U.S. Retail Employers Fear Obama and Unions

I noted in an eariler posting that Wal-Mart had been accused of holding mandatory employee meetings (captive audience meetings) to warn employees that voting Democrat could be bad for their employment prospects.  The reason is that Obama has pledged support for the Employee Free Choice Act.  Professor Hirsch contributed a Guest Blog on that legislation earlier.  A main component of the legislation is the re-introduction of union certification by card-check rather than mandatory ballot.  Non-union employers–such as most of the retail sector–fear this will make them more susceptible to union organizing.
The Wall Street Journal now reports that more retail employers in the U.S. are warning employees of ‘economic pain’ if the Democrats win.   Three American labour law scholars (McCormick, Hart, Secunda) recently commented on the use of captive audience meetings to try to influence employees to reject the Democrats in an article in the Legal Times. I have commented before that I would find it repugnant and condescending if my employer forced me to attend a meeting to persuade me to vote for a particular political party, but that it is not at all clear to me that an employer in Canada would violate any law by doing so.
(I’m no expert on election laws, so I did a quick search of the Canada Elections Act and the FAQ government website to try and learn if that legislation bans employers from this sort of behavior, since I have doubts that any employment laws do.  While the question of whether an employer can hold employee captive audience meetings to influence employee voting was not one of the FAQs, this little nugget was there:  “Is someone allowed to eat a ballot?” Wow, I wonder how frequently that is a problem.)
Thanks to Workplace Law Prof Blog for the American articles.