Avoiding:

The data collected during the interviews and archival research revealed that at the beginning of the Walmart-Associates conflict over the unionization of the Walmart employees, Walmart leadership adopted a tactic of avoidance. The leadership and management of Walmart avoided engaging in direct discussions on the unionization issue with its associates as well as ignored their underlying interests and goals. According to Steve Adubato (2016), “Wal-Mart’s CEO Lee Scott (who served as the third chief executive officer of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., from January 2000 to January 2009) apparently felt that responding to the criticism would give it added validity” (para. 3). Walmart leadership’s response to the early stage of this conflict – their avoidance strategy – subscribes to the noncommittal attitude of denying the existence of the conflict. “By pretending that the conflict does not exist, the high-power party is freed from dealing with the low-power party” (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014, p. 151). This is evident in the alleged “refusal to address the concerns of Walmart associates” by the different levels of Walmart’s hierarchy, beginning from the retired Chairman of the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Rob Walton, the oldest child of Sam and Helen Walton, to the members of the Board of Directors, and then to the executive management, to whom members of the Organization United for Respect at Walmart (OUR Walmart) and their allies claim they have repeatedly reached out individually and collectively to listen to their concerns (See Making Change at Walmart, The Walmart 1 Percent: History of outreach by Walmart associates and allies to Walmart, retrieved from http://walmart1percent.org/). One of the questions this research sought to investigate was: do the disadvantages of avoiding the expressed unionization goals of Walmart’s associates outweigh its advantages? The findings of this research revealed two important propositions. The one is that avoiding the concerns of the associates is in contradiction with Walmart’s organizational culture. The other is that by avoiding their expressed needs, interests and goals, Walmart associates feel the leadership and management do not care about their well-being, and do not value their contributions to the organization, which in turn set “the stage for a later explosion or backlash” (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014, p. 152) that has introduced friction in the management – associate relationship.

Dominating / Competing or Controlling:

Another style that emerged from the research on the Walmart-Associates conflict is the tactic of domination, competition and control. Since avoiding the associates’ concerns does not in any way eliminate the presence of the issues underlying the conflict, it was revealed in the research that many associates decided to come together, regroup, form in-store associations, and garner support and momentum from external interested groups/unions, while leveraging on superordinate laws/policies formulated to protect employee rights and seizing every opportunity and means to assert their claims and concerns. This competing move by the Walmart associates confirms the basic assumptions underlying the concept of the dominating style of communication. According to Hocker and Wilmot (2014): “a dominating, competitive, or ‘power over’ style is characterized by aggressive and uncooperative behavior – pursuing your own concerns at the expense of another. People with dominating styles attempt to gain power by direct confrontation, by trying to ‘win’ the argument without adjusting to the other’s goals and desires. […] The conflict is seen as a battleground, where winning is the goal, and concern for the other is of little or no importance” (p. 156).

A careful examination of the umbrella organization of the Walmart associates, Organization United for Respect at Walmart (OUR Walmart), revealed that in their conflict with Walmart, Our Walmart is so fixed to, and focused on, its demands while trying to win the battle through various competing strategies and tactics. These tactics include but not limited to: “filing frivolous lawsuits, publishing slanted studies, issuing demand letters to employers, conducting boisterous and disruptive protests in stores and on the street, personally attacking board members and executives and leveling slanderous accusations in the media” (See Worker Center Watch, Our Walmart Tactics, Retrieved from http://workercenterwatch.com). It is believed that these communication styles constitute part of an encompassing, global campaign strategy that includes the use of civil disobedience (Eidelson, 2013; Carpenter, 2013), organizing and going on strikes (Carpenter, 2013; Resnikoff 2014; Jaffe 2015; Bode 2014), social media, dedicated websites, and other online platforms, designed to publicly persuade or coerce Walmart to yield to the demands of its associates.

The research data revealed that instead of yielding to Our Walmart’s demands and being intimidated by its public campaigns and other tactics, Walmart has employed different styles to communicate, persuade, and coerce its associates not to unionize. Agitation for freedom of association or unionization and participating in Our Walmart-led strikes are frequently met with punishment from Walmart management in the form of threats of, or actual, store closures, layoffs, reduction of work hours or loss of benefits. For example, “when the meat department of a Walmart store in Texas became the retailer’s only operation in the United States to unionize, back in 2000, Walmart announced plans two weeks later to use prepackaged meat and eliminate butchers at that store and 179 others” (Greenhouse, 2015, para. 1). Similarly, it is believed that the closing of the Walmart store in Jonquiere, Quebec in 2004 shortly after the store associates were unionized, and the move in April 2015 to close a store in Pico Rivera, California, along with four other stores, is part of a broader aggressive strategy to fight the unionization agenda of Walmart associates (Greenhouse, 2015; Masunaga, 2015).

Also, the official complaint of the National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General Counsel, against Walmart on January 15, 2014 confirms the dominating and controlling conflict style utilized by Walmart to deter associates from forming or joining a union. “During two national television news broadcasts and in statements to employees at Walmart stores in California and Texas, Walmart unlawfully threatened employees with reprisal if they engaged in strikes and protests. At stores in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Washington, Walmart unlawfully threatened, disciplined, and/or terminated employees for having engaged in legally protected strikes and protests. At stores in California, Florida, and Texas, Walmart unlawfully threatened, surveilled, disciplined, and/or terminated employees in anticipation of or in response to employees’ other protected concerted activities” (NLRB, Office of Public Affairs, 2015).

In addition to its aggressive move against any attempts to unionize its associates, Walmart mandated its Labor Relations Team to develop “A Manager’s Toolbox To Remaining Union Free,” a training kit that fiercely opposes and condemns unionization of the associates while providing convincing evidences and reasons why managers should say no to Our Walmart and encourage other associates to reject the idea of unionization. All managers are required to receive this training which empowers them to be Walmart’s “first line of defense against unionization” and provides them with the skills to be “constantly alert for efforts by a union to organize the associates” as well as to be constantly alert to any signs associates are interested in a union” (Walmart Labor Relations Team, 1997). When there were signs of union activities organized by Our Walmart or any other union, the managers were required to immediately report such signs and activities to the Labor Relations Hotline, also known as the Union Hotline (Walmart Labor Relations Team, 2014; Human Rights Watch, 2007). Similarly, new hires since 2009 are given an orientation to indoctrinate them into the anti-unionization culture and ideology of Walmart (Greenhouse, 2015), thereby deterring them from pursuing such goals that will leave them with regrettable consequences. So, new associates start off their work with feelings of fear of retaliation, should they associate themselves with pro-unionization elements.

After a reflection on the dominating styles of Walmart and the Organization United for Respect at Walmart (OUR Walmart), one important question emerged: what are the advantages and disadvantages of these tactics? Have these communication strategies served them well? The research finding on this style is in alignment with Hocker and Wilmot (2014)’s theoretical assumption on the dominating style of communication which holds that “it is useful if the external goal is more important than the relationship with the other person, such as in a short-term, nonrepeating relationship” (p. 157). But Walmart is bound in a long-term relationship with its associates, and so, “conflict waged competitively can encourage one party to go underground and use covert means to make the other pay. Domination tends to reduce all conflicts to two options – ‘either you are against me or with me,’ which limits one’s roles to ‘wining’ or ‘losing’” (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014, p. 157). Sadly, this is true of the current hostile relationship between Walmart and members of the Organization United for Respect at Walmart (OUR Walmart).

Accommodating or Obliging:

Another important communication style that is being used in the Walmart-Associates conflict is accommodating or obliging. For Katz et al. (2011), accommodating means “giving in, appeasing, and avoiding conflict” (p. 83) either to maintain the relationship or because of the fear of the consequences or impact losing out in the conflict will have on the accommodator. Our research data analysis reveals that many Walmart associates prefer to yield to Walmart’s anti-unionization rules to joining and participating in the pro-unionization activities of OUR Walmart, not because of relationship building, but because of the fear of losing their jobs, which, of course, will have a devastating impact on them and their families. Many people have chosen the accommodating stance in history as seen in the mythology of exodus where some Israelites preferred to yield to Pharaoh’s ordinances and return to Egypt to avoid hunger and dying in the desert, and as was evident during slavery – some slaves wanted to remain under the yoke of their masters because of the fear of the unknown -, or as utilized by many people in everyday relationship, especially in marriages.

It is important to note that some of the associates truly and secretly subscribe to the expressed interests of Our Walmart – that Walmart should improve the well-being of, and respect, associates -, however, they are afraid of speaking out openly. As Hocker and Wilmot (2014) affirm, “one may […] yield to someone else […] grudgingly and bitterly, [and from a perspective of] angry, hostile compliance” (p. 163). This assertion is confirmed in some of the statements that Walmart’s associates made during interviews. “I’m here because of my children, otherwise, I would have left Walmart or joined Our Walmart to fight for our rights.” “As a part-time associate, if you complain or express your views about how you’re treated and disrespected, your hours will be reduced, and you may be the next in line to get fired. So, I prefer to keep quiet to keep my job.” Yielding or conceding to the anti-unionization rules of Walmart is a common practice for many associates. Barbara Gertz, an overnight Walmart stocker in Denver, is reported by Greenhouse (2015) to have said that: “People are scared to vote for a union because they’re scared their store will be closed” (Para. 2).

For this communication style, it was also important to know how advantageous accommodating could be for the Walmart-Associates conflict. The research finding reveals that the accommodating style of communication or obliging was utilized to “minimize losses” (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014, p. 163). For the associate-accommodators, yielding is a lesser evil when compared to joining Our Walmart which could lead to termination of employment. Although Walmart may be satisfied in the short-run when these associates are obedient, in the long-run, there may be some form of resentment and low enthusiasm toward their work which may have a significant impact on their overall work performance.

Compromising:

Our research also reveals that in addition to the avoiding and dominating styles of communication and conflict utilized by Walmart, the organization has made some compromising decisions aimed at improving the well-being of its associates, saving face, and rebuilding confidence and reputation in the public eye. These compromising gestures include:

• improving its scheduling practices by offering some employees fixed schedules each week—many employees had complain[ed] that their work schedules change vastly week-to-week (Greenhouse, 2015);
• agreeing to raise its base pay to $9 in 2015 and $10 in 2016 – a move that would mean raises for 500,000 workers (Greenhouse,, 2015);
• improving its Open Door Policy by ensuring that “… any associate, at any time, at any level, in any location, may communicate verbally or in writing with any member of management up to the president, in confidence, without fear of retaliation…” (Walmart Labor Relations Team, 1997, p. 5);
• initiating inclusive and trusting communication channel for both management and associates by redesigning an intranet and launching walmartone.com in September 2012 (Kass, 2012);
• paying millions of compensations for accusations of discrimination, illegal termination of some members of Our Walmart, and other related violations of labor laws like wage law violations, inadequate health care, exploitation of workers, and the retailer’s anti-union stance (Work Place Fairness, 2016; Riper, 2005);
• taking a lot of steps to increase employee diversity in the organization;
• establishing the Global Ethics Office in Bentonville, Arkansas, that formulates and educates both the management and associates about Walmart’s code of ethical conduct, and also provides a confidential system / process for associates to report what “they feel might be a violation of ethical conduct, policy or law” (Global Ethics Office, www.walmartethics.com.

With respect to the gestures of compromise from the other side of the aisle, it is important to note that Our Walmart and its partner, United Food and Commercial Workers, have given up some of its aggressive and destructive strategies, partly as a sign of trade-offs for something in return on the part of Walmart, and mostly in order to comply with court orders (See appendix for the court injunctions). The most important and significant compromise that is worth highlighting in this final research report is the sudden decision made by Our Walmart to desist from negotiating “contracts on behalf of Walmart workers, but to focus instead on helping “members benefit from federal labor laws that protect workers from retaliation for engaging in collective discussion and action” (Steven Greenhouse, 2011). The commitment not to act as a legal union representing Walmart associates is reflected in the legal disclaimer that Our Walmart posted on its website and social media pages:  “UFCW and OUR Walmart have the purpose of helping Walmart employees as individuals or groups in their dealings with Walmart over labor rights and standards and their efforts to have Walmart publicly commit to adhere to labor rights and standards. UFCW and OUR Walmart have no intent to have Walmart recognize or bargain with UFCW or OUR Walmart as the representative of its employees” (Our Walmart, Legal Disclaimer: http://forrespect.org/). As a comprehensive set of trade-offs decisions, Our Walmart has agreed to desist from the following activities:

• “entering onto or inside Walmart’s private property to engage in activities such as picketing, patrolling, parading, demonstrations, ‘flash mobs,’ handbilling, solicitation, and manager confrontations; or
• entering onto or inside Walmart’s private property without permission or authorization from Walmart for any purpose other than shopping for and/or purchasing Walmart merchandise” (Worker Center Watch: Founding, Retrieved from http://workercenterwatch.com; Court of Benton County, Arkansas Civil Division, 2013).

The different compromise gestures made by Walmart and Our Walmart with its allies are characteristic of the compromising style of communication or conflict. By making the above outlined compromises, both Walmart and Our Walmart “assume that a win / win solution is not possible and adopt a negotiating stance that involves a little bit of winning and a little bit of losing with respect to both the goals and the relationships of the involved parties, with persuasion and manipulation dominating the style” (Katz et al., 2011, p. 83). After reflecting on this compromising style of conflict, it was important to explore whether this style is more advantageous to the two main parties involved in this conflict than any other conflict style, for example, the integrating or collaborating style. The research finding revealed that the above compromises only served to ‘reinforce a power balance … used to achieve temporary or expedient settlements in time-pressured situations” (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014, pp. 162) since the other tactics – avoidance, domination, and accommodation – failed to put a pause to the conflict.

However, since compromising could be seen as a sign of loss, and given that Our Walmart would not want to easily give up on what they refer to as a human rights struggle, the conflict could now be described as gradually moving to the highest point on its ladder of escalation. And in addition, it appears that the parties are stuck in these conflict styles or have gotten “frozen into a conflict style rather than developing style flexibility” (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014, pp. 184-185). Another question that emerged from the interviews and archival research is: why are the parties doing the same thing over and over again since the manifestation of this conflict? Why are they frozen into holding their positions without any sign of flexibility? Why is Walmart not willing to give up its anti-unionization fight? And why is Our Walmart not willing to give up its aggressive campaign and fight against Walmart? The research findings revealed that the best answer to these questions lies in the differences between the concepts of power, rights and interests (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014, p. 108 – p. 110). It was found that the focus for this conflict has shifted from interests to rights and then to power; and the escalated nature of the Walmart-Our Walmart conflict confirms that “an overemphasis on power is symptomatic of a distressed system” (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014, p. 110).

Integrating or Collaborating:

What then should be done to reverse the wheel of this conflict escalation? Many people would be quick to argue that restoring the labor rights of Walmart associates through the formal legal system is necessary to resolving the dispute. Based on the findings of this research, I believe that the rights-based processes of dispute resolution are necessary since the conflict involves rights-based issues such as sex-discrimination, labor laws violation, and other related legal issues. However, because of the long-term relationship that normally exists between employers and their employees, the rights-based processes are not sufficient to resolving the underlying issues in the Walmart-Associates conflict. For this reason, it is suggested in this research to shift the emphasis from the power-and rights-based processes to interests-based processes of conflict resolution. Just as Hocker and Wilmot (2014) say, “when we solve a dispute based on interests, the goals and desires of the parties are the key elements … with rights and power playing smaller but still important roles” (p. 109).

But, has the interests-based communication style been utilized by any of the parties in this conflict? The data collected through interviews, archival studies and other research methods that constitute the foundation on which this final report is based revealed that Walmart and Our Walmart have not yet transitioned to an integrating or collaborating style of communication. Walmart and Our Walmart with its partners have not yet adopted a “win/win posture” that ensures that “both parties to the conflict achieve their personal goals [and act] not only on behalf of their self-interest but on behalf of the opposing party’s interests as well” (Katz et al., 2011, p. 83). Even though this research acknowledges the stated efforts made by Walmart by creating the Global Ethics office, a system that is aimed at providing a confidential and anonymous reporting process and helping associates to raise concerns and speak up about perceived or actual violations of ethical conducts and policies (Global Ethics Office, www.walmartethics.com); and although the research finding is reminiscent of Walmart’s compromising stance on strengthening its Open Door policy, a system and a process that promote a working atmosphere which encourages each associate to express their thoughts and feelings to management without fear of retaliation (Walmart Labor Relations Team, 1997). It is the contention of this research that both the Global Ethics and the Open Door policy are not reflective of a co-authorship of a solution that addresses the underlying issues and concerns in the Walmart – Associates conflict.

Throughout this research, there was no available information about a time when Walmart and Our Walmart co-authored a solution through “mutual problem solving” (Hocker and Wilmot, 2014, p. 165). Therefore, a process or system through which Walmart and Our Walmart with its partners could collaboratively co-author a solution to their conflict – a joint solution that will meet the core interests and needs of both parties – should be the primary concern of any peace/conflict intervention in this organization, and it should be privileged and welcomed by the leadership and management of Walmart.