Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

[Renegade]

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.

"Punishment" is not a great word to use as it implies some moral judgement. "Economic disincentive" is a more accurate. Even a fine may have been an acceptable cost of doing business and is also a disincentive.

Edited August 19, 2008 by Renegade

[Leafless]

Well, it looks like Wal-Mart got tired of being pushed around and showed who is the BOSS.

Customers joined union members in criticizing Wal-Mart yesterday after the retail giant suddenly shut a Gatineau tire and lube shop -- the first in North America with a union contract.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/b...0d-87716cb1b4c2

Looks like it is quite clear Wal-Mart wants nothing to do with unions.

Although this closing only affected the tire and lube shop it wouldn't surprise me that eventually Wal-Mart could close all stores in Quebec rather than be confronted by lawyers and charter related arguments.

Edited October 17, 2008 by Leafless

[mjp]

they have a big manual of ways to eliminate unions in their business..

the only way to deal with walmart would be for 20, 50 or even 100 or so walmart stores were to unionize.. not just 1 at a time.

that would be the only way to make a stand to them

would they really close those 100 stores?

would they take that big of a public hit?

Edited October 17, 2008 by mjp

[Argus]

Well, it looks like Wal-Mart got tired of being pushed around and showed who is the BOSS.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/b...0d-87716cb1b4c2

Looks like it is quite clear Wal-Mart wants nothing to do with unions.

Although this closing only affected the tire and lube shop it wouldn't surprise me that eventually Wal-Mart could close all stores in Quebec rather than be confronted by lawyers and charter related arguments.

Good for Quebec. I wonder how we could get them to close their shitty stores throughout Canada. Never shop there. Never will.

[Bryan]

This good both for Walmart, and for consumers. Walmart wants to keep prices as low as possible, and has a zero tolerance policy regarding things that dramatically increase cost.

Employees had a choice. They knew full well that the consequences of chasing that 30% wage increase was a 100% pay decrease. They gambled anyway and lost.

Consumers have a choice. If lowest prices are your concern, shop at Walmart and their like. If highest employee wages are your concern, find high-end boutique stores that sell on commission.

I wish executives of Walmart Canada were running the country.

[OddSox]

This good both for Walmart, and for consumers. Walmart wants to keep prices as low as possible, and has a zero tolerance policy regarding things that dramatically increase cost.

Employees had a choice. They knew full well that the consequences of chasing that 30% wage increase was a 100% pay decrease. They gambled anyway and lost.

Consumers have a choice. If lowest prices are your concern, shop at Walmart and their like. If highest employee wages are your concern, find high-end boutique stores that sell on commission.

I wish executives of Walmart Canada were running the country.

In this case there were a total of 6 employees affected and "The first contract raised pay from a minimum of $8.50 to a new minimum of $11.54. The new top rate was $15.25." Therefore, the total additional cost to Walmart would have been in the neighbourhood of $30.00 per day = one oil change. Labour costs had little to do with this decision...

[cybercoma]

Walmart pisses me off. In the absence of a bargaining unit the employees are supposed to be able to negotiate their contracts for themselves. Take a poll of any number of Walmart or Home Depot employees and ask them how involved they feel in their contract negotiations and they will undoubtedly look at you like you're retarded. The fact of the matter remains that retail employees are some of the hardest working and least compensated employees in the nation. Saying that a union will affect their operating costs is a red-herring because closing an entire store will affect their revenues.

This is nothing more than an example wanting complete control over the bargaining process, that is to say they want no bargaining. They want to be able to say, here is your contract, like it or lump it. I hope to see the day where retail employees across many companies band together and organize for themselves. Working in a store with over 100 employees, people shouldn't need to close one night and open the next morning, work hours straight without breaks and work unpaid overtime. Employees shouldn't be forced to quit or fired for thinly veiled reasons when refusing to work on statutory holidays. It's completely unacceptable that there is no one on the side of the employees when it comes to their contracts and relations with management at these businesses. Something needs to be done sooner, rather than later, I say.

[Bryan]

In this case there were a total of 6 employees affected and "The first contract raised pay from a minimum of $8.50 to a new minimum of $11.54. The new top rate was $15.25." Therefore, the total additional cost to Walmart would have been in the neighbourhood of $30.00 per day = one oil change. Labour costs had little to do with this decision...

One department of one store, yes. But it's the foot in the door that cannot be allowed, no matter what. Walmart did the right thing for their customers. Other people who also are low paid and need the most inexpensive products possible.

[blueblood]

Walmart pisses me off. In the absence of a bargaining unit the employees are supposed to be able to negotiate their contracts for themselves. Take a poll of any number of Walmart or Home Depot employees and ask them how involved they feel in their contract negotiations and they will undoubtedly look at you like you're retarded. The fact of the matter remains that retail employees are some of the hardest working and least compensated employees in the nation. Saying that a union will affect their operating costs is a red-herring because closing an entire store will affect their revenues.

This is nothing more than an example wanting complete control over the bargaining process, that is to say they want no bargaining. They want to be able to say, here is your contract, like it or lump it. I hope to see the day where retail employees across many companies band together and organize for themselves. Working in a store with over 100 employees, people shouldn't need to close one night and open the next morning, work hours straight without breaks and work unpaid overtime. Employees shouldn't be forced to quit or fired for thinly veiled reasons when refusing to work on statutory holidays. It's completely unacceptable that there is no one on the side of the employees when it comes to their contracts and relations with management at these businesses. Something needs to be done sooner, rather than later, I say.

Walmart employees have bargaining control, they can go get a job elsewhere. Having one union set up sets a precedent and would result in more set up. Unions are notorious for gouging employers which is part of the reason why the big 3 automakers are in trouble. Walmart is a huge operation, they can afford to shut down one store if it means saving a huge amount of money by keeping the unions out. Walmart has a right to run it's business how it sees fit.

[cybercoma]

According to Forbes.com, Lee Scott, the CEO of Walmart, earns nearly $6 million per year. The average salary of a Walmart employee, according to the company anyway, is $10.50/hr. As you can tell from this story, $10.50/hr is a problem for the company to pay, so it's probably more accurate to say MOST employees are getting under $9/hr. In fact, there are websites on the internet that show sales associates make around $8 on average. So, the $10.50/hr number probably includes levels of hourly paid management in the figure.

Having said all that, Lee Scott received a $22 million dollar bonus last year. Just to get an idea of the scope, with 1.5 million employees (not just sales associates), this bonus could have paid each person on staff just under $15 each. If the average sales associate at walmart makes around $12,500/year, where is the justice in one man making $28 million that year after his bonus? That's a staggering 2240% more than person working on the floor. And keep in mind that these people are not allowed any sort of negotiation in their contracts and when they try to organize to have a body do their negotiation for them, Walmart closes the store. This is unacceptable.

[Riverwind]

to get an idea of the scope, with 1.5 million employees (not just sales associates), this bonus could have paid each person on staff just under $15 each.

1.5 million * 20 hours/week * 52 weeks/year = 1.56 billion hours/year.

Increase the average pay by $1/hour and Walmart's costs go up by >1.5 billion or 68 times the cost of paying the CEO his bonus of 22 million.

In 2007 Walmart's net profit was $11 billion so giving every employee a $1/hour raise would reduce profit by 14%.

Giving employees typical union wages ($15-20/hour) would result is Walmart running at a loss.

Paying the CEO nothing would not make any difference.

[cybercoma]

Walmart employees have bargaining control, they can go get a job elsewhere. Having one union set up sets a precedent and would result in more set up. Unions are notorious for gouging employers which is part of the reason why the big 3 automakers are in trouble. Walmart is a huge operation, they can afford to shut down one store if it means saving a huge amount of money by keeping the unions out. Walmart has a right to run it's business how it sees fit.

Walmart has bargaining control, they can negotiate with the union. Refusing to negotiate with unions shows that they are unwilling to negotiate with their labour force, which is unacceptable. It would be nice if 1.5 million people could up and quit their job because they refuse to work for an employer who does not negotiate, but that's a ridiculous expectation to put on the work force.

Argue all you want about unions destroying the big 3, but they're in a heap of trouble because they're dinosaurs that refuse to get with the times and were left in the dust by foreign manufacturers through the 90s. They're still trying to play catchup and that's what is killing them.

Walmart does not have a right to refuse negotiations with a labour bargaining group. The employees have the right to have someone negotiate for them, especially when a company refuses to negotiate with them in the first place. This is an unacceptable business practice and although it'd be great if 1.5 million people could up and quit because of such a ridiculous situation, most of those people are unable to leave that situation. If a Walmart employee tosses the smock and walks they'll simply find themselves at the doorstep of another retail business that treats its employees the same way.

[cybercoma]

1.5 million * 20 hours/week * 52 weeks/year = 1.56 billion hours/year.

Increase the average pay by $1/hour and Walmart's costs go up by >1.5 billion or 68 times the cost of paying the CEO his bonus of 22 million.

In 2007 Walmart's net profit was $11 billion so giving every employee a $1/hour raise would reduce profit by 14%.

Giving employees typical union wages ($15-20/hour) would result is Walmart running at a loss.

Paying the CEO nothing would not make any difference.

Do you have any proof whatsoever that a retail union would insist the employees be paid between $15-20/hour?

I didn't even make any allusion towards an appropriate wage for employees. Employees not having any representation when dealing with management and being completely unable to negotiate their contracts is the problem with Walmart and other retail businesses busting unions. At best you're exaggerating the point I'm making to refute it. Do you care to put the strawman back in the barn and actually address the problem of employees not being given the right to negotiate their contracts and when they do try to organize being fired?

[Mr.Canada]

I wholly despise WalMart and Mcdonald's, funny how every WalMart has a Mcdonald's in it, because of the way they treat their employees. The way they will close up shop before they allow the union to stand up for workers.

Yes, yes I know. I'm a conservative and am part of a trade union. Unions have their place and are very important in certain situations. Some unions behaviour however gives many of them a bad name.

[cybercoma]

Unions have their problems as well, they're not completely innocent, but that's still no excuse for corporation to circumvent or completely prohibit negotiating with them. The labour force has a right to have a union represent them.

[Argus]

This good both for Walmart, and for consumers. Walmart wants to keep prices as low as possible, and has a zero tolerance policy regarding things that dramatically increase cost.

Funny how Costco manages to sell goods as cheap as if not cheaper than Wal-Mart, but treats its employees decently, giving them far better than average wages.

Consumers have a choice. If lowest prices are your concern, shop at Walmart and their like. If highest employee wages are your concern, find high-end boutique stores that sell on commission.

I would say, rather, that consumers have a choice. Buy bottom of the barrel goods in terms of quality, made in China of uncertain safety, at a store which treats its customers, its employees and its suppliers like garbage, or buy goods pretty much just as cheap at other stores where they practice capitalism with a more humane face.

I wish executives of Walmart Canada were running the country.

It's called North Korea. I'm sure you'll be very happy there.

[Argus]

One department of one store, yes. But it's the foot in the door that cannot be allowed, no matter what. Walmart did the right thing for their customers. Other people who also are low paid and need the most inexpensive products possible.

And yet, Costco does the wrong thing, pays its cashiers up to $40,000 a year, makes a profit, and sells goods as cheap or cheaper than Wal-Mart.

Costco rules, Wal-Mart drools

[Riverwind]

Do you have any proof whatsoever that a retail union would insist the employees be paid between $15-20/hour?

That is what safeway employees got until recently. The costs per hour could show up in many ways: work rules, benefits, base salary etc. The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that modest wage/benefit demands on the part of a union would have a significant impact on the profitability of the company.

Employees not having any representation when dealing with management and being completely unable to negotiate their contracts is the problem with Walmart and other retail businesses busting unions.

Unions generally represent the interest of unions and not employees. The perfect example is in BC where the health care union refused to negotiate wage cuts for unskilled employees so the government fired the employees and contracted out the work. The employees in question would have been much better off if their union had negotated the wae cuts.

In any case, I don't disagree with you point that employees should be entitled to organize unions. I just feel the right of a company to choose to close down a store and forego any profits from that city trumps any right of employees to organize collectively.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

And yet, Costco does the wrong thing, pays its cashiers up to $40,000 a year, makes a profit, and sells goods as cheap or cheaper than Wal-Mart.

Costco has an advantage over traditional retailers because:

1) People pay for the priviledge of shopping there.

2) The membership rules keep many potential shop lifters out (i.e. unaccompanied pre-teen kids).

3) Customers don't expect Costco to carry everything and will buy larger quantites.

[cybercoma]

Costco has an advantage over traditional retailers because:

1) People pay for the priviledge of shopping there.

2) The membership rules keep many potential shop lifters out (i.e. unaccompanied pre-teen kids).

3) Customers don't expect Costco to carry everything and will buy larger quantites.

I can tell you that professional shoplifting groups do far more damage to retail stores than pre-teens pocketing relatively worthless things in comparison.

[Riverwind]

I can tell you that professional shoplifting groups do far more damage to retail stores than pre-teens pocketing relatively worthless things in comparison.

And I am sure those 'professionals' would not waste their time with costco where everyone leaving the store has to show a receipt. The mechanism is not foolproof but it is enough to ensure that shoplifters will look for easier targets. Edited October 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[cybercoma]

And I am sure those 'professionals' would not waste their time with costco where everyone leaving the store has to show a receipt. The mechanism is not foolproof but it is enough to ensure that shoplifters will look for easier targets.

The receipt checks are a joke. I'm sure costco has just as many problems with shoplifting as any other retail store, which is very little mind you.

Most retail stores are recording shrink numbers below 1%. That number not only includes shoplifting, but all other errors that can cause an inventory imbalance.

Edited October 18, 2008 by cybercoma

[Riverwind]

The receipt checks are a joke. I'm sure costco has just as many problems with shoplifting as any other retail store, which is very little mind you.

I see it as a steering wheel lock on a car. It is not sufficient to stop a determined theif but enough to get the theif to move onto the next car without the lock.

Most retail stores are recording shrink numbers below 1%. That number not only includes shoplifting, but all other errors that can cause an inventory imbalance.

Walmarts total sales were 375 billion. Their profit was 12 billion or 3% of sales. The difference between a 1% shrikage and a 0.5% shrinkage can have a significant impact on the profitability of a company.

[blueblood]

Walmart has bargaining control, they can negotiate with the union. Refusing to negotiate with unions shows that they are unwilling to negotiate with their labour force, which is unacceptable. It would be nice if 1.5 million people could up and quit their job because they refuse to work for an employer who does not negotiate, but that's a ridiculous expectation to put on the work force.

Argue all you want about unions destroying the big 3, but they're in a heap of trouble because they're dinosaurs that refuse to get with the times and were left in the dust by foreign manufacturers through the 90s. They're still trying to play catchup and that's what is killing them.

Walmart does not have a right to refuse negotiations with a labour bargaining group. The employees have the right to have someone negotiate for them, especially when a company refuses to negotiate with them in the first place. This is an unacceptable business practice and although it'd be great if 1.5 million people could up and quit because of such a ridiculous situation, most of those people are unable to leave that situation. If a Walmart employee tosses the smock and walks they'll simply find themselves at the doorstep of another retail business that treats its employees the same way.

There is a problem with potashcorp and it's unions, they are demanding profit sharing. Even though potashcorp is spending it's profits to open up new mines and explore. Their little shenanigans are shooting up the price of fertilizer unecessarily. Even though their wages are comparable with oilfield workers and their cost of living is much less than Albertans.

Viterra also has had a problem with it's unions. Viterra is trying to expand the company to be a bigger player in the grain industry but it's unions are putting a damper on it. Viterra is unique in that it is unionized in SK and not in MB. Collective bargaining punishes the "workers" in that company and rewards the "slackers". If your a worker in that organization, you can do very well for yourself.

The unions kept the big 3 down because they wanted the big 3 to be dinosaurs. The unions fought tooth and nail against plant automation, which is the main advantage the foreign imports have. The big 3 are paying the price now.

Walmart has the right to shut the store down if it wants. That is their store and they can run it how they see fit. There are lots of other jobs in the country to apply for. The employees definetely have the right to collective bargaining, Walmart also has rights of its own.

Harry Rosen is a retail store that I think is successful. And yes my redneck ass has bought stuff from there. They have excellent customer service, and I think that their workers get paid very well. That kind of customer service does not come from 8 bucks an hour. Mind you your spending a king's ransom on clothing. I don't think unions would let their workers work as hard as they do.

[cybercoma]

Profit numbers already take shrink into consideration. I imagine the average shrink number for Walmart would actually be closer to less than 0.5%, with shoplifting and theft being a very small portion of that number. I can't give you any actual figures, maybe there's something online, but shoplifting is not a significant part of shrink for most stores.