The Citigroup analyst, Debora Weinswig, said Employee Free Choice (EFCA) "could be a significant drag to earnings."

She ought to know, right?

The stock market is up big today, nearly 5%. I assume this means investors want EFCA to pass.

It's is a long shot, but maybe these financial analysts at these major institutions might not be as smart as they want us to think they are.

I don't know too much about the EFCA legislation, but is the "card check" portion of it critical or even helpful? From what I understand, this legislation is so much more than that. Why not drop the "card check" provisions and get the legislation passed in the Senate without it?

Again, I'm pretty uninformed on this legislation, so I can persuaded either way.

Greedy bad "boys" playing hard-ball to protect their selfish interests. Why does this surprise anyone?

...hurt [Wal-Mart's] competitiveness...

Good. As the number one enemy of niche retailers everywhere and the number one importer of low quality products driving down quality everywhere in the name of greedy consumerism, they could stand to have their dominance knocked down a peg. Wal-Mart is, quite simply, everything that is wrong with America in one gigantic package.

No one needs to be that big. I think a lot of things that would be bad for Wal-Mart would be good for the country and the world as a whole. We should begin implementing them immediately.

glad that it's being publicly acknowledged that our betters believe that walmart's profits are more important than a living wage and healthcare for Americans.

"There is another war being fought in America today, a secret war that has devastated the economic world and wrought even more destruction to the American social world. This is the undeclared but ongoing war between American business entities and any kind of organized labor (Unions). It is a war in which business has taken defacto control of the White House, by successfully plotting the rigged presidential elections in 2000.

The roots of this war can be found in the militancy of the American labor movement back in the late 1960s and early 1970s when a series of wildcat strikes did great damage to the corporate system and threatened to unleash more strikes from far stronger unions in the future. Business regrouped and managed to elect presidents, like Ronald Reagan, a former labor leader himself who, for money, influence and perks formed a strong anti-union movement in the higher reaches of the American government.

Aside from a flood of governmental orders and court assisted anti labor rulings, the most potent weapon in the business arsenal was the concept of out-sourcing American jobs to much safer foreign countries, countries that did not have labor unions in any form. Factories were emptied of American workers and the work was parceled out to foreign countries like China, India and Indonesia. But by shipping an enormous number of jobs to safer, and cheaper, foreign labor markets, business created an enormous vacuum in American society. Youths, straight from high school no longer could get well-paying jobs in American industry because most of these jobs, with attendant union membership, were now outside the United States. None of this outsourcing was an accident and although the Republicans occasionally were here to bemoan the loss of jobs, they never made any effort to prevent the flow of jobs away from this country. Bush and his people were squarely in the pockets of both militant Israeli and wealthy American business power groups and one of them shouted “squat�, George Bush ran into the corner of the Oval Office and squatted like a toad. Another part of this warfare was to tacitly allow an enormous number of Mexicans to pour, unhindered, into this country where they could be used as cheap, unreported and untaxed labor. Occasional raids were permitted but the millions of cheap and, most important, non-union, workers ensured that the day of the American labor union as an economic and political force was over, at least during the terms of Republican presidents.

Bush and his far-right thugs may be gone but the anti-labor policies and practices remain. Unless and until they are stopped and, more important, reversed, the economic picture in America will be bleak and wintry indeed. Businesses who have emptied their workplaces and stuffed their pockets should be heavily taxed along with all of those American businesses who have moved to foreign countries to reduce their taxes. They seem interested only in enriching themselves at the expense of the American people and if this policy of greed and secret control is not stopped abruptly, there can only be more economic and social destruction!"

tbrnews.org, Source: Bradley Moscrip
www.b.moscrip@yahoo.com

Well, EFCA could be a significant drag on earnings for Walmart if they continue the kinds of unlawful anti-union behavior that's been reported in the past. But there's a fairly simple remedy for that, and it's called management taking seriously its fiduciary duty to shareholders to obey the law.

And yeah, until they upgrade everyone else they're blowing smoke.

(There's also another possibility here, which is that Citi research has found some other set of disasters lurking in Walmart's balance sheet, and is using EFCA as cover.)

If the Republicans filibuster this bill, it would be the perfect time to abolish the filibuster

It's time for the 'nuclear option'

I'm curious to see which Democrats vote against the EFCA..... Nelson ? Bayh ?
Who are the 'Corporate Democrats' ?

I find it troubling that supporters of EFCA are being asked to consider what portions they can settle for, while opponents can just get away with repeated mindless, incendiary and reactionary "no's"

It suggests that the Chamber of Commerce (that bastion of compassion for workers) is driving the debate.

The next time you are in Walmart , ask an employee what its like to work there and if they are treated fairly by management.Ask them if they have a second job to make ends meet. I don't think there will be any suprises in the responses.

If the last year taught us anything, it is to not take seriously those that rate stocks and bonds.

Citigroup?!!!!

Not that I shop at Walmart, because of their employee policies, but given a choice as to which has provided more value to the American public Walmart wins.

hmmm, perhaps the White House should buy, maybe, another 20% of Citibank stocks, fire the managers and executives, and reclassify Wal Mart stock.

The roots of this war can be found in the militancy of the American labor movement back in the late 1960s and early 1970s when a series of wildcat strikes did great damage to the corporate system and threatened to unleash more strikes from far stronger unions in the future.

Did I miss some sort of heyday, back before the 60s & 70s, when big business was perfectly amenable to the idea in improving working conditions, raising wages, and ensuring that workers got a fair chance to organize if they so desired? And this land of milk & honey was suddenly shot to hell by labor's militancy? You must be on crack.

Regarding a more rational comment, I have to say I don't understand Ezra's reference to this as "legislation that few expect to pass." This is a close one, and both sides are counting noses very, very carefully. Scare tactics, like this thinly veiled tantrum by Citi, may decrease the bill's chances, but I think it's more than a little pessimistic to say that few expect this to pass.

If we're going to have free trade and globaloney, then some thought should be given to global wage competition instead of a nostalgic trip down memory lane when unions had some relevance.

This is a bad law. I wonder if all those people in Congress would be in favor of abolishing the secret ballot? That's one of the provisions of EFCA.

That said, the argument on both sides of this law is full of paranoid ramblings. It's like watching ads in a state that has Right to Work on the ballot: all the ads say the same thing - we'll lose jobs, wages will go down, corporate profits will go up at the expense of the working man/woman. It's only at the end of the ad that the viewer can determine its stance. Ads for EFCA are the same.

EFCA is nothing more than an attempt by labor unions to drive membership, which is now at its lowest point since the 30's. The opponents sound like unrepentant Bushies. Is there not some middle ground that everyone can agree on?

We could make it easier for companies to raise wages and not lose much profit anyway by instituting "superdeduction" for employee wage costs. That means, multiply the amount paid (but only up to say $1M per person) by 1.2X, take other expenses out, and count the remainder as "taxable income."

tyrannogenius

Frm what I read, Speaker Pelosi has decided not to move on this bill until it passes the Senate; that way, she spares Democratic congressmen from conservative districts from having to cast a difficult vote.

What I don't understand is this: if the problem with the current law is that it lacks mechanisms to prevent employers from punishing (e.g. by firing) employees who want to form unions or otherwise intimidating employees from voting for a union, why not fix that, rather than get rid of secret ballots?

One of the complaints I've read is about employers telling (or "threatening") employees that their plant will close it it's unionized. It seems to me that whether this is abusive or not depends on whether or not it's true. If the employer is lying about his intentions, then that should be illegal. Otherwise, I don't see how preventing him from communicating the true risks to employees benefits those employees.