“When I have to do talk shows, I have to treat it like some sort of weird performance art or else I can’t deal with it because that situation is so unnatural for me. It goes against every instinct in my body. I think people mistake my silences and my awkwardness for some kind of control. But the first interview I ever did for [Jay] Leno, I almost passed out in the middle of it. There is a moment you can see where I totally check out. I start looking at the floor for about five seconds and then I say something which got a really big laugh, but I remember in my head just thinking, ‘I’m going to pass out, I’m going to pass out.’”
The National Labor Relations Board, an independent federal agency tasked with policing bad behavior by employers, is targeting Wal-Mart Stores Inc. over the retail behemoth’s alleged crackdown on its protesting workers.
The complaint, the largest ever against Walmart, refers to charges made in November 2012 during the Black Friday actions by associates speaking out for respect on the job, regular hours and a living wage of $25,000 a year. The complaint alleges Walmart illegally fired and disciplined nearly 70 workers in 34 stores in 14 states for rallying over workplace conditions.
The rallies spread to 100 cities. Nineteen employees were discharged from the company, allegedly as a reprimand for their involvement in the rallies, according to the NLRB.
Wal-Mart is accused of warning its employees of punishment in two news broadcasts televised nationally as well as in statements to Texas and California store employees.
The agency, echoing its November findings, also said that the retailer preemptively threatened, surveilled or lashed out at employees before expected labor activities in California, Florida, Missouri and Texas.
The case is set to go before an administrative law judge on an undetermined hearing date. Wal-Mart has until Jan. 28 to respond.
Making Change at Walmart reported in a press release:
If Walmart is found liable, workers could be awarded back pay, reinstatement and the reversal of disciplinary actions through the decision; and Walmart could be required to inform and educate all employees of their legally protected rights. While historic, the complaint alone is not enough to stop Walmart from violating the law. Since the start of the year, Walmart has continued to retaliate against workers who speak out for better jobs.
In other news, the Internet group Anonymous leaked a set of Walmart PowerPoints (bottom photos) for managers that included ways to discourage workers from joining a union and how to identify “early warning signs.”
Kory Lundberg, a Walmart spokesman, confirmed the documents are Walmart’s and said they’ve been around for a while.
The PowerPoints also detailed legal ways an employer could discourage workers from organizing (click photo’s for caption).
When I came in for orientation at Walmart, our instructor told us that we would be watching a video on “protecting our signature.” I thought it would be something regarding identity theft. Rather, the whole video was anti-union propaganda. This was the first thing they showed us. Before any job training, company policy, or the like, we were told how evil unions were.
At least two other bloggers (cravingsolace & lemonthyme) have reblogged this post claiming that the Wal-Mart’s they were hired at showed the same anti-union video or were told that “any talk of unions or especially trying to form a union was grounds for termination.”
If you currently work at Wal-Mart and you feel that your right’s as a worker has been violated or that the anti-union campaign has discouraged you from organizing labor activities or forming a union, consider making a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and contact Our Walmart for legal advice and support.
To All Workers:
Learn your rights as an employee, including protected labor activities (which expand to non-unionized workers as well).
our makeup and heels will not make men fear us. they don’t care if it feels empowering, they will still objectify it. i love dresses and makeup but weaponized femininity is a joke.
This was actually said by a prominent member of the Men’s rights community on Reddit who then proceeded to get 24(!) upvotes:
Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn’t assault her, didn’t touch her… all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public.
How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him?
This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men’s freedom.
Now that’s what I call a real men’s rights issue. Could you expect anything less from a hate group?
Screencap (and more info) over at the always excellent Man Boobz.
Mens Rights Activism: hard at work defending sexual harassment.
How much time have you spent talking to some cishet dude when you didn’t want to just because you’re scared of what his reaction would be if you declined?
…and that’s what it means to be socialized into fear and constant male accommodation as a means of survival