Fresh off the PR Wire from Wal-Flack Central:
Wal-Mart announced today that it has terminated a Wal-Mart systems technician for intercepting text messages and recording telephone conversations without authorization.
The disciplinary action is the result of an internal investigation that began on January 11, 2007 when an individual used the Wal-Mart open door policy to express concerns about the recordings. The audit committee of the company's Board of Directors was notified on January 12th and on Saturday, January 13, attorneys for the company notified the U. S. Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas.
Wal-Mart's internal investigation initially found that the systems technician had monitored and recorded telephone conversations between Wal-Mart Public Relations associates and a reporter from The New York Times. These recordings were made over a four-month period between September, 2006 and January, 2007. Wal-Mart notified The New York Times earlier today.
To appreciate this story, you have to understand that Michael Barbaro, the reporter on the NYT's Wal-Mart beat, has broken countless stories embarrassing to the company. You also have to recognize that tapping into phone conversations is nothing new for Wal-Mart. As Wal-Mart Watch has explained (.pdf, p. 18):
"Jon Lehman, a former store manager, told Bloomberg News that two dozen people with headsets at Wal-Mart headquarters tap into calls and e-mails from stores around the country to see whether anyone is talking about unionization."
Compare that to this from the same news release:
Under federal law and the applicable state law, a telephone conversation may be recorded if one party has given his or her consent. Since Wal-Mart policies state that all electronic communications of associates using Wal-Mart communication systems are subject to monitoring and recording, Wal-Mart associates give their consent to the monitoring and recording of their calls. Therefore, the unauthorized recording of telephone conversations by the systems technician did not violate any laws.
[Emphasis added]
I think that serves as confirmation for Lehman's charge. But the press release continues with more "clarification" of Wal-Mart's policies:
However, it is Wal-Mart's practice to record associate phone calls only in compelling circumstances and with written permission from the legal department. The threshold for this permission is high and limited to cases of high risk to the company or its associates, such as suspected criminal fraud or security issues.
Is a suspected union organizing drive "a high risk to the company?" They have good reason not to say. If this investigation leads to confirmation of Lehman's charge, they might be busted for breaking labor law rather than wiretapping law.
JR