Supreme Victory for Walmart?

Posted on June 20, 2011 by

By rejecting class-action status to women Walmart employees, the Supremes have dampened the familiar argument that modern workers don’t need union representation because they’re already protected by laws, government and the courts.

Still, I don’t expect unions to gain much traction out of this case.  At most, there will be a day or two of news cycle reaction time. And maybe some big-name labor leaders will decide to jump in.

If anyone were to ask me to participate in the discussion, I would try to come up with a sound-bite playing off the words “class” and “action.” 

Something like: “the working class needs to take collective action.” 

But I doubt this would get any pickup. 

The Nation’s John Nichols has come out with a catchy slug, branding Walmart as “too big for justice” and some congressional democrats have joined the chorus. 

Trying to find a comment from UFCW, the union which filed an amicus brief in the case and is in the early stages of a campaign to organize American workers at the world’s largest corporation, I came upon their website called “Making Change at Walmart.” 

Which is not very impressive but is, at least, a starting point. 

Though it doesn’t offer any hint if – or how – the UFCW plans to make hay out of this landmark high court ruling.

Comments (4)


  1. Goetz Wolff says:

    Remember the old story, “for want of a nail”?….

    Well, here’s my contemporary version. The consequences of a “blow job”….

    If selfish Bill Clinton hadn’t opted for a blow job from his intern…

    then no investigation and impeachment…

    then Al Gore might well have been able to embrace Bill and have won the 2000 election…

    then we wouldn’t have created the morass in the middle east resulting from 9-11…

    AND we wouldn’t have a right-wing Supreme Court that delivers opinions such as Citizens United… or this devastating ruling against women Wal-Mart workers.

    I think anyone who holds up Bill Clinton as a model has to take into account his dick as well.

  2. Greg II says:

    I personally don’t want to think about his dick. What you failed to include in your analysis is the willingness of Al Gore’s opposition to “steal” the election. Twice.

  3. Marc Abrams says:

    Lou, mostly I agree with you when it comes to working people, however you’ve got it outrageously wrong here. This case has nothing to do with workers. It was about slimy lawyers trying to build enough “clients” to force a settlement so they could make billions. To assert walmart senior executives are engaged in intentionally “keeping the woman down” is stupid, pure and simple. This in fact is the type of rhetoric that undercuts support of unions. The simple fact is when one says, two and two is five most people don’t bother listening further. Corporate greed is about money not sex.

  4. Salvador Sanchez says:

    Did you really think that workers have a chance?

Leave a Reply