Wal-Mart has a longtime record of harassing and intimidating workers who have called for union representation; the giant corporation has even gone so far as to shut down stores where workers voted for a voice on the job. It's bad enough Wal-Mart fights workers' efforts to organize...now they're trying to stifle freedom of speech too?

It appears that way - Wal-Mart has filed an injunction against a website critical of its Canadian business practices, and their "legal basis" will outrage you. Wal-Mart wants to stop WalmartWorkersCanada.ca--a popular website dedicated to helping Wal-Mart 'associates' understand and exercise their rights as workers in Canada--from using the word "Wal-Mart" either "alone or with other words... in a color scheme of blue, white and gold." Even more ridiculous, the company wants to restrict the usage of circular shapes on the group's website! Says UFCW Canada National President Wayne Hanley:

"This injunction request is an over the top assault on freedom of speech and on our ability to effectively communicate with Wal-Mart workers," "It's a kneejerk response by Wal-Mart to the idea of its employees trying to understand their options as workers, and trying to share experiences with other 'associates'."

Walmart's response to the success of www.walmartworkerscanada.ca is just another outrageous example of how the largest retailer in the history of the world will use its bottomless legal budget to manipulate the collective bargaining process and do just about anything to discourage its 'associates' from joining the union."

If Wal-Mart has its way, "an oval, circular or semi-circular design" will be off limits to those who aren't on board with the largest retailer in the world's corporate practices. Seriously--if you are a group that's critical of Wal-Mart's business practices, they better not catch you using anything that remotely resembles their yellow smiley face logo! It's a legal scenario simply too bizarre for words.

You can take a stand against Wal-Mart's censorship threat and stand up for internet Democracy. Tell Walmart to respect free speech: sign UFCW's petition today.

If we let Wal-Mart set the standard for free speech online, there is no telling where the company's absurd demands will end. Can you imagine a world where Wal-Mart has exclusive rights to blue, white, gold, and abstract geometrical shapes? Please take a moment to show your solidarity for the activists at WalmartWorkersCanada.ca.

Help stop Walmart's war against the freedom of expression online.

Paul Begala has an incredibly powerful and persuasive op-ed in Politico today making the case for the Employee Free Choice Act. After introducing nightmare hypothetical scenarios of workers getting fired for trying to organize, Begala pulls back the curtain and reveals the stories are about real workers who were fighting for better jobs.

All of these stories are absolutely true. The stories of Trish Miechur, the CNA, and Corey Kresse, the metalworker, are replicated in boardrooms and factories across America. The story of Ken Lewis, Bank of America's CEO? Well, that's a familiar one, too. So here's the question: Why are their experiences so different? Whom do we want our economic policies to benefit?

For eight years under the GOP, economic policy gave CEOs such as Ken Lewis the gold mine, while giving hardworking, middle-class Americans such as Trish and Corey the shaft. President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress were elected to change that, and protecting employees from corporate abuses is part of the change we need. That's what the Employee Free Choice Act will do.

Corporate lobbyists say the phrase "Employee Free Choice Act" as though it were a curse. But for Trish and Corey, it's a blessing. The point of the Employee Free Choice Act is to say that we've had enough of an economy that works for Ken Lewis -- and Bernie Madoff, for that matter. We want an economy that works for Trish Miechur and Corey Kresse.

The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers an opportunity to bargain with their employers for better job security, wages and health care at a time of astounding corporate greed. The legislation has three main parts: 1) It says that when a majority of workers want to form a union, a real path is provided for them to do so -- a path chosen by workers, not corporate special interests; 2) it penalizes employers who try to fire or harass workers for attempting to form a union; and 3) it says that once workers have voted for a union, employers have to come to agreement with workers on a contract. Simple stuff, right?

So why are corporate interests squealing like a pig stuck under a gate? Maybe because they're the only ones who prospered under the Bush-Lewis-Madoff policies.

As of now, it's unclear when the Employee Free Choice Act will be given a vote in Congress. Recent press stories, based largely around anonymous comments from Democratic aides, has suggested that it is unlikely the bill will get a vote any time soon--and especially not prior to the completion of healthcare reform.

But legislative delays don't diminish the moral and economic imperative for sweeping labor reform and as a result, we must continue to call on Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act with majority sign-up. As Begala notes, this popular piece of legislation will get America's economy moving again, so we have no time to lose.

On the on the heels of recent news that reports a bill version of the Employee Free Choice Act in the Senate may not include majority sign-up provisions, we thought we'd revisit why we need this provision included in legislation to restore giving workers the actual choice of whether they want union representation.

Majority signup is based on a simple idea: if a majority of workers say they want a union, they should get a union. And the public agrees: three-quarters (75%) of adults favor allowing workers to have a union once a majority of the employees in a workplace sign authorization cards indicating that they want to form a union, including 44% who strongly support the idea. [Hart Research Associates, 1/8/09 ]

One of the most common scare tactics corporate special interests continue to use to try and stop the Employee Free Choice Act is the charge that majority signup is baaaaad for workers because it makes them feel pressured or coerced into signing cards. To those opponents we say: check your facts. Academic studies show that workers who organize under majority sign-up feel less pressure from co-workers to support the union than workers who organize under the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election process.

During NLRB elections, 46 percent of workers complained of pressure from management. In contrast, during majority signup campaigns, only 4.6 percent of workers who signed a card with a union organizer reported that the presence of the organizer made them feel pressured to sign the card. [Adrienne Eaton, Ph.D. of Rutgers University, and Jill Kriesky of Wheeling Jesuit University, Fact Over Fiction: Opposition to Card Check Doesn't Add Up, 9/06]

So, where's the controversy? "As negotiations on the Employee Free Choice Act continue in Congress, members need only look at public opinion to realize the only controversy over majority signup is being fabricated by a vocal, well financed, factually-challenged minority led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and corporate powerhouses like Wal-Mart," said Tom McMahon, Executive Director of Americans United for Change in a statement today.

There's no debate among working people in this country that the system is badly broken for the 60 million workers who would form a union tomorrow if they could. The current labor system is no longer effectively protecting and enforcing workers' rights in the election process. It has become a system that allows big business and corporate special interests to routinely harass, intimidate and even fire workers who try to form a union and bargain for better pay and benefits and a voice on the job. "These Corporate special interests will continue to say or do anything to keep the system broken, but when three-quarters of the American people agree majority signup is central to labor reform and building a strong economic foundation for our disappearing middle-class, Congress really doesn't have to listen," says McMahon. We couldn't agree more.

Majority signup is a democratic, proven approach that allows workers to have a fair, direct path to join unions--and it's important that both the House and Senate consider this common-sense idea to level the playing field against corporate greed.

Please add your name to the petition to Congress in support of majority signup and the Employee Free Choice Act.

Change that Works Arkansas held an organizing meeting at its North Little Rock office. Workers from around the state capital, gathered to write letters to their Congressional representatives and express their desire for the right to organize. CTW team members stressed the importance of sharing their story with lawmakers.

Join the Arkansas Change that Works team and help improve the quality of life for working Arkansans.

In recent Wal-Mart news, a really disturbing precedent: A Canadian court overturned the UFCW certification granted to Wal-Mart workers in December 2008, keeping alive a five-year-old battle between Wal-Mart and the union.

Workers in Saskatchewan, Canada first voted for union representation over four years ago, and Wal-Mart stalled and threw up every road block they could to keep the workers from getting a fair deal. And now, a Canadian judge has essentially ruled that because labor laws have changed since the Weyburn Wal-Mart workers legally won union representation, these workers are no longer represented by a union. According to the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, the UFCW applied for union certification in 2004 after a majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit signed union cards. A vote by secret ballot was not required under labor laws in effect at that time. Changes to provincial labor law implemented in May 2008 now require a vote by secret ballot to certify a union--and Justice Peter Foley ruled this past week that the labor relations board erred in certifying the union at the Wayburn Wal-Mart.

Kevin Groh, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada, said workers now employed at the store "cheered" when they were told of the latest court ruling. This seems like an odd reaction, since Wal-Mart is not exactly known for offering generous salaries. Business Week reported in April, 2008, that Wal-Mart workers earn an average of $22,500 annually. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the threshold of poverty in 2006 for a family of four was $21,200.

In this dismal economy, low-wage workers are struggling more than ever to make ends meet. If they had a union, these Wal-Mart employees would be able to negotiate better health benefits, working conditions, and wages above the poverty line. This issue also speaks to the greater problem of the long and arduous process workers are forced to endure to gain union representation and a first contract. Our current labor system for workers trying to form a union has proven its inability to defend workers' rights in a timely manner time and time again. Sadly enough, the 4+ years these Wal-Mart workers endured in their fight for a union is not uncommon. Two years after first voting to form a union, a whopping 37 percent of workers still have no contract.

What do you think of this ruling? Was the Canadian court's decision to overturn the UFCW certification justified?

Throughout the middle part of the 20th century--when more than a third of working Americans belonged to a union--American workers generated economic growth with increased productivity and were rewarded with higher wages. But this link between greater productivity and higher wages has broken down.

In the past 50+ years that have passed since America's middle class was expanding and the economy was soaring, former labor secretaries Robert Reich (1993 - 1997) and Ray Marshall (1977 - 1981) have seen an economy weakened by a combination of personal greed, individual irresponsibility and unsustainable financial conditions. In Sunday's Chicago Tribune, Reich and Marshall explain why the Employee Free Choice Act is critical to getting our economy back on track.

While the debate surrounding the Employee Free Choice Act continues to grow, the underlying principles behind the measure shouldn't be swept under the rug or marginalized for political convenience. We have a president and secretary of labor who both support making it easier for workers to join unions. We shouldn't squander this opportunity for change.

Our country's history, Reich and Marshall say, has shown that unions are necessary to give the middle class the bargaining power it needs for better wages and benefits and the opportunity to fulfill the elusive American dream.

The years following World War II saw the largest increase in union membership in U.S. history, and along with it came increased productivity and shared prosperity. We can repeat this, but we must reform our obsolete labor laws so workers can join unions without the roadblocks so many face.

Putting more money in workers' pockets would provide a needed boost for the long-term growth of U.S. economy by giving consumers the purchasing power they need to buy more of the goods and services our economy produces. Especially, say the former labor secretaries, because "a vital component of our nation's recovery is making sure that we don't return to a bubble-and-bust economy, where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed."

Today, employers are "more than twice as likely as they were in the 1990s to use 10 or more tactics...to thwart workers' organizing efforts." A very important feature of the Employee Free Choice Act, Reich and Marshall remind us, toughens penalties against companies that violate their workers' rights by using union-busting tactics like intimidation, harassment, or threat of fire.

The principles that are the foundation of the Employee Free Choice Act -- giving workers a direct path to form unions, toughening penalties against employers who break the law and helping workers secure a first contract in a reasonable period of time -- are ones we must never waiver on.

The sooner the Employee Free Choice Act is enacted, the better -- for U.S. workers and for the U.S. economy. Because in this economy, "people should be able to bargain, not beg, their way into the middle class."

Read the whole editorial here.