WalMart and Unions

WalMart manages to get the low prices it does by being both huge, and cutting costs to the bone. And cutting costs means not paying their workers as much as others in their market segment. Sometimes workers don't like that and take steps to address that problem, like the store that voted to Unionize in Canada. And Canada closed the store in order to avoid having any Union shops, as that would put upward pressure on their overall costs.

It is a vested interest in WalMart that they keep Unions out of their shop. From their point of view, they are vehicles to inefficiency. They force increased costs in pay and benefits, and that hurts the bottom line. Can't have that.

On the other hand, Unions are about the only tool employees have to force harsh businesses to treat them fairly. If WalMart gets too repressive, Unionization efforts are almost guaranteed. They push hard enough, and Unionization is almost guaranteed. So WalMart is engaged in a battle to make sure that Unions don't gain a beach-head, and if they do, limit how far they get.

The current business environment is pretty anti-union, so pressure on workers has to be pretty strong for the workers to organize these days. The big unions are targeting WalMart for unionization efforts since its very presence threatens jobs in Union shops like Target. There was a unionization vote in Colorado in the past few days that was instigated by a big union. It failed 17 to 1 against. Clearly, things weren't bad enough in that shop to overcome ambient workplace pressures, or whatever pressure WalMart put on the workers to vote "No".

It doesn't help much that the 'working poor' that populate the workers of most WalMarts are a rather disenfranchised lot. They're not the kind of people who, as a class, raise their hands and say "what about me?" to the world at large. So Unionization efforts will be very difficult as it is.

National ID cards

Privacy advocates have long held that a national ID card would be a big invasion of privacy. Some say that the Social Security Card is just that, but it isn't. You aren't required to have one, so long as you don't earn any money. Attempts to get such cards in place have failed in the past, which is why people are looking with suspicion on the new attempt to nationalize drivers license standards.

The new standards would mandate minimum security features, as well as prohibit granting the licenses to illegal immigrants. What they don't do is mandate that the license data be shared with the federal government.

Why is this a big deal?

Because in every state, the driver's license (or state ID card for non-drivers) is seen as a primary ID document. The driver's license is used anywhere ID needs to be confirmed, which includes anytime you pass a check, attempt to get on an airplane, or apply for a job.

We do not have state ID cards in the sense that National ID cards would be. They are not required by law to have. They are required de facto, in the sense that it is nearly impossible to do business without one. This is the way privacy invasions start in the US; started by business, codified into law by lawmakers after enough time has passed.

In a sense, we already have a national ID card. It's called a passport. Since everyone already has a Driver's License (or rather, most everyone) there is little to no need to carry a passport in addition to a DL if you aren't planning international travel. Cashiers in stores frequently aren't sure how to handle a passport when they ask for a DL after getting passed a check. Should more companies start requiring a passport for proof-of-identity, adoption rates will pick up. If the federal government should pass a law requiring that the passport also contain home-address, you will be seven tenths of the way to a new national ID card.

The UK is considering implementing a new ID card. Details here.

The UK has a weaker tradition of privacy than the US does (and so does Canada, keep that in mind the next time you threaten to migrate there), so this kind of thing doesn't get rejected out of hand with the same vehemence it does here. There you see that they are planning to link the passport with the national ID card. The ID card would be a separate piece of plastic from the passport, but obtained at the same time. To quote:

Ministers say they do not expect compulsion until 80% of people have the cards anyway - although this is not spelled out in the bill.

In essence, only make having one mandatory when almost everyone already has one. This is to pick up the ID-card resistors out there. Adoptions at that level would require private industry buy-in, making the ID-card a preferred document for proving identity. The same thing would have to happen here.

The proposed driver's license standards are just an itty bitty step towards a US national ID card.