When the subject is Hillary Clinton, the discussion occasionally turns to my chosen expertise, Wal-Mart. It certainly does in this article in the Las Vegas Review Journal:
Clinton once worked for the retail giant, whose labor practices are reviled in union circles. Serving on Wal-Mart's board in Arkansas, she apparently never voiced objection to the company's union-busting tactics and anti-union philosophy.
Today, she has distanced herself from Wal-Mart and remade herself as an ardently pro-labor politician.
Clinton's campaign views her failure to advocate for labor back then, which it has not disputed, as ancient history. She left the board in 1992 when her husband was running for president.
The campaign believes Clinton's current positions, not her past, are what counts.
OK, let's look at her position on Wal-Mart today:
"Senator Clinton believes strongly that Wal-Mart's workers should be able to unionize and bargain collectively, and that the corporation should provide health insurance coverage to its employees," campaign spokeswoman Hilarie Grey said.
That's lovely. So does Wal-Mart.
This is from the Wal-Mart corporate web site:
It’s all about taking care of our people. If we do that and do what is right for our communities, we will be fine. We will continue to foster an environment of open communications and encourage our associates to express their ideas, comments and concerns. We are not against unions. They may be right for some companies but there is simply no need for a third party to come between our associates and their managers.
In short, Wal-Mart's position on unions is not that its workers have no right to join such an organization, but that they have that right and simply choose not to exercise it since their employer takes care of them so well. Wal-Mart mentions nothing about the anti-union goon squad or the National Labor Relations Act violations. Neither does Hillary, because she doesn't care. In fact, while I might have used more measured language, I basically agree with NixGuy, writing in the AOL politics blog, the Stump:
Hillary's not concerned about Unions. She's concerned about Hillary and always has been. When it was to her advantage to make nice with the corporate fascists of Wally-world, she did. And now it's to her advantage to be labor's best friend, and so she is.
A better indicator of Hillary Clinton's continued alignment with Wal-Mart's interests is the second half of that News-Journal quote:
"the corporation should provide health insurance coverage to its employees."
I hate to be the one to have to break it to the Clinton campaign, but Wal-Mart does provide healthcare coverage to its employees. The problem is that it's so bad and so expensive that a huge percentage of its workers choose to get coverage elsewhere, often relying on Medicaid. [Check out Wake-Up Wal-Mart for the details here.]
Here in particular, the contrast between her and the guy I'll be voting for, John Edwards, is immense. Here's Edwards from August 2006:
"We want every single consumer in America, every person in America, to know that if they walk into a Wal-Mart, that first of all their tax dollars are subsidizing Wal-Mart employees. Their tax dollars are helping provide health care for Wal-Mart employees, because Wal-Mart's not doing it. Their tax dollars are going to provide housing and food stamps for Wal-Mart employees," Mr. Edwards told a crowd of 400 at Hill House. "What is wrong with this picture?"
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I'll certainly vote for her in November. She's definitely vastly superior to any Republican, but I'm sick of compromises and triangulation. I want a nominee who's willing to stand up to companies like Wal-Mart rather than parrot their rhetoric. If that's ever going to happen, 2008 is probably our best chance.
JR
