Big (Box) Brother

It reads like a cold war thriller: The spy follows the suspects through several countries, ending up in Guatemala City, where he takes a room across the hall from his quarry. Finally, after four days of surveillance, including some patient ear-to-the-keyhole work, he is able to report back to headquarters that he has the goods on them. They’re guilty!

But this isn’t a John Le Carré novel, and the powerful institution pulling the strings wasn’t the USSR or the CIA. It was Wal-Mart, and the two suspects weren’t carrying plans for a shoulder-launched H-bomb. Their crime was “fraternization.” One of them, James W. Lynn, a Wal-Mart factory inspection manager, was traveling with a female subordinate, with whom he allegedly enjoyed some intimate moments behind closed doors. At least the company spy reported hearing “moans and sighs” within the woman’s room.

Now you may wonder why a company so famously cheap that it requires its same-sex teams to share hotel rooms while on the road would invest in international espionage to ferret out mixed-sex fraternizers. Unless, as Lynn argues, they were really after him for what is a far worse crime in Wal-Mart’s books: Openly criticizing the conditions he found in Central American factories supplying Wal-Mart stores.

In fact, the cold war thriller analogy is not entirely fanciful. New York Times reporter Michael Barbaro, who related the story of Wal-Mart’s stalking of Lynn and his colleague, also reports that the company’s security department is staffed by former top officials of the CIA and the FBI. Along the same lines, Jeffrey Goldberg provides a chilling account of his visit to Wal-Mart’s Bentonville “war room” in the April 2nd New Yorker. Although instructed not to write down anything he saw, he found a “dark, threadbare room… its walls painted battleship gray,” where only two out of five of the occupants will even meet his eyes. In general, he found the Bentonville fortress “not unlike the headquarters of the National Security Agency.”

We’ve always known that Wal-Mart is as big, in financial terms, as many sizable nations. It may even have begun to believe that is one, complete with its own laws, security agency, and espionage system. But the illusion of state power is not confined to Wal-Mart. Justin Kenward, who worked at a Target store in Chino CA for three years, wrote to tell me about his six hour interrogation, in 2003, by the store’s “Asset Protection” agents, who accused him of wrongly giving a fellow employee a discount on a video game a year earlier:

After about an hour of trying to tell them that I don’t remember any thing about that day let alone that transaction, I had to use the restroom. I asked if I could and was denied. This goes on for about another hour when I say “Look I have to pee, bad, can I go to the restroom?” Once more I was told no. So I stand up and start walking out the door, and was stopped. At this point I thought to my self “They’re looking to fire me!” So I start to think of ways that transaction might have came to be. I say something like “I would never give a discount unless an L.O.D. (Leader On Duty aka: a manager) or a Team Lead (aka: supervisor) told me to ……” I was interrupted and told that it sounds like I was trying to place my mistake on other people. 3 hours in to this and still needing to pee I was told that I need to write an apologetic letter to the company with the details, every detail, that we just went over and then I could use the rest room…

Kenward not only lost his job, but faced charges of theft.

My efforts to get a comment from Target were unavailing, but I did manage to track down a person who worked in security for the Chino store at the time of Kenward’s detention. Because she still depends on Target for her health insurance, she asked not to be named, but she writes that Kenward’s experience was not unusual:

What I know for a fact is that they took each of the twelve youngsters [Target employees] to their office separately. They locked them in an office without a telephone, would not let them phone their parents or anyone, and kept them there browbeating them for six to ten hours. They never told them they were being arrested...only that Target was disappointed in them and if they would write a letter of apology that they'd dictate they could go and all would be forgotten. None of these children knew their rights...all of them ended up writing the stupid letter. Of course this too was a lie...as soon as they had the letter in end the police were called and that person was hauled off in handcuffs and arrested.

This is the workplace dictatorship at its brass-knuckled best. When companies start imagining that they are nation-states, entitled to spy on, stalk, and imprison their own employees, , then we are well down the road to an actual, full-scale dictatorship.

As for those “moans and sighs” that issued from the hotel room in Guatemala City: Maybe Lynn and his companion were reflecting on the sweatshop conditions they encountered in a Wal-Mart subcontractor’s factory. Or maybe they were aware of the man spying on them, and were mourning the decline of democracy.

Comments

[bpb]

I guess these stores figure if our president can do it, so can they.

[Sharon]

There's a word for what Target is doing: false imprisonment. I hope Mr. Kenward sues their ass.

(I'm very sorry to learn this about Target--since Wal-Mart moved in, Target has been my alternative of choice. Maybe I'll just stop shopping retail, and go to Goodwill and the consignment shops.)

[Charlie Green]

I think he shoulda peed in their chair. Dumbasses.

[Different]

He should of peed on them instead, spat on them too, and then exercise his second amendment rights to beat them to a pulp!

That's what I do when people wrongfully imprison me and play god.

[Tim Worstall]

Given that a manager is in a position of power over his subordinates, isn't it actually a good idea that there are no-fraternization rules? And that companies enforce them?
Or do such feminist thoughts fly out the window when there's an opportunity to bash Wal-Mart?

[Trina Tocco]

Wow this is utterly shocking even though I have for the last year been working to develop campaigns and create change within big box stores. I hear heartbreaking and awful stories from factory workers producing for Wal-Mart and Target and now to think they have gone as far as to think they are above the law in the US is disgusting. How do we as people ever hold these larger than life companies accountable? For those interested, to go laborrights.org for more info on Wal-Mart sweatshops.

[evden eve nakliyat]

very very nice .thanks your informaiton.very nice blog..thanks...

[Anarcissie]

So why don't these people want to join unions?

[Tertullian]

Yes, why exactly is it, Ms. Ehrenreich, that, in your opinion, the average wage employees in big box America resist unionization efforts strongly, or appear to do so? What could be done to change this? Certainly the recent piece of news regarding the appalling decision of Circuit City to 'lay off' thousands of higher-paid wage slaves, only to offer them their old jobs back immediately but at significant pay cuts, seems an action rife with potential for rapid unionization success, right?

[Jennifer]

This is by no means limited to box stores like Target and Wal-Mart.

I recently worked for non-profit health care facility that, due to a loss of state funding, brought in a new CEO to run a tighter ship.

The man was clearly crazy as a loon and a raging control freak from the start. He began by purging all the middle management, forbidding employees to discuss it, and telling us he had bugged the bathrooms, tapped our office phones, and was reading our email.

Most of us figured this probably wasn't true, but there were physicians and advanced degree professionals huddling in dark corners, whispering, like a bunch of schoolyard pals forming a secret clubhouse.

And I'm sad to say this isn't even the only such situation that I've witnessed first-hand.

It's easy to say you'd pee on their chair, kick them in the balls, and threaten to call your lawyer until you realize that a bunch of grown (not to mention highly educated) adults are just as terrified as you are, but they're all smiling and acting like this insanity is perfectly normal.

Not to mention that you know perfectly well you can't afford a lawyer and they know it too.

[chris]

Jennifer, you wrote:

"It's easy to say you'd pee on their chair, kick them in the balls, and threaten to call your lawyer..."

I don't know what it is about urine or the reality of urinating that scares people. But you can be sure that anyone held hostage by corporate security personnel can pee freely either in his/her pants or in the nearest corner of the confinement area. In this situation, you must remember the only person who actually prevents an individual from peeing is the person who needs to pee. It's a self-imposed punishment.

I've encountered it myself on several occasions when I've been told that various public bathrooms are not available for use when my kids have been in dire need. I've found that when the bathroom guards are faced with the choice of letting my kids in the bathroom of having them let loose on the floor, the bathroom is suddenly available.

Kicking someone in the balls ventures into new territory. That's best not done.

Calling a lawyer, however, is the best move after emptying one's bladder. There is a limitless supply of contingency lawyers who will take cases of people abused in these ways by deep-pocketed corporations.

[Anarcissie]

Kenward was afraid of losing his job. For many people, it's not just the practical considerations, it's something like the Stockholm Syndrome.

[Monica]

Once someone is interrogated for theft or fraud, he will lose his job in any case, and his only chance to save it, if it is even possible, is to convince his interrogators that he did not do those things after all. Besides, firing employees is quite easy. There is no need to interrogate them for six hours. If the company is doing it, maybe it wants some extra information, such as who the guilty employees really are, so one should not assume that the company already knows everything and is sure about the employee's guilt (even if it says so and pretends that there is evidence). If, however, the company feels the need to get a legal justification for the firing, of course the employee should not write or sign any "apology" or admit anything. This only makes it worse. And after a year, of course the employee may not remember a particular transaction, or can safely pretend that he doesn't. Also, in case the so-called "statement analysis" technique is used in the interrogation, the employee should make sure he or she says things like "that's impossible" and "I didn't do that" and not say things like "you can't prove I did that". And while that may not seem fair, if it becomes clear who was working during a particular shift when something was stolen, for example, if management say "who did that", the employee should not hesitate to say "since it's not me, it must be John or Sue", or whoever was working on that day. It is assumed that a guilty party will hesitate to accuse others or to be specific. And if asked what penalty a person who stole, or did whatever the employee is accused of, deserves, the employee should not be lenient (for instance, say that the guilty party only deserves to be fired), because "statement analysis" is based on what a guilty party may say, and the guilty party is not likely to want the penalty to be too severe.

In fact, any employee may want to read about that technique before even seeking employment or being accused of anything to increase his or her chances of not falling into this kind of trap.

[Kevin Carson]

"...the employee should not hesitate to say 'since it's not me, it must be John or Sue', or whoever was working on that day."
--Monica

This assumes that something actually was stolen, and that management is neither mistaken nor knowingly trumping up false charges for political reasons.

Assuming that your coworkers are guilty because "if management saysi it happened, it must have happened," and you didn't do it, sounds a bit like Gracie Jane's "He must have been guilty, or the police wouldn't have arrested him." I'd sooner accuse management of being liars and thieves than my coworkers. The biggest acts of theft in most companies are the management featherbedding and self-dealing.

[Jennifer]

Some of you aren't being very realistic here.

Pee on the floor to retaliate against your controlling boss? Oh, give me a break!

Even if one could summon the proper rebellious spirit for it, loss of bladder control is humiliating -- even more humiliating than being interrogated by a boss on a control-trip. Why don't you just flap your arms and fly out the window while you're at it?

And good luck getting an attorney, especially on contingency. Most lawyers aren't interested in litigating workplace spats even for pay, let alone for free.

Such cases don't go anywhere because you have no civil rights in the workplace and your boss can fire you for any reason except telling you to your face that it's because you're a member of a protected class. (Or unless you're protected by a contract which the vast majority of American workers, blue-collar or white, are not.)

I do agree that it's probably best not to sign false statements, but even this area can get pretty grey.

A favored tactic of controlling bosses is to write you up for some crazy or blatantly false infraction or sneak it into your performance evaluation and then tell you that you need to sign it.

"This is no big deal," they tell you with a warm smile. "It's just a reminder. We all have areas where we need improvement."

So do you sign it?

Refusal to sign those things can be grounds for termination and...c'mon...it's just a harmless widdle weminder.

Until it's gets whipped out later to fire, demote, fail to promote, or otherwise inflict professional damage on you.

Kudos to those who can resist the temptation to sign, but let's have some understanding for those who can't.

Stockholm Syndrome? Perhaps. But I think it's something much more insidious: When everyone around you is acting like this is perfectly normal, it's hard not to feel like the only one who's being crazy or unreasonable.

Not to mention that a white-collar job, even under a controlling boss, can have a lot of attractive qualities. And professionals are usually committed to their work for its own sake.

Of course, blue-collar workers also enjoy and take pride in their work, but professionals are more inclined to see their work itself as a mission that can't be abandoned lightly.

Rather than blaming each other for failing to summon the gumption to piss on the floor, why don't we hold the fuckheads at the top responsible for behaving this way in the first place?

[Monica]

I did not say that you must assume that if management says so, the other employees really stole or committed some other wrongdoing. And you don't have to believe either that the interrogation technique I have mentioned is fair or reliable. It's just that the employee should try to give the kind of answer that is expected of an innocent person, and reading on the subject may help.

The kind of answers I have suggested are based on such reading. It's not me who invented them. There are more. For instance, a mother whose child disappeared and was not found yet was suspected of murder because she was talking about her child in the past tense instead of using the present. Or, a husband who won't say "we" about himself and his wife is supposed to show that he is not close to her and may have killed her, whereas a woman who says "we" about herself and the man she is accusing of rape, or an accused criminal who says "we" about himself and the co-accused shows "togetherness". Changing the tense, not saying "I" or talking less about a period of time is supposed to indicate that that's when some wrongdoing may have occurred. So say I, don't change the sentence structure, don't talk less about the time period when something may have happened, and don't say "we" about yourself and possible accomplices.

I'm not saying that an amateur will necessarily beat the system, but maybe, by being aware, the person who is interrogated or accused can avoid this kind of verbal trap that can be used by various consultants, by the police and by some managers who think they know the technique to establish probable cause in a legal sense or just see who seems more suspicious according to the "statement analysis" theory and method. It's not a matter of lying or not lying but a matter of saying things in certain ways that seem suspicious or not. And since there are people who think they can get an indication of guilt just by using such verbal tricks, there is nothing wrong with trying to answer the way an innocent person is supposed to answer.

As for accusing others, the idea is not to volunteer facts or accuse others for no reason. The idea is that if a few other people were working at the same time or otherwise could have done something, each accused person says "It's not me, so it must be the others". Don't hesitate to do that, because the person who hesitates to accuse others is flagged as possibly guilty. Don't worry: this accusation is not worth much if there is no evidence, and others are supposed to do the same thing in order to look innocent as well. It is the thoughtful person who won't say such a thing that is flagged as possibly guilty.

As for urinating, the best way to do it is to wait long enough and not doing it until the bladder is empty, but just enough to be noticed, as if the person could not stop a leak and then managed to stop the rest of the flow and is embarrassed and apologetic. That way, it looks like an accident, and the person seems to be acting in a respectful manner. He gets to wet the chair and the floor, and he can't be blamed for it. It's better to do that than get caught urinating in a corner or in a container while left alone in a room for a two minutes.

[Anarcissie]

Assuming you're being interrogated by corporate rent-a-cops and not the police, you have a right not to answer questions and to walk out of the room at any time. True, you will probably lose your job, but if you are being kidnapped and tortured the job is almost certainly lost anyway.

I strongly recommend against implicating other people under such circumstances, regardless of what you know or guess. It won't save your job and it may get other, innocent people in trouble. Also, as Monica points out above, the kind of people who specialize in browbeating employees will even use your sentence structure against you. Likewise, things you say about other people can be turned against you through misinterpretation. Answer all questions as minimally, politely, and calmly as possible. Do not volunteer information. Do not chat or try to get on the good side of your interrogators: the chances are excellent that they have no good side. Preserve your dignity, not only for yourself, but for everyone else, especially your fellow workers.

Again, I have to wonder why people don't form unions to resist this stuff. There must be some reason.

[Tertullian]

It is pretty clear that, once accused or even suggested that one may be guilty of some crime or violation of company policy, your job is toast, so forget trying to save it, and focus on trying to save yourself legal headaches. Simply state that you are not talking and are in fact leaving the premises stat. They will threaten to fire you, but they're going to do that anyhow, so who cares? Say or do nothing that could ever get you charged with a crime or even sued, have part of your owed pay witheld, etc. If store security or rent-a-cops attempt to interdict your departure, which they cannot legally do themselves, tell them to move out of the way. If they refuse, order them to summon the police. At this point, the police will clearly be on your side, and it will probably help you that they were attempting false arrest, etc., and you summoned the cops for legal help. Heck, you might well indeed, end up with a case that someone like Jim Sokolove would love to take.

[Monica]

Do not assume that you are the only person who is interrogated and have no chance of saving your job. Maybe they are doing that to everybody or to several employees to see, for instance, who is the one who stole something, or to get some information they want. And while you should not volunteer too much relevant information or mention stealing or some other problem before management asks you about that, the fact is that the person who talks little or makes very general or hypothetical statements is going to be considered suspicious. And by accusing others, I don't mean that you should invent any facts such as saying that you saw someone steal in your presence. But if, for instance, management mention a day when there were two employees and something was stolen and you are asked who stole that, make sure you say "it wasn't me, so it must have been [name of the other employee]". Same thing if there were more than two employees. Do not say that you saw them do it if you did not, but be very self-assure, and make sure you actually say that, and if asked if you did something, clearly say that you didn't, and don't seem to hesitate. Do not sign any admission of guilt or apology, but do not refuse to answer questions from the very beginning. If the interrogation lasts for six hours, that's different, but make sure you don't refuse to talk from the very beginning. If they only ask you questions for an hour max, that's normal. If you simply refuse to cooperate, you may get worse legal headaches, including a more professional interrogation, because you actually look suspicious (as opposed to just being one of the employees invited for questioning). Also use the "broken record" technique, which you might as well since you don't want to say anything that could incriminate you. That is, if they keep asking you the same questions, repeat the answers you already gave, even if they are baiting you with the different way they state their questions. And make sure you have eye contact and, if possible, the type of body language that is considered calm and assertive or at least not obviously nervous. Actually smile when the subject matter does not make smiling inappropriate. If they just wanted you out, they would have fired you already, but apparently, you have something of value they want from you, so outsmart them. Who knows? They may even think that you are very smart and psychologically strong and promote you. I wouldn't count on that, though...

Do not, however, fall into traps such as confessing to anything because the interrogator seems friendly or acts as if the issue is not a big deal, that you can expect some help, that this is done just because of some unimportant procedure or report, that you have to be honest or admit your mistakes, etc. Things like that are just used to encourage you to talk.

Statement analysis is also used in professional interrogation work, so it is in everybody's interest to know how it works.

[Anarcissie]

Monica, professional interrogators know all about the games you're suggesting people play. They won't work. An employer has a right to ask job-related questions once -- that should take a few minutes at most. If anything else happens, like repetitious police-style questioning, it's time to leave.

It's also morally wrong to try to shift the blame to someone else. Hostile interrogators know how to use that against the person answering their questions -- examples on request. This is exactly the kind of thing that people like the Gestapo used to practice.

Go see _Other People's Lives_.

If we don't defend our rights, we'll lose them. That includes defending them from corporations, religions and private thugs as well as the government.

[Monica]

It's not people who are playing games. It is the interrogators who, by the way, at the level an employer may hire or train, may not be that professional after all. And of course, someone who really did something or who gets a particularly skilled interrogator may not be able to outsmart the interrogator. But since it appears that individuals who are telling the truth or are not guilty are expected to follow a certain style of speech in their answers, of course it is better to know about that and try to follow that style. But someone who would simply walk out will never find out what he was going to be asked about and what the employer wanted, or probably wanted. And the employer is not police, so trying your statement analysis-defeating skills is not as dangerous as when the possibility of going to jail is right around the corner. If the employer, too, says that there is such a possibility, that's not the same thing. It's not the employer who decides, and it may be a lie.

Shifting the blame is just part of what an innocent person is expected to do. However, this is only a matter of elimination, as I have already explained. That is, if I did not do something and there were two people with me on that day, I would say "it's not me, so it must have been X and Y". But that's the whole extent of "shifting blame". I did not suggest saying anything that could incriminate others, such as that they were actually seen committing some wrongdoing. In fact, seeing them do it and not reporting it may be grounds for termination, too. So, in this example, I would not say something like "I actually saw them take the money" or "I saw them leave the store with a large bag, so that's how the stolen merchandise must have disappeared". But stating the simple fact that since it's not me, it must be them, is exactly what a person who is not guilty is expected to do. The others, too, are expected to do the same thing, and whoever doesn't is supposed to be the suspect. So don't hesitate to do that, but no more than that, for example. It is by getting stories about what the others did that interrogators can turn that against the person.

[evden eve nakliyat]

very very nice informations...thank you very much. mr suma...

[ateo]

Lock me in an office and tell me I can't leave? I hope you've written your will.

I'm a military veteran and nobody in the civilian world of employment is going to tell me I can't leave a building or otherwise exercise freedoms as a citizen of the United States to their fullest extent.

My fear of losing my freedom is much greater than my fear of losing a job which can be easily replaced. I'd tell them my story ONCE. Past that I would be done with the situation and I'd walk right out the door regardless of whether they liked it or not. If they fired me that would be acceptable because they were probably going to fire me anyway.

If they physically restrained me or otherwise falsely imprisoned me by locking me up somewhere the first thing I'd do when I got out is leave the building and come back with a 15 gifts for the bunch of them and maybe a few extra 15 piece gifts just in case.

[Monica]

That would not help you gain freedom. On the contrary, you would end up in jail and in some states, even executed. However, you could point out that they have no right to force you to stay unless this is a "citizen's arrest" for some crime, in which case they should call the police immediately. And of course, if they are that hostile, there is no point in trying to see their interview techniques in action and give the right answers.

[Lucky]

Very good information. However the comments here are by well-thought out, mature voices. This kid was 16 or 17, his first job. He didn't know and countless others do not know their rights. Even if they do, they are scared. Imagine if the kid is black or Latino. Your supervisor asks you to come answer a few questions. He's been nice to you before, so you agree, and start talking. At that point, this young guy is not thinking strategy, but believes them when they say they'll call the cops and have them arrested for XYZ, even if they have no grounds to do so. Has that ever stopped them before?

[Marlene]

gosh. read about this horrible boss at a law firm in New York:

"Lily once ripped a cellphone out of someone's hand at the offsite location. "Lily" also fired people on the spot for having newspapers at their "desks" and wanted to take away garbage cans as a way to make the space cleaner (someone needs to retake the logic games portion of the LSAT). "Lily" takes it upon herself to impose cost-cutting measures which only serve to undermine efficiency and work product quality. She has brought about a state of affairs whereby overtime is treated like the holy grail and the miserly meal allowance and tickets to ride in cars with maniac drivers are glimmering mirages in a desert. . .

Speaking of bathrooms, in lockstep with Paul, Weiss, the temps working at the offsite location have to sign in and out to use the bathroom. An attorney at that space was driven to smearing his feces on the wall of the men's room there. "Lily" surmised that the substance was actually chocolate. The temps kept in the dungeon of the firm's main office have to use grimy hall passes to the bathroom. The ceiling of the men's room crashed down into a stall and was left in that state for a week. All of the toilets regurgitate waste in the same manner of the firm's work product-billing system. The floor beneath the bathrooms is rotting, and the stench invades the air. One time, they refilled the soap dispensers with flourscent pink gummy goop. People of the same and opposite gender were indeed followed to the bathroom by the ex-communicated on-site coordinator. At one point, the temps were told they would have to deduct bathroom breaks from their paychecks. No wonder people are driven to smearing feces on the walls . . ."

http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com

[Monica]

If he's not guilty, why is he afraid of being arrested? And arrest is not the same thing as conviction, nor is it particularly likely to happen if the employee may or may not have given a questionable discount one year earlier but did not actually steal any cash or merchandise, just because management says now that they didn't want him to give that discount. In fact, if he is not wanted on a warrant or something, the employee should see the police as an ally, as he is falsely imprisoned. If he has access to a phone, he should be the one to call the police, or seem ready to do so, at which point management would probably back off.

[Chris]

I read all of the remarks and can't help but wonder what Kenward has tried to do. Or even how it all turned out. I feel like I'm only getting 1/10 of the story. It's easy to say he should have done this and that but how do we know he did not? What happened with the courts? Or even the other kids?

[Monica]

Also, there may be more to it. Why would management waste several hours of management time that probably cost even more for one discount from one year earlier? Maybe there was a trend of suspicious activity, a reason to suspect that the employee was actually pocketing the difference between the discounted price and the regular price, etc. And why were they so convinced that this is the person, or one of the persons, whose interrogation warrants so much time and effort? While six hours and no bathroom break is clearly abusive, something must have happened. I'm not saying that they got the right suspect and of course, if he didn't do anything wrong, maybe he really didn't know what happened, but management wouldn't do that just for fun, not for such a long time, anyway.

[Dan]

Just wondering are there any under or unemployed lawyers in the organization that would be be willing to take on Target? Almost makes me want to go to Law School after I retire.

[Anarcissie]

If you want to understand the mentality, as I suggested before, go see _Other People's Lives_. It's about the Stasi (the East German Staatssicherheit or State Security police), but the principles are pretty much the same with the rent-a-cops, they just have less power (unless you give it to them). The opening of the movie is especially important because they show one of the Stasi teaching a class and demonstrating the principles and techniques of their operation.

As for Target and Kenward, we have no way of knowing that "something must have happened." I held several low-end jobs in my youth and noticed that management dressed down, punished and fired people almost at random. It's a way of maintaining dominance and making sure the employees understand they have no power and are worth little to the company. That keeps most of them obedient, and the hard cases leave or are kicked out.

The rent-a-cops may well be rewarded for identifying "suspects" and "perpetrators" regardless of whether they got the right people or not. You will notice that we have not heard about any hearings or other procedures where the truth could be sorted out.

Once again, I have to wonder why people who have to work under these conditions don't form unions. This is not a rhetorical question. There must be some reason, and it's something I would think union organizers and officials would be eager to figure out.

[Chris]

A kid may not be aware of the existents of unions. So he would be unable to seek out a union. If your talking about unionizing a Target or a Wal-Mart then you might as well be asking the kid to fly. If it’s the kid’s first job he might not even know that he is entitled to overtime after 8 hours of work or even that the boss can’t have him work after 10 pm in California. Remember, where talking about a kid and a job that pays minimum wage. Not a Harvard law student.

[Chris]

A kid may not be aware of the existents of unions. So he would be unable to seek out a union. If your talking about unionizing a Target or a Wal-Mart then you might as well be asking the kid to fly. If it’s the kid’s first job he might not even know that he is entitled to overtime after 8 hours of work or even that the boss can’t have him work after 10 pm in California. Remember, where talking about a kid and a job that pays minimum wage. Not a Harvard law student.

[Monica]

Because it is precisely under such conditions that people are afraid to take any action and are supervised more closely. Some technicality such as working part-time or on a temporary basis and having some low-level position that is considered "management" may even make some employees ineligible, or there may be very few employees, of which some will leave or get fired quite soon, even if it's just to get a low-level job somewhere else. Employers can bully people or convince them by saying things such as that unions don't guarantee that there will be no downsizing. And when making very little money but paying taxes, union fees further reduce the amount actually available to needy employees. Some people's jobs may not be of the kind normally associated with unions, and employees may actually feel happy, because they have a more "professional" job (even if it's badly paid) instead of being blue-collar workers.

But why were those employees "hauled off in handcuffs and arrested"? Again, some information is missing. The police could have said that there is no reason to arrest them, or released them after giving them a form saying that they must show up in court. What kind of evidence, confession or "apology" did the employer have? What exactly was stolen? After all, a judge may find it very strange that twelve people or some of them stole just one video game, and the value of that game divided by the number of people can't amount to much. In fact, if it's just for the video game, it's not even the value of the merchandise but the difference between the regular price and the discounted price that may have been given to someone who was not supposed to get the discount.

[Anarcissie]

Chris -- I wasn't expecting the victim we've been discussing to organize a union all on his own. I figure that the conditions described aren't unique, that most of the employees witness them if they don't suffer them directly. So when union organizers come around, one would think the employees would be more than willing to sign up. But apparently not.

[Chris]

I now wonder how often low-wage workers are approached by union organizers. In the one year I worked at K-mart no one ever even talked about union's. In fact the word alone was grounds for termination.

[Anarcissie]

True, Wal-Mart has its ways of making you not talk.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/04/news/companies/walmart_spy/index.htm

[Different]

Anarchisse, it's indoctrination and propaganda from our wonderful "education systems" as to why these people don't unionize.

"Kids" my age have been told since a very young age that "communism is the devil." They have also been taught that unions are a part of this "communism". They have also been taught that this "communism" wanted to nuke the entire US of A long before they were born. That there was this evil empire called The Soviet Union, and that to not support corporations, is to support the Soviet Union, "this communism", and a little evil green man we call Karl Marx.

We are then told that globalization and this "diversity and freedom" is a "wonderful thing." That the entire world "wants it", and that the Soviets and "their communism" tried to take that "away" from "them".

Schools have taught Gen Y this "lesson". Universities have taught Gen Y this "lesson". Parents have taught Gen Y this "lesson". Gen Y's very first employers have taught them this "lesson". Politicians have taught Gen Y this "lesson". Etc, etc, etc.

Fortunately for me, I wasn't an honour student and pretty much failed school for actually being smart.

[Anarcissie]

I often see the assertion that the media, the schools, or the capitalists cause people to think badly of unions. No doubt they try to. But that was also true years ago, when unions succeeded and grew. In fact, the difficulties for union organizers was much greater then than it is today -- they were often jailed, beaten up, or killed. The difference between those days and today can't be explained solely by the activities of the media, the schools, or the capitalists.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"I often see the assertion that the media, the schools, or the capitalists cause people to think badly of unions."

If you choose to confine your media attention to those venues that occasionally take this view, then I suppose you can make this claim. But here in NY City there are union-based publications and union-loving media venues. You can get any picture you want.

You wrote:

"No doubt they try to. But that was also true years ago, when unions succeeded and grew."

There was a time when unions had relevance. Most of that relevance is gone.

You wrote:

"In fact, the difficulties for union organizers was much greater then than it is today -- they were often jailed, beaten up, or killed."

This hasn't happened in decades. Moreover, today, the physical threats come FROM union workers who attempt to grab control of non-union job-sites. In addition, there is the mafia component that seeks to extort money any way possible. Using the cover of union labor to rip-off contractors is everyday stuff.

You wrote:

"The difference between those days and today can't be explained solely by the activities of the media, the schools, or the capitalists."

On the contrary, capitalism goes a long way to explaining things. American workers are no longer threatened by the harshness of employers. American workers, especially union workers, face their biggest threats from people somewhere else on planet Earth who will build cars, build electronic goods, weave fabrics, and make shoes at less cost than American union workers.

The usual union goal of higher wages and more benefits will only increase US consumer demand for imported goods. Thus, unions have become enemies of themselves.

[chris]

Anarcissie, the US auto industry is slipping and sliding its way into oblivion as a result of the excessive generosity of its union labor contracts.

Current union workers can stall and stonewall and attempt to hold back the tide for another year or so. But the union cannot change the course of this global industry, except by playing the role of the fools who force the US auto industry into bankruptcy to the endless enjoyment of our asian competitors.

Kirk Kerkorian's investment vehicle, Tracinda, said in a letter to DaimlerChrysler's board that it is prepared to offer $4.5 billion to buy struggling U.S. unit Chrysler. The bid would be contingent on a new labor agreement with the UAW.

[Anarcissie]

chris: '... On the contrary, capitalism goes a long way to explaining things. American workers are no longer threatened by the harshness of employers. American workers, especially union workers, face their biggest threats from people somewhere else on planet Earth who will build cars, build electronic goods, weave fabrics, and make shoes at less cost than American union workers. ...'

First of all, we've just been discussing some cases of harsh treatment. If you want to argue that they are false or atypical, go ahead. Thus far all the evidence posted is on the harsh side. I previously assumed the truth of these descriptions, which accord with my own experience of low-paying jobs (although, thank God, I have never worked in Retail) and asked why the workers were not more interested in unionization. If you want to argue that the evidence given is invalid, then it isn't necessary to pursue the dependent issues; just present your own evidence, which I take it will be that everyone has a nice job.

As for the threat to American workers from abroad, I am enough of a believer in Adam Smith and capitalism to believe that the same economic forces operate everywhere when they are allowed to and that as long as people are engaged in production they will become wealthier everywhere. Thus, the industrialization of India and China should lead not to a decline in American living standards but an advance. If it does not that can only mean one thing: the economies of the competing countries are not operating under the same model. And indeed, it turns out that people are not allowed to have unions or even move about freely in places like China and Vietnam, and that India has a system of serfdom going back many centuries which ensures that very cheap labor will always be available for the better classes (enabling _them_ to work more cheaply). They drag American wages down because the ruling and owning class of America makes common cause with the ruling and owning classes of China, India, Vietnam and so on to drag everyone's wages down by the use of force, of state power.

The rational response to this situation would seem to be for the victims to reject all such ruling and owning classes and learn to do without them, but that's been suggested before to no avail. Most people will not even organize a union to protect themselves even where they're allowed to, much less reorganize their societies on a more equitable and advantageous basis. That's what I'm curious about.

[swp]

http://www.allianceibm.org/jobcutstatusandcomments.php

This is a subcontractor to Walmart that gets about 4 million a minute for it's services. The new kids head to Wall Street as soon as they can because that's where the profits are and that's what pays. NY Times said all these companies want nationalized Health Care because they can't be competitive without it.

There's a big push to keep things simple, simple to outsource. A lot of deaf kids now with interpreters, and a lot of Chinese. Their writing skills are excellent, their work is valuable. This could work well, and it should. But, the customer is being sacrificed and that's the ultimate casualty of taking 10% from the bottom every year. It works on the consumer too, just get rid of the less profitable and cater to those who thrive on mindless, short sighted controls.

This is not how you build a better mouse trap. It is not how you empower the disabled, it doesn't provide health care to the poor and it is not achieving a global community. Competition use to mean innovation, not an excuse for poor work.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"They drag American wages down because the ruling and owning class of America makes common cause with the ruling and owning classes of China, India, Vietnam and so on to drag everyone's wages down by the use of force, of state power."

Not so. The two groups may try. But the winner is the one who combines productivity and quality.

Uneducated, poorly socialized morons can't make quality car parts fast enough. Maybe they can operate simple machines to make cheap, low-quality goods, but that hardly powers our economy of the country producing the junk.

As for Vietnam, that country produces no sophisticated products of world class quality. Dictatorships and centrally planned economies always fail when it comes to quality. Every time.

The fact is, the secrets of manufacturing are out. Smart kids from the worst countries study at leading universities and learn how products are built. They become de facto emissaries when they return home, if they return.

Iran is now the site of car manufacturing. Crappy cars, of course. But Peugot is there, assembling a cheap model for the Iranian market. Is Iran exporting anything to France or any other destination? Oil. And some terrorism. That's about it.

In sum, These claims that punitive governments are conspiring with American enterprises to produce top-quality products at low wage is simply not true.

However, GM is close to forming a joint-venture with Chery, a Chinese car company. This alliance will bring those cars to the US -- IF they meet US quality standards, which are ultimately set by the driving public, not the government.

[Justin Kenward]

Yes it’s me Justin Kenward or “Kenward” as I have so cold-heartedly been referred to. I got it touch with Barbara once more and said:

I have been reading the comments attached to the blog. It would seem my story over powered the wall-mart story. I want to jump in and say more about what has happened to my self and the others. However if my goal is to inform people what could happen I suppose it's just as important that people know how to stop it before it happens. So I grudgingly sit by and let people blindly post comments about what I may or may not have done. If only because some of the stuff they say would have helped me out back in 2003.

She has encouraged me to answer the comments. I’m going to stick with what she wrote about above. Although the full story is vastly greater then you could ever imagine.

First I never once believed that I could have gotten arrested. Also it was not in tell after the event when I learned about my rights. And if you’re talking about unions? Ha ha, you might as well have asked me if there’s life on other planets. I just did not know. I had never even heard the word “union” before getting the job I have now. As for your thoughts about what I could do with my pee. Pissing on someone was just not a logical solution. And pissing on my self would not work. Even if I did walk out of there of my own free will it would have been hard to do if I had pissed my pants.

I have no miss-beliefs that all 12 of us are without guilt. If there are guilty people in all of this, it would have been best placed on the first 2 or 3 people. (I was number 10.) All I did was give a discount. Witch was approved by my Team lead. (aka, supervisor) There was one girl (number 4) who was arrested for accepting a discount on a magazine. Target said there loss was $7.50 However Number 4 says it was more like $4.50. This is real. It’s not a joke. The last thing Target made Number 7 write in his “letter of apology” was “Also I am sorry for eating a couple of candy bars that were supposed to go in the trash not my mouth.” Number 1 and Number 2 where arrested for conspiracy. Numbers 3 to 12 where arrested for burglary. In my case (as I can’t speak for the others) The Team Lead approved the discount. I scanned the product. I put the money in the cash register and gave him the receipt. I know this because both the Team Lead (aka: supervisor) and Team Member (aka: employee) admit this as truth when they could have easily lied about it to save there own ass. Take the time to look up the legal definition of 459PC BURGLARY of California law. You’ll see that the punishment dose not fit.

[Monica]

If anybody is willing to eat what is considered garbage (yes, I know that this is not the same as actually unfit for human consumption or looking, smelling or tasting bad), why get into trouble or apologize? And why would anybody be responsible for receiving a discount? After all, there are homeless or otherwise desperately poor people who would eat from garbage bags, as well as non-employee customers who end up with the wrong price and won't complain if the error is in their favour, and perhaps (in the kind of store where employees, not customers, pack the bags) even with extra items, probably from some other customer's purchase (I have just ended up with a cabbage and some raisins at a grocery store, which, of course, I did not see until after I left the store). Still, those people are not likely to get arrested (except maybe the customers with extra items, if they are caught before they leave the store, and even then, if it's not something suspicious like smaller items like CDs hidden among or inside other merchandise or in the customer's pocket, they may get the benefit of the doubt).

By that logic, if they knew my name at the store, which they probably did not (I paid cash), the police would have paid me a visit for "stealing" the cabbage and raisins (the store was too far to go back). Or maybe, when charges for some other purchase did not appear on my credit card for a whole month and I finally reported that myself, I could have been arrested because some employee (or the computer, as they were saying) forgot to charge me even though I had received the merchandise. In fact, from the time I received the merchandise (or shortly after, to allow some time for the transaction to be processed), I had in my hands merchandise that was not paid for.

[Justin Kenward]

Monica,
Your comment seems to be lacking clarity. I can’t tell if you’re trying to convey confusion or sarcasm. However I’ll try to answer best I can. I can’t speak for Number 7 and why he ate from the trash. If that was in fact what he did. What I can say is that when your locked in a small room for 5 to 10 hours with no other sound then that of some one saying: “Your bad! Every thing about you is bad! But I can help you!” You start to lose your self. I did. In fact if they had kept on like they did, I might have taken responsibility for the holocaust.

As for the discount. To me this is no different then if I where to walk up to a cashier and say: “This can of pees has a dent in it. Can it be marked down?” In fact every lawyer that I spoke to was dumbfounded as to how this could happen. If you where to look for logic in the paper work, you might as well just be looking for it in a fortune cookie. Because there where so many lies and mistakes in the paper work that even 3 lawyers could not find all the facts. I was confident the U.S. justice system would see this and protect me. The D.A. never spoke to me once. The judge just seemed to be irritated with my demands for a trial. Although other then her black robe she showed no signs of actual being a judge or any kind of advocate for justice. In fact I wonder if any one in the justice system ever took the time to read any of the paper work?

[evden eve nakliyat]

evden eve nakliyat

[patent]

patent

[Monica]

I did not say that he ate from the trash, as I was not there and he probably ate the candy bars before they were actually put in the trash, or at least not from something smelly and that was actually taken outside. However, the point is, if the food was for the garbage, why get in trouble or apologize for eating it instead? If anybody is to eat food that is either in the trash or meant to be put there, the least they can do is not apologize about it. It's a matter of human dignity. In fact, if they actually eat that because they badly need the food (as opposed to not allowing OK food to be thrown out, which is probably the employee's case), the society should apologize to them.

[Justin K.]

I do recall a time when a Target Team member was arrested for stilling french fry's. I remember thinking: "He would not have stolen french fry's (the cheapest thing in the food court) if target had not paid so little he could not pay for his food." And to arrest some one stealing a small order of french fry's Just makes me sick!

[Monica]

That's different. As much as you and I may not like it, that was food that was supposed to be sold, not thrown in the garbage.

That being said, restaurants are supposed to throw out food if it is not given to the customer within a certain number of minutes (some wait longer, though). So presumably, food that was left slightly too long is no longer saleable merchandise either. But just about anybody can afford a sack of potatoes or a bag of frozen fries from the grocery store that will provide several portions of fries. Nobody needs to steal French fries.

If in your city, you can find some ethnic grocery store or some other store that sells a 3-kg container of Feta cheese, probably at a lower price than such cheese is sold in small packages in other stores, and you buy potatoes, oil, butter and corn flour, that buys you lots of nutrition, as you can, among other things, eat French fries with feta cheese on some days and on other days, boil water with salt (or without salt, as there will be enough in the cheese), stir corn flour (it takes a generous portion, or else it's too mushy), stir and, when it starts to harden, turn the saucepan over to put the food on a plate or on a flat surface(if it's done properly, it comes out like a round pie instead of sticking to the saucepan) and eat that with cheese and butter (it's better if you melt the butter) or with various vegetable stews (you may need some extra protein if you go for the vegetables). Eggs with onions, and perhaps with that cornmeal food and/or with cheese provide another nutritious meal option with protein. These are just examples of what a poorly-paid person could do with a few basic food items instead of "needing" to steal fries (without protein, fries are not very good, as they have enough fat but you get hungry soon after anyway).

[Ben]

There are a couple of things missing here. There have been a couple of comments about globalization here, so here is the story from Germany.

In Germany, although the corporations aren’t as large as Wal-Mart, Target or K-Mart, the tactics are usually similar.

For interrogations, especially in retail chains, there are usually specific teams trained and dispatched to stores which have a ‘theft’ problem. These teams usually incorporate a good cop/bad cop attitude: - slowly wearing down the employee through long interrogation sessions, no breaks, no outside help, permanent stress. That’s usually all that is necessary to get an employee to break. Especially an employee that doesn’t expect an attack from that angle. They just came into work like every day.

Let’s face it. There is some kind of low level ‘theft’ in any company especially retail companies. Store clerks might snag a Snickers, Waiters drink a Coke on the house or grab some bread or crackers. Officially - not allowed; but done nevertheless. Even those employees not directly involved usually have seen something. The employees know it is going on, management knows it too. Usually these practices are tacitly understood as a minor cost of doing business. That is until a certain point is reached. That point can be high ‘theft rates’ or simply high employment costs. Whatever the reason, management usually knows how to deal with the “issue”.

It is easy to claim that people should hold up under these kinds of attacks. The truth is that almost no one – not specifically trained to resist – will not break down. The combination of (false) accusations, permanent pressure, physical discomfort and what seems to be a never-ending interrogation are methods well understood and unfortunately not just part of a bad WWII novel. The methods are designed to keep the employee psychologically off balance, physically uncomfortable and isolated from any form of support. The employee will almost always break - everyone has some weakness, something they feel guity about and that will be found and exploited. Once the confession is in hand, the managers/interrogators will have done their jobs and go back home.

There is little control over these kinds of interrogations. Like Barbara once wrote, you check your civil rights at the door. Not only in the US but increasingly in Europe as well. Punch in at the clock, punch out on your rights. There was a case in Germany were a woman brought charges, unlawful detainment, against the two managers who interrogated her. The state attorney brought charges and was shot down by a team of high power attorneys bought and paid for by the corporation. In these cases not justice, but the best legal team often wins.

But on the other hand Wal-Mart gave up the German market because employee rights were too strong. Attempting to artificially lower wages. No go. Attempting to ban relationships between employees. Declared illegal. They finally just gave up in the middle of 2006. (www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2006/gb20060728_594752.htm)

So. Justin. Believe me, your case is as common as it is unfair. You might feel unclean but don’t feel bad. You held out longer than many. Hold on to that thought. It wasn’t you. You just got caught up in the machine. You did the right thing by coming out with your story.

It would be nice to live in a ‘kinder, gentler world.’ But I don’t see any chance of that happening any time soon. But, the more people that understand that low wages and non-existent rights are not the way to prosperity and the American Dream, the more difficult it will be to win new people to the cause of greed over justice.

[Justin K.]

Ben,
Think you for that. I started in on this conversation with the intent to state the bare bones facts. I some how went off to a defensive stance. perhaps for no other reason then because I am so closely involved in this. So every now and then I need some one to knock me down and remind me why I'm doing this.

As I am the only one in my family to graduate High-school and move on to college I feel a sense of betrayal. In high school one of the things I learned about the U.S. justice system is that it's a tool. Used to evaluate each persons offense, then decide on a result that would best benefit both parties. As I got to see first hand, what I was told in high school was a watered down version of the truth. What I now know as truth is this. Government is in fact a form of business. And depends on the fast track express justice system and the fines that are inflicted on other wise innocent people. Witch admittedly pales in comparison to the vast number of guilty people. When we stop searching for the truth, the innocent get lost and mixed in with the guilty. I wont fall in line with the ideology of killing a few to save the many!

[Monica]

Are you sure the thing about deciding on a result that would best benefit both parties applies to the criminal justice system, and if it does, not just to some special aspects of it? I'm pretty sure most criminals are not happy to go to jail and don't agree that this result benefits them. Also, don't forget that in school, you learn how the system is supposed to work, and in a course, some details are left out.

[Justin K.]

Monica,

Your last statement just goes to prove just how under informed I was about the U.S. justice system. I just had a conversation with a friend about high school education. We both feel that the schools should make the students take a yearlong class on basic rights and how to defend ones self in court, work, and everywhere else. It should also teach the students the consequences of there actions.

[Ben]

We're getting slightly off topic, but what is taught in American High Schools doesn't necessarily reflect reality. There is simply too much variation from school to school to make any kind of generalisation.. To get a glimpse behind the scenes, an excellent book is “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your History Textbook Got Wrong” by textbook author and historian James W. Loewen. (It does have a leftist slant but is an excellent balance to most High School classrooms.)

What I find interesting is that most Americans don’t seem to understand the central flaw in the American legal system. The goal in the Americian legal system is to have someone win. It doesn’t matter whether the case is civil or criminal; there is a defense and a plaintiff and an assumption is made that both sides have a point. The focus is on how well each side can present information, can ‘make its case.’ The interesting part is that there is no non-partisan body in the American legal system trying to generate truth. There is no middle arbitrator trying to generate information that might benefit both sides. There is a judge trying for balance (not truth) and a jury to be convinced with whatever methods are available. But judges usually won't force plaintiffs to go back and generate more evidence if the defense isn't sharp enough to insist on it. Juries can’t ask what is being left out of the case. Ulimately the best person wins - the best person, not the truth.

One can argue district attorneys are supposed to determine if someone should be prosecuted based on evidence. But a look a how DAs are chosen (conviction rates) should clear up that myth. Enough evidence does not equal trying to find truth. The same goes for police departments who are rewarded for finding criminals not for solving crimes. How often have people been released from prison due to DNA evidence and the police have actively reopened the case?

It is accepted in football that the more talented side will win on a basically even playing field. By the time people get to a courtroom, this idea is forgotten. That is why some talented attorneys make lots of money defending marginal cases. The best person wins.

The corporate world isn’t much different but with a different slant.

The head office will look a column of statistics. The store with the worst numbers, for example in ‘theft,’ will need correction. Therefore a system of corrective action is created. Since the store is obviously not solving its own problems, an external team will be involved.

The team goes in, generates a list of people to be examined. Arguably, the team doesn’t necessarily have anything against any individual, but they have (perhaps unwittingly) refined the techniques to the point where almost anyone questioned will confess.

They get positive feedback because after enough staff has been fired for stealing, the rates will go down, whether the thieves were caught in the net or not. Also if there are several teams, the team with the lowest ‘confession rate’ will be asked to account for why they aren’t finding 'enough' people. It is human to redouble your efforts to find miscreants.

Finally, it is also human nature for the interrogation teams to start thinking that everyone who makes the list will be a bad guy. Why? Because sooner or later they all confess. It’s obvious.

The corperation has found a solution to its problem.

Catch 22? Yes. Reality? Yes. Sad? *Sigh*

[Monica]

I came upon a very interesting case when an employee was lead to confess to a theft he did not commit, as the money was found later (see http://www.employee-leasing.org/Employee_Leasing_CaseLawDetail41220/Page1.htm or serch for Robles v. Autozone). He thought he would keep his job and just pay back the money in monthly installments but of course, he got fired. The facts of the case are on the first few pages and the loss prevention policies are on pages 3 and 4, with some references to it on pages 13-15.

The information about those policies is quite basic, but one interesting recommendation from the company interrogation manual is "avoiding false imprisonment issues by always leaving an exit path for the employee being interviewed". We can see from the case that the investigator did make the accused feel that he should stay in the room (not through physical means, although he was not told that he could leave) and that by not doing so, he was just likely to get into more trouble. The employee was making $9/h and had a family of four. He did not get arrested, and he found a better job a few weeks later.

[Justin K.]

Ok I got around to reading the Autozone thing. We could start a new blog about it. However I want to ask, Why not look for the truth. What is this need to hold someone, any one responsible? What good is it to the AutoZone rent-a-cops to make a speedy arrest? I understand in most cases the arrest serves to stop the thief even if it's not the guilty who's arrested. But in this cases where not talking about $100 bill from the register. So why not look for the truth?