Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

[Renegade]

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.

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.

[Renegade]

While I'm not a huge Wal-Mart hater bought my milk there yesterday, what they did was absolutely illegal and against the best interest of everyone.

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.

[Renegade]

Every corporation has obligations to its three main stakeholders: It's employees, communities and shareholders.

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.

It's REALLY intelligent marketing on their part, and 95% of people don't know any better.

So then Walmart has found a really great marketing strategy. They should be commended for that, shouldn't they?

[Peter F]

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.

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.

[segnosaur]

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.

Not quite accurate.

First of all there were probably some 'operating costs'... an empty store that they probably had to pay taxes on, time and money spent preparing to open a store, and later closing it.

Secondly, while not exactly an 'operating cost', you also have to consider forgone profit. If I decide not to go to work, my 'operating cost' might still be 0, but I'll also not get paid by my employer. So, I have to consider the loss of income. In the same way, a store that could be open and earning a profit (but isn't) should likewise have its lack of profit considered a penalty.

That is not something the state with a real Charter of Rights should allow to occur.

Why? A charter of rights should really only deal with issues between the government and individuals. It should have nothing to do with the relationship between individuals and companies.

[Renegade]

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.

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?

Edited August 18, 2008 by Renegade

[Peter F]

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.

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.

In fact as you have previously acknowledged they can close the store for NO GOOD REASON AT ALL.

and as I have stated over and over again - except that they cannot do so because employee's chose collective bargaining

BTW, when an employee quits a job do you think they "punish" an employer? No, why not?

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.

[Riverwind]

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.

Freedom of association applies to business owners too. If they choose not to associate with employees who organize unions then they are entitled to so, however, this will require that they shut down their business (which WalMart did).

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.

What you keep missing is this case rests entirely on the presumed motivation of the WalMart managers - something which will be impossible to prove because only those managers know what their real motivations were. This means you are asking the court to guess what the motives might have been and then force a business to stay open if it decides that they weren't the 'correct' motives. A precident like this opens the door for all kinds unacceptable interference in the management of private businesses. That is why I say the right of a business to shut it doors for whatever reason must trump the right of employees to bargin collectively.

[Peter F]

Not quite accurate.

First of all there were probably some 'operating costs'... an empty store that they probably had to pay taxes on, time and money spent preparing to open a store, and later closing it.

Secondly, while not exactly an 'operating cost', you also have to consider forgone profit. If I decide not to go to work, my 'operating cost' might still be 0, but I'll also not get paid by my employer. So, I have to consider the loss of income. In the same way, a store that could be open and earning a profit (but isn't) should likewise have its lack of profit considered a penalty.

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.

Why? A charter of rights should really only deal with issues between the government and individuals. It should have nothing to do with the relationship between individuals and companies.

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.

[Peter F]

Freedom of association applies to business owners too. If they choose not to associate with employees who organize unions then they are entitled to so, however, this will require that they shut down their business (which WalMart did).

What you keep missing is this case rests entirely on the presumed motivation of the WalMart managers - something which will be impossible to prove because only those managers know what their real motivations were. This means you are asking the court to guess what the motives might have been and then force a business to stay open if it decides that they weren't the 'correct' motives. A precident like this opens the door for all kinds unacceptable interference in the management of private businesses. That is why I say the right of a business to shut it doors for whatever reason must trump the right of employees to bargin collectively.

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.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Peter F

[Riverwind]

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.

It is never that clear. During negotiation the WalMart managers would have priced every demand and would have rejected them if the price would have made the store unprofitable. When negotiations failed and WalMart would have looked at the case law and could have determined what terms would likely be imposed during the binding arbitration. Based on that analysis they could determine whether the store was likely going to be unprofitable after the imposed contract. Of course, nothing is guaranteed and they might have been able to convince the arbitrator to accept terms that they could live with but the WalMart managers could legimately decide that the likelyhood of a profitable outcome was too small to justify the continued expense of running the operation.

It seems to me the real problem is the requirement for binding arbitration which took away WalMart's right to negotiate terms of its choosing. Those employees would likely still have their jobs today if the Quebec government had not tried to interfer in the negotiating process and left WalMart with no option other than closing the shop. If WalMart was really unwilling to deal with the union it would have closed shop immediately. The fact that it at least attempted to negotiate terms is enough to demonstrate that the employee's right to collective bargining was not denied.

Aside, in fact I believe the rules regarding binding arbitration encouraged the employee's to bargin in bad faith because they would have also know the past judgments and would have likely known what they would likely get if the case went to arbitration. Without that incentive the employee's would have likely settled for something much less and would still have their jobs.

Edited August 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[Peter F]

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.

[Riverwind]

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.

That is not what I said. I said the Quebec law requiring binding arbitration for the first contract took away the employee's incentive to bargin in good faith (i.e. why would they make any concessions if they believed they would not have to make them under a government imposed a first contract). Without that law they would have likely approach negotations with much lower expectations and possibly secured a deal.

[Renegade]

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.

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 stated over and over again - except that they cannot do so because employee's chose collective bargaining

And as I have pointed out, your "exception" may be your wish but it is not an exception supported in law.

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.

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)?

[Peter F]

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.

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.

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)?

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.

[Peter F]

That is not what I said. I said the Quebec law requiring binding arbitration for the first contract took away the employee's incentive to bargin in good faith (i.e. why would they make any concessions if they believed they would not have to make them under a government imposed a first contract). Without that law they would have likely approach negotations with much lower expectations and possibly secured a deal.

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.

[Renegade]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

[Riverwind]

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.

The employees would not have let it go to binding arbitration unless they thought the arbitrator was going to give them a better deal. We know that WalMart expected the arbitrator to impose a deal they could not work with.

[madmax]

The employees would not have let it go to binding arbitration unless they thought the arbitrator was going to give them a better deal. We know that WalMart expected the arbitrator to impose a deal they could not work with.

No and no again.

Just like this case is going to the highest court, nobody knows how it is going to be ruled. However, I haven't seen publicly the information that would suggest that Walmart did the nasty and closed a profitable outlet that would remain in operation had their not been a union formed.

Arbitration is far more "arbitrary" in its resolutions then anything I have seen in court. Too many times have I seen an excellent company case lose in arbitration and too many times have I seen an excellent Union case lose in arbitration. It is a crap shoot and no union wants to go to arbitration. I have been with companies that do want to go to arbitration on purpose rather then resolve and issue within the operation.

And sometimes, you just have to go to arbitration because you need to have the wording in the Collective Agreement ruled upon so that it can be lived with. The CA belongs to both the company and the union.

Edited August 19, 2008 by madmax

[Peter F]

The employees would not have let it go to binding arbitration unless they thought the arbitrator was going to give them a better deal. We know that WalMart expected the arbitrator to impose a deal they could not work with.

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.

[Peter F]

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.

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?

[Renegade]

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?

Of course the SCC doesn't disclose reasons why it agrees to hear the case, so we are left to speculate until the judgement is rendered. No doubt you support their decision to hear the case, as do I, because it would great to have a definative ruling which reinforces the employers ability to where and when to do business. I can't really see the decision going any other way.

[Peter F]

Of course the SCC doesn't disclose reasons why it agrees to hear the case, so we are left to speculate until the judgement is rendered. No doubt you support their decision to hear the case, as do I, because it would great to have a definative ruling which reinforces the employers ability to where and when to do business. I can't really see the decision going any other way.

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

Edited August 19, 2008 by Peter F

[segnosaur]

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.

First of all, if taking losses isn't "punishment", then what is it? If I end up loosing money (or my pay gets docked), I have less cash available to me... that sounds like punishment.

Secondly... while you are right in that simply the act of choosing collective bargaining doesn't increase operating costs, its pretty much expected that any actions that the union would take would be to improve wages/benefts for their employees, which would increase operating costs. Wal-Mart has a duty (to its shareholders and customers) to plan for possible eventualities, including increases in wages due to unionization.

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.

Perhaps. But remember, there is more than just the right to collective bargaining at stake. As far as I remember, we don't have "right to work" laws in this country. When you don't have "right to work" laws, you basically force people to join the union (or at least pay dues) even if they do not wish to. One "right" tramples over another.

[Black Dog]

First of all, if taking losses isn't "punishment", then what is it? If I end up loosing money (or my pay gets docked), I have less cash available to me... that sounds like punishment.

In this case, it's the cost of doing business. If WalMart shut the shop as a message to employees about unionizing, they likely considered the losses acceptable compared to the price they'd pay by allowing unions to gain a foothold in their chain. It's hard for me to see a conscious decision to take a loss as any form of punishment.