Peter F

I'm not blaming you, pal. I feel for you. You acted in good faith. You have done nothing wrong here. Sponsorship is not to be taken lightly (nor marriage, of course) - and you didn't take it lightly. But that doesn't mean you get your way and she has to live with you. The fact is, you bit into the hook of financial support when you got married - The sponsorship has not changed anything. So, knowing this is a very difficult time for you, I can only suggest: be happy for small mercy's. She could have hung around for three years then left and you'd be on the hook financially then too. There's nothing for it friend. This too shall pass. The woman has done nothing illegal here. Underhanded and decietful to you, yes. but illegal? no. Because she is your spouse doesn't give her any extra benifits beyond normal immigrants. She was fast tracked, certainly, but she still needs to meet whatever requirements are required for immigration just like everyone else. She is a legal immigrant even now. There is no law, nor can there be in this country, requireing her to remain married to you. Regarding the long list of things that would have discouraged her from marrying you...well, welcome to the club. There's a long list of bitter males that agree with you 100%.

I am sure your marriage was not a marriage of convenience. You would not have entered into a marriage of convenience would you? No. So you were married but it was not a marriage of convenience. Why do you say it was a marriage of convenience? She left you. Many women leave their husbands. There is nothing illegal about that, even if they are immigrants. I am sorry your marriage didn't work out. Buy the way...sponsoring her doe's not make her your property. She is free to come and go as she pleases.

Interesting. An independant commission determines 'viability' of suggested nations. I wonder where Kosovo or Georgia would fit?

Lordy! There's even rules of when its proper to go the washroom!

Best place for them. As you know, the Allies built them out of fear the Germans would build them. If the Germans built them and the allies didn't there'd be big trouble then. But, like nerve agents, If the allies had the weapon too then there'd actually be a deterrent. As it turned out, deterence didn't enter the picture in August 1945 because the Japanese didn't have nukes. So the allies used what nukes they had to thier hearts content...and thus the war crime. No I do not give my moral blessing to firebombings or any other form of 'area' bombing. Those too are war crimes. Hey, people can legally kill people under all sorts of circumstances. But thats got nothing to do with war crimes.

I cannot agree with the rationalizations here. 10s of thousands of civilians, of all ages, were deliberately massacred. That, as Curtis LeMay alluded, was a war crime. It was a deliberate murder of civilians in order to convince the enemy to surrender. Supposedly it saved a zillion lives and was a good thing. There was no necessecity for invasion. There was no need for risking 10's of thousands of troops in an invasion. Thus no need for dropping A-bombs or even just firebombing what was left. It was a war crime. Not the worst of that war by any means...

I had a bunch of GDW AH VG and SPI games during the late 70's. They ended up being tossed. Cudda made a bundle on Ebay if I had lugged them around long enough.

I think its because Obama likes killing babies.

Truth be told, I don't see it going any other way either...but one can always hope

Well, yeah. All that is true. So I wonder why the SCC has agreed to hear the case? Are they not aware that Peter F is unable to defende their decision?

No Riverwind, as has already been agreed, we have no idea what Wal-mart thought or didn't think. That is fundamental to the argument that no one can prove wal-mart closed the store because of the union. We don't know what Walmart thinks. On the other hand...IF Walmart was of the opinion that arbitration would result in a contract in favour of the employee's and detrimental to Walmart....why, then, if they were dealing in good faith, they would not endeavour to come to an agreement with the employee's prior to arbitration? I think I can guess at your answer: Any agreement with the Union is detrimental to the company.

You assume an arbitrator would grant all union demands. That is not what arbitration is. Arbitration is the last place a union wants to go to because its a crap shoot - who knows what an arbitrator will decide? Nobody knows.

Of course it's not supported in law. If it was this thread wouldn't exist. I originally was responding to somebody's point that they thought there was no legal grounds for the SCC to hear the UFCW's appeal. I thought that there may be a pretty good grounds regarding Right of association. I still do. You are correct that Employers can cease doing business with unionized employee's if they so desire. That is a true state of affairs in this land. I think it is a wrong state of affairs in that Employer's have no choice but to deal with employee's so wether those employee's are unionized or not doesn't change anything. Therefore, I restate and admittedly my opinion about whats right and wrong here is not supported by any legal precedent whatsoever, it is irrational behaviour to cease to deal with thier employees simply because they choose to deal with the employer through a bargaining agent. I find that to be descriminatory. Not discriminatory in the sense you have used the word as in everyday mundane choicemaking between various options, but discriminatory in the sense that it causes hardship for no good reason whatsoever and is deliberately so. Would you find it perfectly acceptable for an employer to not deal with homosexuals? or Buddhists? or Liberals? Why is it okay to cease dealing with unionized employee's when dealing with the same employees is fine when they are not unionized? We are, after all, dealing with these employee's livelyhoods here. I do not know what 'opportunity cost of lost wages means'. But punishing an employee for quiting is quite possible and doe's happen from time to time depending upon the employment contract in existence. For normal wage earners - no they should not be punished at all for quiting no matter what thier nasty reasons are for thier contract and obligation to the employer ceased the moment they quit.

Well, alright, Wal-mart could very well have entered the negotiations in good faith, in an attempt to reach a reasonable contract with the union. Fat chance considering thier past and present actions - but who knows? There is one thing I will not buy and that is that its the employee's fault that Walmart shut down. It is also bizarre that you say the employee's would still have jobs if they had not have chosen collective bargaining - then claim Walmart 'didn't' shut down because the employee's formed a union.

Unacceptable to you. I understand that. Not unacceptable interference to me. Perfectly acceptable in this case. Edit to add: I never addressed the 'presumed motivation' of Walmart. Yes, it would - normally - be difficult to show the real motivation of Wal-mart. Except...in this case, Walmart had no collective agreement with thier employee's. They closed the store prior to the contract dispute being sent to arbitration - as the Quebec Labour laws require if the employer and employee's cannot agree on an initial contract. I suggest, as unholy as it may sound, that Wal-mart should be penalized by the state for thier actions in denying the right of thier employee's to collective bargaining. If they had've waited for the arbitrators decision - then closed up; Fine. If they had closed up prior to the certification vote; Fine. They closed up simply to deny thier employee's the right of collective bargaining. Not for profit and not to cut losses, but purely to deny thier employee's their right. That behaviour should be punished.

and those losses (both real and imagined) only came into effect once walmart closed the store, not before they closed the store. The employee's choosing collective bargaining had zero effect upon thier operating costs. Wal-marts choosing to close the store gave reality to their losses (real and imagined), not the employee's. So, no, I do not see the fact that they took 'losses' as Wal-mart is being punished. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the charter should only apply between individuals and thier government. Perhaps this should more properly come under 'contractural law' or whatever the appropriate title would be.

See, thats what I don't understand about your position. You are saying that the company has every right in the world to not do any business with employee's who choose collective bargaining. It seems to me to be an irrational position to take. The company will deal with employee's as individuals but will not deal with employee's collectively. The employee's, according to the Charter, have every right to choose collective bargaining in thier dealings with employers. Yet, you take the position that the employer can take steps to put those employee's out of work where, if they hadn't exercised their right they would continue employment with the employer. You see no discriminatory behaviour here? I do, and such behaviour should not be condoned nor allowed. and as I have stated over and over again - except that they cannot do so because employee's chose collective bargaining Sometimes an employee quits in order to 'punish' the employer. Sometimes they quit to move on to greener pastures. Sometimes they quit because they are tired of being punished.

No, I don't think you can force them to do business where they don't want to do business. But here's the goon: Wal-mart can't have it both ways. They were willing to do business in Jonquiere (sp?) if their employee's were not subject to collective barganing; They were not willing to do business in Jonquiere if the very same employee's were subject to collective bargaining. The act of the employee's exercising their right of association 'caused' Walmart to close down the store. So where Wal-mart was willing to conduct business one day - they were not willing to conduct business the next with no increase in their operating costs. They effectively, and to my mind intentionally, punished the employee's for exercising a legal right. That is not something the state with a real Charter of Rights should allow to occur.

Owning a car doesn't allow one to do whatever they want with it. Usually restrictions on what one doe's with ones own property appear when one does nasty things to others with that property. Thus Labour laws etc. ... I know you're not in favour of them either.

Thats being penalized? Hah! To walmart thats the costs of doing business- money well spent! They willingly and probably gladly, chose to do so in order to avoid a unionized workforce. Penalized my arse.

100% agreement.

Which explains why the SCC has decided to hear the appeal...But I agree, the SCC will in the end reject the UFCW's contentions probably on the grounds that the Right of Association is outwieghed by the right of the company to do business. but we will see what we will see

2008 - 59 = ...ummmm...(opens windows calculator)... 1949. so yes, it appears to be a gaffe and not complete historical ignorance. I wish I could gloat but I cant in this case since there is nothing to gloat over. Its a simple mistake.

The Quebec court has said that company's can close thier doors. The courts of Quebec say employee's must accept this fact as long as such closures are permanent and not mere subterfuges to avoid the results of certification votes. Fair enough. But, obviously, I do believe that Right of Association is real and to be real needs to be legally enforceable. That was what the UFCW was contending in thier appeals against Walmart and I think/hope that is what the SCC will be addressing in thier hearing of the appeal.

I understand why you would conclude that. But, No, I do not insist such. But I do think they should be penalized for what they have done.