What? You Want a Living Wage?

The fat cats at Wal*Mart are shaking in their booties at the prospect (probably unfounded) that the election of Senator Arrogant Obama to the presidency may lead to easier unionization of Wal*Mart's wage-slaves.

About a dozen employees who attended meetings in seven states said executives argued employees would have to pay hefty union dues and get nothing in return, and might have to go on strike without compensation. They also warned that unionization could force the company to cut jobs as labor costs rise, the Journal reported.

Or, better working conditions & higher pay. Um, no, because Wal*Mart management would rather die from choking on its own vomit than cut its pay or "return to stockholders" in exchange for living wages, health care, paid overtime or whatever for the "associates." (What a repugnant, condescending term for people who are paid hourly, & as little as possible. Another laugher is "team member." Please!)

"If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval," David Tovar, the Wal-Mart spokesman, told the Journal.

Wal-Mart Watch, a union-backed group that often takes issue with labor practices at the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer, argued that the meetings were just the latest example of bad behavior toward employees.

"Today's Wall Street Journal story demonstrates once again that Wal-Mart intimidates its workers," Executive Director David Nassar said in an e-mailed statement.

The Journal, citing figures from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive politics, said that 12 years ago, 98 percent of Wal-Mart's political donations went to Republicans. Now, with Democrats appearing poised to gain more clout in Washington, the Journal said the 48 percent of its $2.2 million in political contributions go to Democrats and 52 percent to Republicans.

Ah, the tide turns, & so does Wal*Mart. There oughta be a law. Or a purge.