So, the Wall Street Journal carried a story yesterday (followed up today by The New York Times) that reports, in part, a claim that Wal-Mart’s vice-chairman Thomas Coughlin had falsified expense reports to hide money he was using for anti-union activities. Coughlin, you may remember, was asked to leave the board after the company uncovered a series of made-up expense account reimbursement requests. The Journal says that Coughlin told people he was using the reimbursed money to pay employees to rat out pro-union workers.

I suppose you could look at this two ways. One is that a guy who already has an iffy rep for skimming off company money is trying to find some plausible cover for improper behavior–at least to avoid criminal prosecution (the incident is being investigated by federal authorities). The second is that there was some larger plan inside the company to fund anti-union behavior that CEO Lee Scott wanted done but have plausible deniability of its existence if it every came out.

There is absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy or Scott’s involvement, and the company has strongly denied any such plan. But, I think it’s fair to view those denials through the prism of past experience: Wal-Mart is viciously anti-union, has been so cited by the feds numerous times, has undertaken extreme measures (for example, shutting down a meat-cutting department in Texas and now an entire store in Canada when people vote for a union) and has a pattern of breaking the law. Wonder what else there is to the story? Does Couglin have any documents to prove his case? Would he testify under oath to such a plan? Stay tuned.