The largest private employer in the United States, Walmart, has announced plans to increase the minimum wage of its employees to $10.00/hour.
This announcement is an interesting one, as far as the law is concerned. First, Walmart challenged the certification of a class-action lawsuit by all current and former female employees in front of the United States Supreme Court in 2011. The lawsuit alleged discrimination based on gender bias on behalf of all women, alleging that the hiring and firing practices were systemically discriminatory. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the class had far too varying individual claims to be a class action, and required each aggrieved woman to file their own, separate, lawsuit for discrimination.
Then, last year, there were Black Friday protests at Walmart locations across the country, demanding a $15.00/hour minimum wage, as well as other employee benefits.
The backdrop for these demands was and is Walmart’s longstanding opposition to the unionization of its workforce. As early as 2005, Walmart was accused of intimidating workers from joining a union by firing organizers. Documented surveillance and anti-union tactics have been covered by the Documentary: The High Cost of Low Price. See Here:
Renewed vigilance in strikes and organizing of Walmart employees last year, coupled with serious public criticism of Walmart’s treatment of its employees, generally, all paint a landscape of analyzing Walmart’s commitment to a wage increase.
I recommend checking out the Supreme Court case of Labor Board v. Exchange Parts. In Exchange Parts, immediately prior to a union representation vote, the CEO of the company offered his employees a “floating holiday” on Boxing Day (for my American readers, that’s the day after Christmas) and a “floating holiday” the following year that the employees could elect to have fall on their own birthdays.
The Supreme Court said that this was an unfair labor practice, in part because it’s the conference of a benefit of a term or condition of employment in the face of a pending vote on a union representative. The Court, in its eloquence described this action as a “fist inside the velvet glove.” Noting that, once the employees voted not to organize, the conference of the benefit of a floating holiday could just as easily be taken away.
What’s important to note is that there is no currently pending vote to organize Walmart employees, so Exchange Parts doesn’t prohibit Walmart from proposing a modification to its pay structure. It does, however, still hold the same criticism, philosophically. While I am one to celebrate an employer respecting the value of his employees’ time more, I wonder if this is a “fist inside the velvet glove”: a conference of a benefit designed to subdue frustrations about the terms and conditions of employment so as to avoid further efforts to unionize, with no real intention of doing anything better for the workers.
That said, one can only be a skeptic for so long. Criticism aside, if Walmart stays true to its word, it’s good to see an employer offer a fair wage for a full-day’s work.
Follow me at @DavidTDorer, listen to the David Dorer Show live every Friday (Available on iTunes and on Stitcher). Also, make sure to check out Talking Law with David Dorer every Wednesday. (Available oniTunes and on Stitcher).