findings.

“This data is preliminary,” she said in an email. “We look forward to the full results of NIOSH’s research and to working with them further on this issue.”

The agency wouldn’t be required to alter or scrap the speed-up proposal based on any health findings, and it isn’t clear what bearing NIOSH’s studies will have on the final rule. As Monforton and others noted, the White House and the USDA appear committed to moving forward with the rule.

The president’s most recent budget proposal assumes the rule will go into effect — an assumption that the left-leaning Center for Progressive Reform calls a “rebuke” to concerned parties.

“The President’s budget suggests that most of these concerns, raised by a broad coalition of the public interest community, have been ignored in a headlong rush to finalize a rule that officials believe will save a few million dollars,” the group wrote. “Yet, some hope remains that the rule is not written in stone.”

Read the NIOSH report here.