Renegade

If it is not supported in law, then the only question that the SCC can address is whether the Labour Law violates the Charter's right of Association. BTW, it was my point you were responding to. If you agree with me that the "exception" you describe is not supported in law, then you also are agreeing with tme that the UFCW has no legal grounds. Personally I don't agree that it is "irrational behaiviour", however even if it were, so what? In a free society both employees and employers are free to be irrational if they so choose. An employee can quit "for no good reason whatsoever" and cause hardship on his employer so long as he follows the rules of his employment contract and doesn't break any laws. The same is true of an employer. I find it perfectly acceptable for an employer to decide if he stays in business or not. IOW, if he chooses to open shop in that location he is choosing to follow the rules prohibiting discrimmination against homosexual, Buddhists, etc. If he doesn't like those rules or ceases to like them, he is free to close shop. Simply put, the opportunity cost of lost wages means he doesn't work and so loses the wages he would have been paid. You have hit the nail on the head, that punishing employees does happen when and where they have an employment contract in place, just like punishing an employer would happen if it violated the terms of an employment contract. No such violation occured, so just as you agree that "normal wage earners" should not be punished, "normal" employers should not be punished, and its obligation to the employee ceases once it decides to close shop.

I really don't see how this paper supports your contention. Even if we use disposal income as a measure, it further reinforces what I have said. From Table 3 Pg 25, Personal Disposal Income (per capita) has gone from $9,256 in 1946 to $22,909 in 2001 in constant 1996 dollars. How is this any different than what I have stated?

The question is not whether it is discriminatory, the question is whether that particular discrimination is banned. Each of us and organizations discrimminate every day. If an employee chose to work for one organization which had a union and rejected employment at another which wasn't unionized, would that be discriminatory? Of course it would, but freedom of association allows him the choice to do so, just as it allows employers to decide whether they will enter into a contract with employees collectively. And as I have pointed out, your "exception" may be your wish but it is not an exception supported in law. So do you think an employee who quits in order to "punish" an employer should be fined (over and beyond the opportunity cost of lost wages)?

That's why the figures are in constant dollars. To include for cost of living increases due to inflation. If you have some evidence to prove differently, I'm interested, but all the figures I've seen are indisputable

I don't follow what you mean by "both ways". There is only one-way. Eiither a company accepts the conditions to do business or it doesn't. In this case conditons have changed, employees who previously did not wish to be collectively represented, now do. Walmart can choose not to do business anymore. In fact as you have previously acknowledged they can close the store for NO GOOD REASON AT ALL. BTW, when an employee quits a job do you think they "punish" an employer? No, why not?

Actually a corporation has more than 3 main stakeholders (for example suppliers, and customers in addition to the ones you have listed). Its main obligation to its shareholders is to maximize profit. Its ONLY obligation to its employees is to offer them sufficient compensation so that the freely trade their labour for compensation. Its ONLY obligation to its community is to follow the laws. So then Walmart has found a really great marketing strategy. They should be commended for that, shouldn't they?

I ask you the same question I asked Peter. What did they do which was "absolutely illegal"? Courts have consistently found that what they have done WAS legal.

The fact that you don't agree that the penalty is sufficient doesn't mean that it isn't a disincentive. Yes, it is clear Walmart prefers to not deal with a unionized workforce. They question is can you force them to stay in business if they choose not to operate in a business envirnoment which is not acceptable to them.

Yes, really!! See m response below. You may disagree but your ancedotal evidence based upon your experience does not agree with the facts. Statistics Canada: Median total income They have posted back to 1987. If you dig you can find the income back to the 60s. You will see that in general incomes (as measured in constant dollars) have risen. Actually, I couldn't give 2 fits to encourage larger families. People should have kids if they want to and can support them and shouldn't have them if not. I'm not looking to encourage or discourage them and neither should taxpayers in general.

This is not true. People are on average richer than they were decades ago when the birth-rates were high. The difference is choice. Birth-control and the availability of abortion has given potential parents choice. In addition expectations on lifestyle have changed. Children are expensive and many parents have chosen to live a more luxurious lifestyle over opting to have children. There was a time when having more children was a sound economic choice. The reason to have them was to use their labour in the fields and as your social saftey-net when you retire. Those conditions have changed, making having kids no longer an economic benefit but rather and economic burden. Of course, but why should it even bother.

You seem to ignore the reality that no matter how energy efficient we get, a smaller population will be more energy efficient than a larger one. You seem to ignore the reality that no matter how energy efficient we get, a smaller population will be more energy efficient than a larger one. When you say "We cant stop growth" do you mean populaiton growth? We most certainly can since we control immigration policy and the bulk of our population growth is due to immigration policy. As you have acknowledged yourself we have a declining birth-rate so eventually without immigration we would limit growth. You have said that to stop growth "would imperil our growth and prosperity". How exactly do you know that? Is a population such as seen in some crowded Asian countries more prosperous than in many less crowded Western countries? Huh? "population drops were due to immigration rising"??? Who said that? Our natural birth rate goes down for a variety of reasons including more choices available to potential parents, and their changing expectaions. Regardless if people choose to have less kids, so be it. It's not like the population is suddenly dropping to an extent where society is in peril. If there is a gradual decline society is well equiped to accomodate it. Of course. Isnt' that what I've said. The point is that housing prices have been set by supply and demand. More population leads to more demand which puts upward pressure on prices. Do you actually know what it is like to live in NYC? Most people who live in the city live in a shoe-box apartment. Many others have a 2-hour commute from New Jersey, Long Island, or Connectect. It seems completely illogical to suggest that NYC is a utopia and if we drive sufficient population growth in Canada to simulate the conditions of NYC somehow Canadian society will be better off. Listen to the logic of your argument. By the extension of your logic we should let 6 billion people into Canada and then we would all be filthy rich because the postage size property we own would be worth a fortune. If you can't say where "enough is enough", how can you then say with any confidence that we are already past "enough"? If you want to use nature as your model, why do you insist that conditions of growth be changed artifically. You have already admitted that birth rates are declining. So what? Let them decline naturally.

Not likely. I think it is still going to be a while yet before our overall population stops growing. Morally wrong? Is it morally wrong to keep out an indiviual who might enjoy better success in our country than his own? Would a company be "morally wrong" to attract the best and brightest employees and by doing so deny those employees to its competitor? Actually it may be a supprisingly good thing. Maybe we should stop depending upon an ever-growing tax-base for these pyramid-type programs we put in place.

No it IS the consequence of growth. Even if we become more green each of us still consume resources which are not replenished. More people mean more resources consumed, there is no way around that. BTW, even if we became more green, would not less growth mean EVEN LESS pollution than more growth? Maybe we should hold off growth until we can prove that we can sustain the current population without consuming unreplinshable resources. I see that as a long, long way off, if it is even possible. Don't you? Unfortunately it isn't just for the individual person to decide. In fact the individual person has decided, but having less kids on average. It is government who has intefered in the mix by setting immigration policy and trying to induce birth rates which subvert what "market conditions" dictate. Immigrants who are happy to live in crowded conditions, are that way because the conditions are better off then from where they originated. However the crowding doesn't just impact them, it impacts everyone who has to share the space. For the most part I would say that people prefer more space instead of less. It is undeniable that more people leads to less space per person. Since you advocate gowth, at what point do you stop growing? Do you ever?

Yes it's true that you didn't talk about it but all of those are a consequence of growth, and growth is what you advocated. The consequences of growth in virtually all cities is either piling families one on top of another, smaller and more expensive domiciles, or urban sprawl. How is that better than less growth? At what point do you say it is crowded enough? BTW, stats show that about 70% of immigrants settle in the large and crowded cities of Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, so while there may be room to cram a few people in on the tundra, given a choice, most people don't choose to go there, and I don't blame them.

And there is no evidence that the store closing is anything but permanant. Each day that goes by without the store opening, further sthrengthens the case that the closing is permanant. Walmart has followed the rules in place and been inflicted the consequences and penalties of those rules. The SCC and lower courts do not make the laws they simply interpret them. Which law has Walmart violated which imposes penalties for closing a store (for whatever reason)? Consistently lower courts have ruled in favour of Walmart. I predict that the SCC will do the same because the UFCW doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

They already have been penalized. The cost of shutting down operations, paying severance, and forgone profits is the penalty Walmart must pay.

What? We don't have enough people crammed into our cities? We don't consume resources at a fast enough rate? We don't pollute the the environment fast enough? So you want to drive population growth because the current population doesn't do enough damage, did I get that right?

You have insisted that Walmart must keep the store open. That is something they are not willing to accept.

If you agree with that. Why do you insist that one party should be forced to accept terms it finds unfavourable and is not entering into agreement freely?

They accepted??? How? It is not left to Walmart or any employer to accept or not accept. That obligation is mandated by the government should the employer wish to do business within that juristiction. So? What obligation does management have to do so? Does an employee have an obligation to tell the employer that if you don't pay me $X I'll quit, or can they simply quit without disclosing the reason. Because they essentially what they are being told (by the employees and the government) is "The conditions for doing business in this location is that you must deal with the employees through collective bargaining". There responses is "Fine. We will cease doing business". The employees have the ability to choose how they deal with the employer (individually or collectively). The employer has the ability to determine if it will do business on those terms. The employer is under no obligation to shutdown at any particular time or to disclose the reason for the shutdown. Why should it? It is simply your opinion that it should shut down as soon as they became aware of the certification vote. There is no obligation in law or otherwise for them to do so. Well I appreciate that is your opinion but it is not the law. Walmart has followed the law. My opinion is that Walmart's obligations to its employees are parallel to its employees obligations to Walmart. If an employee can quit for any reason and at any time without disclosing it to the employer, the employer should have that same priviledge.

Neither the employer nor the employee is "always right". The employer simply offers the employee an exchange: compensation in return for labour. The employee is free to accept or reject the offer. The employer is free to make the offer if it so choose or not make the offer if it so chooses. The fact that the employer makes the offer and the employee takes it, indicates that both are percieved to be better off than any alternative. (ie they are "happy to even get that") Of course they aren't. Neither are employees or unions. They simply make an exchange until such time that one side decides that they are no longer satisified with the terms of the exchange.

The landlord is required by law to provide you a receipt whenever you give him rent. You will need to ask him how he will comply with providing a receipt if what he is asking you to do is deposit into his bank account. BTW, if you do deposit into his account. DO NOT DEPOSIT CASH. Deposit a cheque made out to him, clearly indicating that it is for the monthly rent.

Maybe you want to look here first: http://www.rto.gov.bc.ca/default.aspx

It is "legitimate" for UFCW to dispute Walmart actions, however I don't see what legal basis they have for doing so. Even if there is not a legal basis, the UFCW may be persuing legal action in order to try an pressure Walmart to providing better severence by settling out of court (I'm speculating). Let's not be naive. Even if legal, Walmart would want to minimize the negative public perception which would result. It is much more general and ambigous to simply state that the store was closed for business reasons. In any case, unionization my have been an indirect cause for the store closing. (ie the union demands for better conditions led to increased operating costs which Walmart refused to accept). If this is the case it is not innaccurate to state that the store was closed for business reasons.

I believe you are quite wrong in your interpretation of the law. As RW has stated, the law says nothing about prohibiting an organzation from going out of business. I fully realize that even if Walmart did shutdown because they did not want a unionized operation, that they would not to pubiclly state that as the reason for the shutdown. FYI: No Union Please, We're Wal-Mart