I know what you're thinking, "Of course, they do!!!," but seriously it doesn't take much digging to prove this point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The National Labor Relations Board hearing related to the failed election in the Loveland, Colorado Tire and Lube department occurred a few days ago. The one pro-union employee, Josh Noble, was the United Food and Commercial Workers union's only witness. According to The Denver Channel:
Noble, one of 18 workers in the Tire & Lube Express to vote, said another employee called him a troublemaker, said Noble was ruining his life because of the unionization effort and threatened to beat him during a heated confrontation at the store several days before the Feb. 25 vote.
This issue is taken up again later in the piece:
Noble said after he complained about the confrontation with his co-worker, store managers investigated and told him they took unspecified disciplinary action. He said during a break in the hearing that he believes the other worker wasn't disciplined and had threatened him to gain favor with managers who didn't want the union to succeed.
"The fact that he was not fired is evidence they'll allow workplace violence as long as it keeps third-party representation out," Noble said.
In questioning by [the union's attorney], the store's co-manager, Karisa Porter, said her investigation into the confrontation between Noble and the other worker was handled like any other investigation into complaints of employee misconduct. She said when any worker is disciplined, the worker who filed the complaint is told only that there was discipline, not the nature of the action.
During the hearing, Porter said the worker was given a verbal reprimand for using profanity.
Compare the treatment of Noble's potential assailant to the way two other potential union organizers were handled. This is from johne's excellent interview with Ryszard Tomtas (who worked for Wal-Mart across town from Noble), posted here at Kos:
[Q.] It has been reported that you were fired for violating the workplace violence policy. Is this true? Explain.
A. On February 2005 the entire situation came to a flash point. I feel certain that it was a deliberate provocation. Two associates were waiting for me. There were no other witnesses. As I exited the lunchroom one told me that I smell very bad. I was in a very good mood and I made a move like a guarding boxer. This is exactly what he did to me on a number of occasions when he was in good mood. We both were smiling. They apparently said I kicked one on them, which I never did.
Likewise, in the first episode of highlights from Wal-Mart's NLRB case file that I ever covered in this diary, potential union advocate and North Carolina Wal-Mart employee Ken Stanhope was fired for getting angry at a co-worker and using profanity, even the though the administrative law judge who reviewed the case found countless contradictions in that co-worker's testimony.
In short, any fairminded observor can conclude that Wal-Mart sides with any worker who sides against potential organizers, even if they've violated labor law.
Why can't the National Labor Relations Board come to this simple conclusion? Oh yeah, the majority were appointed by the Bush administration and don't care about the law.
JR