While on the board of Wal-Mart, Hillary voted "Present" regarding union-busting.

[Barack_America]

From the New York Times Article: "As a Director, Clinton Moved Wal-Mart Board, but Only So Far"

Though she was passionate about issues like gender and sustainability, Mrs. Clinton largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions, board members said. Since its founding in 1962, Wal-Mart has fought unionization efforts at its stores and warehouses, employing hard-nosed tactics — like allegedly firing union supporters and spying on employees — that have become the subject of legal complaints against the company.

A special team at Wal-Mart handled those activities, but Mr. Walton was vocal in his opposition to unions. Indeed, he appointed the lawyer who oversaw the company’s union monitoring, Mr. Tate, to the board, where he served with Mrs. Clinton.

During their meetings and private conversations, Mrs. Clinton never voiced objections to Wal-Mart’s stance on unions, said Mr. Tate and John A. Cooper, another board member.

“She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one,” Mr. Tate said. “It would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position.”

More

So Hillary sat on the sidelines, while Wal-Mart became the evil corporation that it now is. And this is part of her "35 years of experience" that supposedly makes her the most qualified Democratic candidate?

Unbelievable.

[jeffrey_X]

1. LOL!

eom

[Fresh_Start]

2. Please provide a link on the board votes, thank you. NT

NT

[rodeodance]

4. IP'er knows there are none--so IP conjures up poop.

[Fresh_Start]

6. I don't know if the IP has done the research

I'm asking for proof

[papau]

40. Hillary pushing labor rights, esp for women and minorities, is well known -but unions were Sam's hot

button

[JPZenger]

75. The real decisons don't involve votes

The Wal-Mart Board did not sit around and vote whether to aggressively fight any union organizing attempts. However, a boardmember could have stood up and argued for a change in policy, and could have demanded information on what was being done in regards to unions.

Wal-Mart had a corporate jet standing by full of lawyers. All store managers were ordered to immediately report any talk of a union. The jet would then land that afternoon near the plant and aggressively work to make sure a union was not formed. They were successful 100% of the time in the US, which tells you that the methods probably were not above-board. The one store that unionized in Canada was instantly shut down permanently.

[LostinVA]

8. Nor does she realize what the last paragraph means

Nor mention what HRC was able to change while there.

[Fresh_Start]

12. yes, half-truths seem to be politics as usual in Obama/Clinton

campaigns.

So much for being a 'new kind of democrat'.

[Barack_America]

25. Sorry, but achieving small positives, while not standing up...

against large negatives, is not exactly comendable.

[MADem]

50. Small positives? Put down the crack pipe and read your OWN cite!

:rofl:

[Barack_America]

58. Gladly. Did you, by chance, read it?

Still, the board’s discussions did not translate into significant progress. By the late 1990s, after Mrs. Clinton had left the board, Wal-Mart had added a second female director, but the number of women in senior management remained paltry, according to company records. (Today, 23 percent of Wal-Mart’s top 300 corporate officers are women, but the company is fighting a class-action lawsuit claiming sex discrimination filed on behalf of 1.6 million current and former female employees.)

[MADem]

67. I sure did. You didn't, though. Try reading the WHOLE article, why don't you?

And where's that PRESENT vote you're insisting she made, that isn't reflected in the article? Hmmmmm? Come on, put up, or shut up.

[Barack_America]

70. I have, several times. And nowhere do I see that she stuck up for labor...

as you seem to be claiming?

I'd love to know Hillary's votes in these board meetings. But, considering Wal-Mart hasn't released them, and Hillary is unwilling to discuss her time at Wal-Mart, it's hard for me to find out this information.

Maybe Hillary will discuss her inolvement in Wal-Mart with you?

BTW, care to refute anything in the body of the OP, or are you just dead-set on bitching about the title?

[MADem]

84. Where's that PRESENT vote? Hmmm? You spin, but you can't produce that vote.

You shouldn't post threads that assert things you cannot prove. There's a word for that.

The title of YOUR thread is YOUR assertion, not mine.

You brought it, you claimed it, now back it up or zip it.

Your flopsweat desperation to try to move the goalposts and change the subject is certainly noted by anyone reading this. It doesn't reflect well on your veracity at all.

[LostinVA]

56. What she did, when she did it, and where she did it WAS very commendable

There's no way in hell she would change Walton's mind on labor, but she did help in other ways, although it seems that WM hasn't advanced much past her implementations. This was also 15-20 years ago.

It's obvious to me that some posters on DU have never worked in a corporate environment. You do what you can within the system, because you can do NOTHING if you're outside the system. What she did is commendable.

And, please don't preach to me about Wal-Mart. My father is in the textile business, I lived in NC for 17 years, and I haven't set foot inside a Wal-Mart in over a decade.

[DURHAM D]

62. And a lot of people posting for Obama do not know the

meaning of working effectively on a committee or board.

The little "me machines" drive me crazy. All self-righteous and ignorant.

[FormerDittoHead]

31. Methinks the POINT of this msg was HRC's comment about Obama's "present" vote

The answer would be the same, but HRC would have us think the "voting present" standard criticism applies only to her opponents...

PS: I support Clinton over Obama, but the point here, IMO, is one of campaign tactics...

[Barack_America]

44. Thank you for understanding this...

My point is that not speaking up, is essentially the same as a "present" vote.

[snappyturtle]

78. What's even more disconcerting for me is this: Why did HRC even

take a position on the board in the first place? To what avail?

[Barack_America]

83. Exactly. If she wasn't there to take a stand...

Why the hell was she there?

Obviously they liked the direct link to the Governor's mansion, but what was she really there to do? She had years to voice a single complaint about these practices.

[RaleighNCDUer]

102. Two reasons:

1) Walton was being pressured to put a woman on the board.
2) Hillary worked for Rose Law firm, which represented WalMart in numerous cases.

She wasn't there to change things. She was there to boost her cred in working with corporate America, which would come in handy in the future, politically. She was a corporate lawyer, who joined the board of a corporation.

IOW, had circumstances been right, she and Edwards would have been on opposite sides of the table in an anti-WalMart law suit.

[Barack_America]

111. Thanks for the information.

So what you're saying is that it was probably a bad idea to claim this as experience working for the Democratic ideal? lol.

[snappyturtle]

117. Exactly! nt

[DaLittle Kitty]

126. Gotta Go TO Work >. This IS Crucial That America Is Aware Of Her Indefensible Actions Against LABOR!

kick this MOTHER! :wtf:

[GalleryGod]

17. Poop?

WJC: "I'm NOT making this up,Folks"

Well...he thinks you have.

[rodeodance]

7. IP'er knows there are none--yet the IP spreads falsehoods. Obama would be so proud!

[Barack_America]

32. You might want to do a little research yourself...

Before declaring "falsehood".

[Barack_America]

23. I'm happy to present you with that proof.

Please see this link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4155353&mesg_id=4155568

She knew what Wal-Mart was doing and planning to do with unions. She did not object.

[TwilightZone]

35. Spamming the board with the same link isn't proof of anything.

[Barack_America]

41. Did you read either article?

Obviously not considering you didn't notice that they were two separate articles.

LOL!

[MADem]

3. Bwahahaha!!

What's "unbelievable" is equating sitting on the board of a retail store to being a LEGISLATOR who makes LAWS!!!

:rofl:

That's sort of like equating the school patrol to the DELTA FORCE.

[Barack_America]

More people are probably affected by Wal-Mart's policies...

Than they are by a few laws coming out of Illinois.

She didn't even register a symbolic protest. That doesn't bother you?

[MADem]

52. You be sure to tell the good people of IL that a single individual

on a retail store board, not even the chairman, mind you, is more powerful than their state legislators!!

Get back to us on how well that goes over...

[Barack_America]

73. We're talking about national influence here. Thanks...n/t

[MADem]

87. Actually, we're talking about PRESENT votes--but you keep running away from your own subject. NT

[Barack_America]

91. Actually we're talking about avoiding key issues.

You claim that Obama did so in IL with his "present" votes. I have provided you information to educate yourself upthread.

I have asked you to defend that Hillary did not stand-up against Wal-Mart's anti-labor practices. You have thus far refused to do so.

[MADem]

97. No, 'we' are not. You started this fire, bright eyes--we're talking about a PRESENT vote that you

can't produce.

[Barack_America]

99. Why did Hillary fail to stand up to Wal-Mart's anti-labor policies?

Answer that question.

[MADem]

104. Obama: PRESENT. You answer your own false assertion, why doncha? NT

[Barack_America]

106. Goodbye.

I have no interest in having an argument with someone who refuses to read or reason, and who thinks like a Republican.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4155486#4156095

If that's indicative of the respect you have for this nation's workers, I've no interest in being associated with you.

[MADem]

108. Awwww. Hillary didn't vote PRESENT on the WALMART board.

Otherwise you surely would have given us that evidence.

But Obama did in the legislature!

Your last sentence was a real gem--no evidence there, either, but that doesn't seem to stop you! It's a pattern with you, I guess.

[RaleighNCDUer]

105. When it all shakes out, who buys who?

When was the last time you heard of a corporation accepting bribes from a congressman?

I suspect a board member for WalMart has a LOT more clout than any state legislator and most congressmen. Senators, it may be a wash.

[MADem]

110. WALMART under Sam Walton isn't today's WALMART

It was a national business based in Arkansas that stocked stuff that was MADE IN USA.

It wasn't this CHINA to LONDON to EAST JESUS world-wide entity. Regardless, I still disagree with your assertion that a "token female" board member is more powerful than a legislator.

Put your 'perspective' cap on. And also keep in mind that Clinton had no constituency while serving on that board. Obama, as a legislator, did, and he had a DUTY to them to let them know where he stood.

As Edwards succinctly noted.

[RaleighNCDUer]

112. You are misinformed.

"Walton was honored for all his pioneering efforts in retail in March 1992, when he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George H. W. Bush. That year, the Jiangsu province of the People's Republic of China awarded him the Golden Star Foreigner's Award for "tireless assistance in the development of People's owned factories in the Suzhou area"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton

Wlton got a frickin award from China. He did. Not WalMart. To get an award from the people's republic there must have been some history there. He was still alive. Hillary was still on the board.

She did have a constituency - Wal Mart. The biggest employer in the country. Her decisions on that board affected more people in real ways than 90% of any decisions made by any state legislator.

That whole "made in USA" thing was just a marketing ploy to try to seize K-Mart's customer base - at the time K-Mart, not WalMart, was #1, and K-Mart was doing a lot of importing from Asia.

WalMart is, and always has been, a predatory, anti-union, anti-worker corporate entity. There is nothing that the corporation did in later years that was not started by Walton himself.

[MADem]

113. No, you're misinformed.

His forays into China were small, then.

If you read the award citation, you see that it wasn't for building stores, it was for buying a few gee-gaws from Chinese FACTORIES--gee gaws that weren't manufactured in the US anymore, thanks to the effects of offshoring that were facilitated by the former "Not Quite an Ambassador To China" GHW Bush.

We aren't talking the same footprint as WALMART has today, and for you to suggest it is to be profoundly disingenuous.

Also, Sam Walton is dead, and he's not running for President, either. His organization during his lifetime is not the same organization that exists today, with stores in every corner of the globe. That was my point, and that remains my point.

Thanks for playing!

[RaleighNCDUer]

114. I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

having stores across the globe is NOT the problem. it is buying sweatshop goods FROM across the globe while letting US manufacturers languish - THAT is what he got that award for, boosting Chinese manufacturing OVER US manufacturing.

The seeds for what WalMart is today were planted by Walton himself - as is evidence by that award. He's the one that started the shell game of buying components from Asian manufacturers and having them assembled in the US so he could put "made in USA" on them - it was the only way he could compete with, and defeat, K-Mart. It is EXACTLY the same organization as today.

Sweatshops overseas and anti-union stores here - THAT is what Hillary was overseeing while on the board.

[MADem]

115. No I am not. I'm being quite clear. What part of the "Walmart footprint"

aspect do you fail to understand?

You are employing revisionist history to try to make your point. The 'downside' to our reliance on imports from China WASN'T ON THE TABLE back then.

You seem to forget that we had a balanced budget and a healthy economy AFTER GHWB's tenure.

And you are also suggesting that HRC should have had a crystal ball, and seen what those "seeds" that Walton planted would produce. As a junior member and a token female on that board. With limited authority, and limited scope of responsibility.

You are ascribing, falsely, to her "clout" that she just did not have. Now that's being deliberately obtuse.

Again, I see the issue clearly. Your view is clouded by incomplete data and incorrect assertions, as well as a partisan view that compels you to paint Clinton's participation in the most nefarious and worst possible light, with the hope of improving the status of your choice in comparison.

It doesn't work. Good effort, though.

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. This did not come out of the blue. People were warning about it

20 years ago. WalMart's proclivities for devastating rural and small town economies was well known by '86. And, as I pointed out, the "Made in America" schtick was invented by WalMart because people were accusing KMart of doing the very same thing - bypassing American good to bring in cheap, cheap foreign goods. At the same time, WalMart had a lot of companies providing piece work oversease, then the unfinished products shipped to the US for assembly so they could claim "Made in America".

On top of all that, WalMart's anti-union stance was a core feature of the corporation since its inception.

No one needed a crystal ball to see what was happening. WalMart drove prices down, which meant the suppliers had to hold wages down or lose out to foreign companies. By the mid-90s US companies found the only way they could compete was to ship the factories overseas and use the cheap labor there. WalMart's competitors had to adopt the same tactics as WalMart or be put out of business, which further depressed US wages, and sent US jobs overseas.

I've been beating the drum against WalMart for 20 years. I didn't know anything about Hillary hitching onto that particular star until long after she left it. If I had known I would have been much less likely to have worked for Clinton in 92.

[MADem]

122. Regardless of your assertions, this did not become a widely discussed

media issue until well after Sam Walton died.

The theme was that "Old Sam" lived simply, shared profits with his workers, yes, he was against unions, but he didn't put on airs, lived in a simple ranch house and drove an old truck. It was when his heirs, who lived large and cut employee benefits, took over that the gripes started in earnest.

Now, if Hillary Clinton's presence on a board as a token, junior member is ALL it takes to suddenly turn you from a supporter to someone who simply MUST, on learning this MOMENTOUS and SHOCKING information, stomp away in a huff, you should stomp away now. You clearly are a one-issue voter who is unwilling to see the totality of her record, in context. Either that, or you really don't support her, and never supported her, but this "news" (and it isn't news to anyone who knows Clinton's record) gives you an excuse to claim that you now renounce her, in order to convey a false idea to her supporters that she's losing support over this ancient matter.

I can't get into your head, and don't care to. Suffice it to say that she probably doesn't really need the support of someone who is so volatile on a single matter, and you'll probably be happier supporting someone with a shorter, less apparent track record.

At the end of the day though, candidates will always do something you don't like.

None of them are perfect, and all of them have to accomodate to some extent to stay viable.

The United Farm Workers Union endorsed Clinton today. Apparently, they don't seem to have the same angst you're exhibiting over her association with this company, and they're a very large union that has seen some pretty hard times.


:hi:

[Barack_America]

116. "deliberately obtuse"

That is the perfect way to describe this poster. I tried to debate with him/her on this topic but eventually couldn't take it anymore and had to exercise my "ignore" option.

Keep fighting the good fight, lol.

[MADem]

121. Good ... then you won't be reading this. That two word phrase describes you to a tee.

As does Blatantly disingenuous.

Keep fantasizing. You're quite skilled at it.

[NoBorders]

5. Or cherry picking 100 votes out of 4000

Apparently, HRC wasn't willing to make the 'tough choices' she hit OBama for.

[MADem]

47. They weren't votes on establishing a State Pizza Topping, or Praising Miss Jones For Her

Charitable Work Over a Lifetime...they were 'TOUGH' votes that he avoided, in order to maintain a triangulatory stance between conservative voters and liberals.

Edwards said it, too. You have to let the people know WHERE YOU STAND.

"Present" is a chickenshit vote. Not SHOWING UP to vote is chickenshit.

Yor mileage plainly varies.

[Barack_America]

74. And many of them were part of a Planned Parenthood strategy...

...to protect vulnerable pro-choice legislators from inflammatory, planted legislation on the part of the GOP.

Who was Hillary protecting when she neglected to speak out about Wal-Mart's labor policies?

Oh, that's right, herself.

[MADem]

89. John Edwards told Obama why his PRESENT votes were wrong.

His credibility exceeds yours.

And where are those PRESENT VOTES you claimed Clinton made? Hmmmm? Still can't find them, eh?

[Barack_America]

90. His credibility exceeds Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood released a statement saying that they REQUESTED that Obama vote "present" on those measures.

Do you even inform yourself before you come here? Wait, don't bother, I know the answer to that already.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/obama_campaign_defends_present.html

"In an unusual pre-emptive conference call with reporters the Obama campaign today defended his series of “present” votes on abortion measures in the Illinois State Senate.
The votes were actually part of a strategy developed by Planned Parenthood to stop Republican attacks on pro-choice candidates. “We had a very astute and devious Republican leader that we knew was using abortion votes as wedge issues, putting those votes into mailers to help defeat pro-choice Democrats,” Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood, told reporters on the call. “It was our strategy, Planned Parenthood’s, to decide that a “present” vote was the same thing as a “no” vote.”
Then-State Senator Obama “was always ready to vote “no” on these bills but he understood how it important it was to help his fellow colleagues,” Sutherland continued. Obama “was key to the strategy… not only did Democrats follow suit, so did many Republicans. The strategy actually worked… very few of those bills actually made it into law.”
Sutherland underlined that Planned Parenthood was not endorsing Obama or any other candidate but they felt it was important to defend his record since he was acting at their behest. Hillary Clinton’s campaign in New Hampshire on January 5th sent out a mailing criticizing Obama as “"unwilling to take a stand on choice” because he voted “present” on the GOP–sponsored measures"

[MADem]

96. Obama: PRESENT.

:rofl:

[Barack_America]

98. I take that to mean you have no proof for your "argument".

Otherwise you would have presented it instead of using juvenile tactics to deflect the conversation.

I am sick of finding you sources for you to inform yourself, just to have you ignore them.

You are not worthy of arguing with because your statements possess no intelligence. You are wasting my time.

Don't bother replying to this. And don't let your juvenile brain believe that you have somehow "won". The only thing that you have succeeded in doing is convincing me that you are a complete ass.

[MADem]

107. That's rich. Lose the fight, and pretend it's over something else!

Points for style, but we'll have to deduct for substance. Sorry, you didn't make the finals!

I'll reply if I choose, and point out that you still haven't been able to back up your initial post, and you refuse to admit that you made that shit up out of whole cloth. See, that's a rather "juvenile" thing to do--making crap up to score points. It's also pretty juvenile to post links that you haven't read fully. It makes you look, er, uninformed.

You can't get away with that stuff without folks calling you on it. I really don't care how mad you get, either. When you don't conduct yourself in a straightforward manner, you deserve to be checked. You need to choose your words more carefully, and then people won't look askance at you and challenge your rather tattered and torn veracity.

And if I am "wasting your time" it must not be a precious commodity, because you persist in responding to me, though you say little of substance. You have the POWER, you know--no one is FORCING you to post these petulant non-rebuttals of yours.

I will say, though, that your earnest sentiments toward me are surely reflected back at you a hundred fold, by not only myself, but others as well, owing to your rather pervasive nature in this community of late.

You have a swell day, now!
:hi:

[donheld]

124. I've read your posts through out this thread. All I have to say is

:yourock:

[MADem]

125. Thank you so much.

I appreciate it, really!

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. when I went to orientation at Wal-Mart (yes, I worked there)

one of the first things they said, before they had us sign the forms to be 'official' was that unions were bad and would hurt us and try to take our pay.

I rolled my eyes, but it was just a part-time job for me, so I didn't care.

Wal-Mart has always, ALWAYS been a horrible company. It's like working for the borg. Assimilate or die.

[antigop]

10. One of the questions that people should ask is "What did HRC do at the Rose Law firm?" n/t

[TwilightZone]

11. If Mr. Walton was "vocal in his opposition to unions"...

does anyone really expect that a board member was going to strenuously object?

He ran the company, folks.

[Fresh_Start]

14. voice of reality. At least she tried to move two progressive causes

while she was the token woman

[rodeodance]

18. Hill. worked to get more WOMEN in management postions and eviromental package

for the business.

read the article for all the truth

[TwilightZone]

20. I think that you and the person you responded to...

are on the same side.

[Barack_America]

29. With little success.

I actually read the whole article.

Too bad she didn't feel that labor was worth sticking up for.

[GalleryGod]

13. Ouch!

No...and I'm not Bernstein's literary agent, just a Philly based Poli Sci teacher and*





* a guy who signed an Army contract with the identical Draft Lottery # (8/19) as President Clinton.
I went. He didn't


As did, my dear friend,John,who volunteered.:patriot:

[Barack_America]

118. Thanks for the pics, BTW. n/t

[antigop]

15. Rose Law firm: "We also advise clients on union avoidance, organizing campaigns ..."

We also advise clients on union avoidance, organizing campaigns and union representation elections. Our specific areas of expertise include:

* Union organization, collective bargaining, arbitrations and NLRB charges
* Employment discrimination and fair employment litigation
* OSHA
* Employment contracts, trade secrets and covenants not to compete
* Affirmative action
* Wage and hour issues
* Personnel handbooks
* Supervisory training
* Compliance reviews and training
* Mediations
* Civil rights
* EEOC
* Harassment/retaliation
* Whistle-blowing

Source:
http://roselawfirm.com/practice/management.asp

[Gidney N Cloyd]

26. Rose defends mgt's side on all these issues?

[antigop]

28. well, why would they advise a union on "union avoidance" ? What did HRC do at Rose Law firm? n/t

[Gidney N Cloyd]

54. I'm just asking. It sounded like you were pretty familiar with the kind of cases they take.

[Barack_America]

72. Wow. I wonder if that has always been their focus?

It sounds likely. It's hard to imagine that they've done a complete 180 since Hillary was there.

No wonder she kept records of her involvement with that firm in a locked box, as has been reported.

She's started out as a Republican. Exactly when did she become a Democrat? lol.

[antigop]

79. Tom Mars -- head of WalMart's legal dept -- worked for Hillary at the Rose Law firm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4155353&mesg_id=4155538

[CoffeeCat]

16. We've all been in group situations...

...either at work or in other activities---where leadership had to make decisions and bring
about change. Whether you're on the PTA or working for a company---we all know how things
get done.

It is apparent to me, that if I walked into a PTA meeting or a city-council meeting or a strategy
meeting at work, and encountered someone as brash and ham handed as Hillary Clinton--I would tune
her out.

She is not a consensus builder or a change master. She's a ball buster and she rules by intimidation
and indignation when she doesn't get her way.

Why does everything think her healthcare plan failed miserably? She's not about being a leader
who can galvanize people around a positive agenda. She's about strong arm tactics and making
demands. It's important to note that her failed healthcare agenda, and her inability to overcome
the Republican messaging against it and convince the American people--is ALSO a part of that "35
years of experience" that she's touting.

If I had important issues that I wanted passed, or ideas that I wanted turned into reality---she is
the LAST person I would trust with making change. It's her way or it's huff and puff.

Her Presidency would be a disaster because no one will work with her.

[GalleryGod]

19. Indeed. You all should be a "fly on the wall" at some of my

Poli-Sci departmental meetings. Yuck!


Bobby@ UC-Berkley,1968.

[antigop]

21. Tom Mars --head of WalMart legal dept -- worked for HRC at the Rose Law firm

http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=540&contId=6235

Tom oversees the Legal Department, which is responsible for handling all legal matters affecting the Company in its domestic and foreign markets. Tom has served as Wal-Mart's General Counsel since May 2002.

In 1986, Tom became an associate of the Rose Law Firm, where he worked for Senator Hillary Clinton in the firm's litigation section.

[Barack_America]

22. While a member, Wal-Mart's union-busting tactics were brought before the board...

Hillary did not object.

Originally from the LA Times: "Reviewing Candidate Clinton's History with Wal-Mart"

Union activism was a problem for Wal-Mart as it expanded into labor strongholds such as Missouri and Illinois. Since 1970, Sam Walton had worked closely with Omaha lawyer John E. Tate to ward off unionization using an aggressive campaign of rewards and tough talk.

Bob Ortega, author of "In Sam We Trust," a history of Wal-Mart, said workers were provided with incentives such as stock purchase programs and bonuses for efficiency while the firm sent in teams of lawyers and executives to stiffen resistance to union organizing efforts.

Although the details of Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were rarely broached during board meetings, Tate said recently, Clinton "clearly knew the company's reputation." Tate said that when he "made presentations on what we were doing" during board meetings, Clinton did not raise objections.

Soderquist agreed, saying there was "no sign that she had any criticism."

More

[TwilightZone]

24. Yes, you said that already.

[Barack_America]

27. Clinton supporters were asking for proof...

...that union issues were brought before the board while she sat on it. This article provides that proof, as requested.

[TwilightZone]

33. Proof of what? That Sam Walton ran the company?

That's what your "proof" has provided thus far.

Before he died, Sam Walton *was* Wal-Mart. Expecting one of the WM board members to strenuously object to his clear position on unions is unrealistic, at best.

The article you provided explains that quite clearly.

[Barack_America]

38. That she knew what Wal-Mart was doing and did not speak-out against it...

...even though she was in a position of influence.

[TwilightZone]

42. Position of influence? You obviously know nothing about Wal-Mart.

Sam Walton = Wal-Mart. Before he died, he made the decisions. End of story.

If you think that the "token woman" on the board of Wal-Mart twenty years ago was going to change the path of the company, you know absolutely knowing about its history.

[Barack_America]

46. If she had no influence, how did Hillary push these "women's issues"....

That you like to trump as her success while on the board? Sounds like she spoke out about those.

:shrug:

[TwilightZone]

53. Read your own article.

“She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one,” Mr. Tate said. “It would only lessen her own position on the board if she took that position.”

It's called picking your battles.

[Barack_America]

60. Is she planning on "picking her battles" as President too?

Or is she now willing to stick up for everybody, even at her own political peril?

[TwilightZone]

63. That's what being president is all about.

Politics isn't about idealism. It's about compromise.

Politicians that don't compromise and don't pick their battles don't get elected. Just ask President Kucinich.

If a politician is promising you that he or she will not compromise and will not waver on anything, he or she is lying to your face.

[Barack_America]

65. Like when Hillary said she would not waver on healthcare last night?

She was lying to our faces then?

Funny that now she's unwilling to leave any American uninsured when she was fine with leaving Wal-Mart employees uninsured.

[Fresh_Start]

39. I looked at the articles, not one union vote was described

in any article.

Could you please cite the votes?

[Barack_America]

43. Nor was one objection recorded...

When she was present with Wal-Marts plans for unionization in board meetings.

Do you think that people are given voices only to say "yea" or "nay"?

Why didn't she speak out against these policies?

[MADem]

57. No, they were looking for that PRESENT vote you snarked about.

It ain't there.

Not telling the boss to pound sand isn't the same as voting PRESENT on tough legislation.

[Barack_America]

64. Nice deflection.

You're trying to tell me that she didn't have the chance to speak out when these issues were presented during board meetings? You're trying to tell me that the only important words a person utters are "yea" or "nay"?

But if you want to dismiss her actions based on a technicality, please do. I would expect nothing less from you.

[MADem]

66. Deflection my ass. You're NOT entitled to your own "facts" there, Sunshine.

Let's all revisit the subject line title of this smearing load of horseshit called a thread, that YOU started. Heads up, now, pay attention:

While on the board of Wal-Mart, Hillary voted "Present" regarding union-busting.

Where's the PRESENT vote, eh? You BROUGHT it, now you'd better deliver it, or admit you made a misstatement, and be silent.

For a change.

[Barack_America]

69. And you're not entitled to dismiss facts...

based on technicaliities. It was a title that was supposed to draw a comparison between Hillary's criticism of Obama and her own "experience".

Here, one of your own figured it own for you, considering your own abilities are apparently limited:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4155353&mesg_id=4155648

What you cannot do is to dismiss the FACT that a co-member of the board says that he presented Wal-Marts union-busting tactics to Hillary, during board meetings...and she said nothing.

[MADem]

86. But I AM entitled to dismiss bullshit. And I don't see you producing what you said you had.

Do you always pull that "technicality" word out of your ass when you say something that is completely unsupported by ANY evidence?

Gee, I'm the King of Spain...and to dispute that fact, why, that is a TECHNICALITY.

:rofl:

Oh, and I am not 'stupid' either. "FormerRushFan" is not in my corner--you make a lot of assumptions that are UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, and that's another one. And frankly, I could give a shit what others have to say. That's not the point.

I am calling you out to produce that PRESENT vote.

And you can't. Beacause you posted something that you INVENTED.

[Barack_America]

88. I am calling you out to refute the contents of my post.

I've already stated that the title was intentionally snarky. And you're the only one who is still obsessing over it.

The contents of the post (have you read it?) provide proof that during her years on the board of Wal-Mart, she did nothing to speak out about Wal-Marts labor practices. Stop obsessing about the title and deal with the issue at hand.

Answer these questions specifically:

What did Hillary do to speak out against Wal-Mart's labor practices? And, if she did nothing, why is that acceptable?

[MADem]

95. That ain't how it works, SUNSHINE. You posted something that YOU are unable to PROVE.

It's up to YOU to produce that which YOU claim exists.

You can't decide that "I was only FOOLING" or "I was just being SNARKY" when you get CAUGHT, and people call you on your false assertions.

And you can't decide--Ooooh, shit, that tactic didn't work, let me get all aggressive and CHANGE THE SUBJECT, like maybe no one will notice!!

And then, you've got the ruby red STONES to suggest that I am obsessing over something that you have plainly refused to even address in a slightly honest fashion before this post?

Snarky, eh? Is there a new definition for that word? Is it now listed in the thesaurus as a synonym for "prevaricating?"

I don't think it is.

I read the post, you, apparently didn't read your full link. Otherwise, you'd realize that you simply ENHANCED Senator Clinton's reputation, especially with regard to her strong support for the environment (which beats the hell out of Old King Clean Coal, certainly).

Your debate skills are as bad as your candidate's, frankly.

Now, put up, retract fully and acknowledge error, and be silent. You made an assertion that wasn't true. It wasn't "irony" and it wasn't "snark." You put it out there with the hope and the expectation that people would not question your false statement, and buy it.

That's what--Lesson Two from the Karl Rove Correspondence course? Politics of Hope, my ass. Politics of Smear. Fabrication and Innuendo, more like.

You made this bed, now lie in it.

[Barack_America]

100. Is the title misleading? Yes. Why did Hillary fail to stand-up against Wal-Mart's

anti-labor policies? Answer the question.

[MADem]

109. Your title is clear as day. You claim Clinton voted present, and you can't prove it.

You have an 'evidence' problem.

You also have no EVIDENCE of your latest assertion. You have an anecdote from a single individual, but you have no "proof" of anything. I could say that you beat small children with a cricket bat on the playground, and a reporter could publish it. That doesn't make it true though, does it?

But that is your pattern. Toss out bullshit, get caught, toss out more bullshit, get caught. That's Lesson Three in the Karl Rove Correspondence Course Playbook: When you get caught tossing crap, toss more. And be sure to get ANGRY while doing it!

:rofl:

[Fresh_Start]

30. doesn't identify any votes, could you please provide votes?

I don't think they vote on 'reputation'.

[Barack_America]

36. She did not stand up for labor.

That is the point. Stop trying to deflect. No board publishes its votes. You have a direct quote from another board member that specifically states that Wal-Mart's labor practices were brought before the board, with no objection by Hillary.

Go ahead and try to deflect this on a "vote" technicality. You'll only look foolish. You're not only given a voice to say "yea" or "nay". When it came to unions, she simply chose not to use hers.

[Fresh_Start]

45. You ever involved in corporate world?

You choose your battles.
You don't fighting battles you have no chance of winning because that reduces the probability of winning any battles.
Which the articles make clear as well.

[Barack_America]

49. Just because you can't win doesn't mean that you don't fight...

Even if it's only a symbolic battle, you fight it.

Even if the statement will fall on deaf ears, you say it.

Why? Because you are representing people whose best interests should be place above your own.

That is a cornerstone of the Democratic Party.

[Fresh_Start]

55. A board member's responsibiltiy is to the stockholders

That's who she was legally required to represent.
Any board member is required to work to maximize the value of the company to its shareholder.
If they don't, they are violating various laws, contracts and regulations.

[TwilightZone]

59. Doesn't matter. She didn't stand up and fight!!!

She should have stood up as the token woman on the board of a corporation run by one of the most anti-union people alive and demanded that he change the course of the company! Demanded, demanded, demanded!!

The fact that she didn't is the only example I need as absolute proof that she's anti-labor!





:sarcasm:

[Barack_America]

61. Not that she's anti-labor. But that she's calculating...

That's she's willing to push important issues aside if they could lessen her influence.

That she's willing to "pick her battles".

God help us if the issues important to us don't happen to be convenient for her.

[antigop]

34. How many picket lines has HRC walked in support of striking union workers? n/t

[antigop]

37. funny...I can't find any record of HRC walking a picket line...can anyone? n/t

[Barack_America]

71. Me neither. I do come across a lot of discussion of Mark Penn though...n/t

[antigop]

77. You mean, "Hillary Clinton's labor problem"?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/06/16/hillary_and_mark_penn/

[Barack_America]

80. Yes. And others.

I posted Hillary, Inc. here a little while ago as well.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

[antigop]

82. Thanks...n/t

[tandot]

48. Unbelievable. On top of that, she also worked hard to destroy the environment:

Mrs. Clinton had greater success on environmental issues. At her request, Mr. Walton set up the environmental advisory group, which sent a series of recommendations to the company’s board.

When it came time to pick members, Mrs. Clinton, who led the advisory group, reached out to at least two colleagues from the McGovern presidential campaign — Mr. Mauro and Roy Spence, who headed an advertising firm in Texas that did extensive work for Wal-Mart.

Under her watch, the advisory group drew up elaborate plans. Consumers would bring in used motor oil and batteries for recycling. Suppliers would reduce the size of their packaging. And Wal-Mart would build stores with energy-saving features.

Wal-Mart executives put much of the program into place. In 1993, for example, they opened an experimental “eco-store” in Kansas, with skylights and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1201025095-4q59qYH+ws1MpU0ESgAE8A

[Barack_America]

51. I'd like to go to that Kansas store....

I've never seen those features at any Wal-Mart store I've ever been to. Maybe I have seen a skylight or two, now that I think about it...

I tend to see a lot more employees working without healthcare when I go to Wal-Mart though.

[tandot]

68. We have the "regular" Walmarts around here but rarely go there

We only shop there if we get a gift card as a present. Someone gave us one in September and we still haven't used it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

76. This has come back to haunt her

[Barack_America]

81. Maybe that's why she refuses to talk about it?

:shrug:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

85. It looks like Walmart is going to feature heavily in these primaries!

[Barack_America]

92. As it should, considering she's never explained it.....n/t

[antigop]

94. and we need to ask, 'EXACTLY what did she do at the Rose Law Firm?" n/t

[Barack_America]

101. Good luck with that, lol. But I do hope that Obama brings it up....

It's part of her "35 years of experience" so it's more than fair game.

[antigop]

103. Exactly! n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. It's hard to believe that the Farm Workers Union is about to endorse her, isn't it?

And yes I am being sarcastic. Unions know Hillary's history better than most people on DU, and she gets a lot of support from Unions. They look at the full picture, not just out of context snap shots. If I want to back someone for President who has never failed to always say the right thing, even when doing so would not be productive, I have thousands of wonderful radicals I can choose between.

[tabatha]

123. Did they know that her campaign manager is a union buster?

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Barack_America]

127. Kick! n/t