Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

Peter F · October 19, 2008

The fired them because they were overpaid for the services they provided. The union knew what the consequences would be. I am sure the laid off employees would have preferred that the union had negotiated lower wages.

I'm sure the employee's wouldn't have preferred their union negotiating lower wages. But wether the union should do such a silly thing or not is niether here nor there because management had no intention of negotiating wage cuts.

SCC decision re:Bill 29, italics mine

The record discloses no consideration by the government of whether it could reach its goal by less intrusive measures. A range of options were on the table, but the government presented no evidence as to why this particular solution was chosen and why there was no meaningful consultation with the unions about the range of options open to it. This was an important and significant piece of labour legislation which had the potential to affect the rights of employees dramatically and unusually. Yet, it was adopted rapidly with full knowledge that the unions were strongly opposed to many of the provisions, and without consideration of alternative ways to achieve the government objective, and without explanation of the government’s choices

(Riverwind:)

As far as Cill 29 goes you should note that the SCC did not rule the the contracting out was unconstitional - only the parts that prevented the HEU from adding anti-contracting out language to future agreements.
The settlement agreement now specifies a process where the union is expected to compete with the private sector for jobs that the government wishes to contract out. This is exactly as it should be.

Sure, all well and good, cept for your managment-really-really-didn't-want-to-sack-the- employee's-but-the-union-was-inflexible-and-just-would-not-listen-to-reason bullshit

Edited October 19, 2008 by Peter F

Riverwind · October 19, 2008

Sure, all well and good, cept for your managment-really-really-didn't-want-to-sack-the- employee's-but-the-union-was-inflexible-and-just-would-not-listen-to-reason bullshit

The SCC court decision ignored the political context behind the decisions

A few facts:

The NDP government negotiated sweetheart deals with HEU shortly before going down to defeat.

Campbell publicly opposed those provisions before election and promised to overturn them.

Campbell was elected with a strong mandate.

When Campbell was elected the HEU took the position that the contract was signed and could not be reopened.

Campbell felt he had no choice but to pass Bill 29.

There was no evidence that the union was willing to negotiate at the time. Now that the union realizes that it could not count on an outpouring of public support it attempts to re-write history and claim it would have been willing to negotiate.

M.Dancer · November 27, 2009

As predicted, the right of a company to locate or re-locate trumps the unions attemts to force a business to stay.

A move to unionize the massive Wal-Mart store chain was dealt a blow this morning when the Supreme Court of Canada voted 6-3 against workers at a Quebec outlet that attempt to unionize.

Never the less the disenting position is particulary scarey....

In stinging dissenting reasons, the three dissenting judges said that the majority ruling was overly-technical and that courts must be prepared to search out "anti-union animus" in cases that involve a closure.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/court-rules-against-wal-mart-workers/article1379913/

Personally I think closing shop because they don't want to have a union store is a perfectly valid reason. They bit the bullet and swallowed the poison pill, it is Wal-marts choice to operate in that market with a union or not operate in that market at all.

Dave_ON · November 27, 2009

The fundamental problem with unions in the instance of Wal-Mart is that they are unsustainable and ultimately self defeating. As noted numerous times on this thread an increase in the standard of living of the employees can only be achieved by an increase in wages. If wages go up, then the companies costs go up, which means so too will there prices. The clientele of Wal-Mart shop there because of the lower prices, but if there prices go up, they will lose those clientele. Further as wonderful as it would be for us to have the same living standard that's not realistic unless we want to accept whole sale communism. Products that are sold at Wal-Mart must be affordable to a wide range of people; therefore those who work for these businesses must have wages that are in line with the affordability of the products offered.

Even if they managed to get higher wages it would not really improve their living standard. We could raise minimum wage to $15/hr and the problem would still persist. Supply and demand would be unchanged and market prices would go up to compensate for the increased demand for products. As the demand goes up so does the price.

I don't know what the folks were hoping to achieve. My perception is that many people have this perception that a union is the messiah of the oppressed and will turn their water into wine as it were. That's simply not realistic. As I mentioned supply and demand rule the job market as well. The more common the skills you have to offer, the less you can expect in pay as there is a surplus in people that can do a particular job. It's all well and good to want a higher standard of living, and everyone has the right to pursue it, but a Union does not guarantee this and I think far too many people believe it will. If you want to increase your standard of living the only way to do so is to gain skills or education that is in demand. If you do that you will be paid more and your living standard will adjust accordingly.

Martin Chriton · November 27, 2009

Even if they managed to get higher wages it would not really improve their living standard. We could raise minimum wage to $15/hr and the problem would still persist. Supply and demand would be unchanged and market prices would go up to compensate for the increased demand for products. As the demand goes up so does the price.

Exactly. All that increasing the minimum wage would do is have an inflationary impact. The cost of everything would just go up.

I live in California and we have government employees like firefighters and policemen making 90-120k/year. All that's done is increase the cost of housing everywhere in the state to ridiculously high prices, such that you need to making 200k a year to afford a decent house and standard of living.

Wilber · November 27, 2009

This begs the question. Should there be no such thing as a minimum wage?

BubberMiley · November 27, 2009

This begs the question. Should there be no such thing as a middle class?

Dave_ON · November 27, 2009

This begs the question. Should there be no such thing as a minimum wage?

Tough question actually I don't honestly have an answer for that. My initial reaction is to say yes at it ensures a minimum standard. But honestly I don't know that it's achieving what it was originally intended to do. I suppose we could argue that without it some people would be paid ridiculously low, but in all honesty all low wage jobs are in competition for employees from the same pool, so it is likely that a minimum wage would exist by convention if not by law.

Dave_ON · November 27, 2009

This begs the question. Should there be no such thing as a middle class?

There has always been a middle class, even in feudal Europe; there were always freemen that were merchants or artisans in their trades. All that has changed is the size of the middle class and ease at which we can move from one class to another.

Peter F · November 27, 2009

As predicted, the right of a company to locate or re-locate trumps the unions attemts to force a business to stay.

True. Unions cannot force business' to remain in business.

Never the less the disenting position is particulary scarey....

Whats scarey about it?

SCC. Plourde vs WalMart

Personally I think closing shop because they don't want to have a union store is a perfectly valid reason. They bit the bullet and swallowed the poison pill, it is Wal-marts choice to operate in that market with a union or not operate in that market at all.

Yes you think so. Unfortunatly even the majority decision of the SCC says the employer has no such right.

From the decision linked above:

" The question raised by this appeal is not whether employees have a remedy against an employer who closes a workplace for anti‑union motives (they do have such a remedy under ss. 12 to 14 of the Code)..."

M.Dancer · November 27, 2009

Yes you think so. Unfortunatly even the majority decision of the SCC says the employer has no such right.

From the decision linked above:

" The question raised by this appeal is not whether employees have a remedy against an employer who closes a workplace for anti‑union motives (they do have such a remedy under ss. 12 to 14 of the Code)..."

And that's why it is scarey. The collective trumps private property rights and squashes their freedom to do business as they see fit.

Peter F · November 27, 2009

The fundamental problem with unions in the instance of Wal-Mart is that they are unsustainable and ultimately self defeating. As noted numerous times on this thread an increase in the standard of living of the employees can only be achieved by an increase in wages. If wages go up, then the companies costs go up, which means so too will there prices. The clientele of Wal-Mart shop there because of the lower prices, but if there prices go up, they will lose those clientele. Further as wonderful as it would be for us to have the same living standard that's not realistic unless we want to accept whole sale communism. Products that are sold at Wal-Mart must be affordable to a wide range of people; therefore those who work for these businesses must have wages that are in line with the affordability of the products offered.

Hmmmm...So no employee should ever have a pay increase. Any such increase has to be compensated for by an increase in price - all to the detriment of the consumer. Employers have dick-all to do with it.

An employee seeking higher wages is a detriment to the consumer - a bad thing. But the employer can seek maximum profit margins from the consumer - a good thing.

Sorry I don't buy it. Employee's seek higher wages if they believe the employer has the profits to pay those higher wages. Whats wrong with that? According to you, whats wrong is that the Employer will then seek to maintain his profit margins by raising prices - wich is completely beyond the power of the employee to do. So if the employer raises prices - its the employee's fault. Why? Because the powerless employee made him do it!

And, it seems, people seeking higher wages is purely a unions fault. Nobody in a non-union workplace ever seeks a pay raise - right? And, it would seem, they'd never get one if they asked for it, or even deserved it.

Even if they managed to get higher wages it would not really improve their living standard. We could raise minimum wage to $15/hr and the problem would still persist. Supply and demand would be unchanged and market prices would go up to compensate for the increased demand for products. As the demand goes up so does the price.

And what happened to 'supply' in that formulae? Supply would not increase? Supply is fixed? The only variable is demand?

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that an increase in demand will result in an increase in supply (lagging to be sure), until some sort of equilibrium is reached. Is that not basic economic theory?

An increase in wages - increase in demand from wage-earners - increase in supply to meet the demand from entrepreneurs - more jobs to supply the demands.

That is the basic argument behind lower taxes.

Peter F · November 27, 2009

And that's why it is scarey. The collective trumps private property rights and squashes their freedom to do business as they see fit.

" The question raised by this appeal is not whether employees have a remedy against an employer who closes a workplace for anti‑union motives (they do have such a remedy under ss. 12 to 14 of the Code)..."

is a quote from the judgement, not the dissenting opinion. Nothing frightful about it. Rather soothing actually.

Wilber · November 27, 2009

Tough question actually I don't honestly have an answer for that. My initial reaction is to say yes at it ensures a minimum standard. But honestly I don't know that it's achieving what it was originally intended to do. I suppose we could argue that without it some people would be paid ridiculously low, but in all honesty all low wage jobs are in competition for employees from the same pool, so it is likely that a minimum wage would exist by convention if not by law.

Me neither but it would depend on how big the pool is. The larger the pool, the lower the wage. The point has been made about high wages making for high home prices. Maybe. although I don't think wages in BC are much if any higher than the rest of the country but we have the highest average home prices and the lowest minimum wage.

Another point is that people on minimum wage tend to spend their money locally as they can't afford to travel

Edited November 27, 2009 by Wilber

Argus · November 28, 2009

If wages go up, then the companies costs go up, which means so too will there prices. The clientele of Wal-Mart shop there because of the lower prices, but if there prices go up, they will lose those clientele.

Please explain why the prices at Costco are cheaper than Wal-Mart, yet they pay their employees wages that are twice as high as those at Wal-Mart, and with a much better benefits package.

Argus · November 28, 2009

Me neither but it would depend on how big the pool is. The larger the pool, the lower the wage. The point has been made about high wages making for high home prices. Maybe. although I don't think wages in BC are much if any higher than the rest of the country but we have the highest average home prices and the lowest minimum wage.

Another point is that people on minimum wage tend to spend their money locally as they can't afford to travel

One could also say that people on minimum wages are net debits on the national accounting sheet, not paying much, if any taxes, and requiring more government spending on them than they supply in the form of taxation.

The savings from those cheap wages go to Wal-Mart, which exports that money back to the US as profits.

Wilber · November 28, 2009

One could also say that people on minimum wages are net debits on the national accounting sheet, not paying much, if any taxes, and requiring more government spending on them than they supply in the form of taxation.

The savings from those cheap wages go to Wal-Mart, which exports that money back to the US as profits.

Some might but then they would have to put no value on the services those making minimum wage provide. I wonder how that opinion would stand up if all those services suddenly disappeared.

madmax · November 28, 2009

Please explain why the prices at Costco are cheaper than Wal-Mart, yet they pay their employees wages that are twice as high as those at Wal-Mart, and with a much better benefits package.

HMMM> There you go again.

OddSox · November 29, 2009

Please explain why the prices at Costco are cheaper than Wal-Mart, yet they pay their employees wages that are twice as high as those at Wal-Mart, and with a much better benefits package.

Even if that was true (are you kidding?), please explain why all the Walmart employees don't go get a job at Costco?

OddSox · November 29, 2009

I've spent the last couple of days reading this thread from the beginning.

Why doesn't the union open their own business, pay their employees whatever they feel is fair, and then reap all the unreasonable profits for themselves? If you don't like the way Walmart or anyone else runs their business, either start your own business or just stay out of theirs.

Pretty simple.

punked · November 30, 2009

I've spent the last couple of days reading this thread from the beginning.

Why doesn't the union open their own business, pay their employees whatever they feel is fair, and then reap all the unreasonable profits for themselves? If you don't like the way Walmart or anyone else runs their business, either start your own business or just stay out of theirs.

Pretty simple.

If you love Walmart so much why don't you open your own Walmart. This is actually your argument eh? Silly isn't it?

bush_cheney2004 · November 30, 2009

If you love Walmart so much why don't you open your own Walmart. This is actually your argument eh? Silly isn't it?

We do....with the purchase of stock. I wouldn't buy stock in discontented, unionized workers!

Edited November 30, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

Wilber · November 30, 2009

We do....with the purchase of stock. I wouldn't buy stock in discontented, unionized workers!

I've had some of their stock for a few years. It doesn't seem prone to big swings in value but there are much better companies when it comes to dividends. Sometimes I wonder why I keep it.

punked · November 30, 2009

We do....with the purchase of stock. I wouldn't buy stock in discontented, unionized workers!

Funny I pay my union dues every month, donate to labour council and other organized labour organizations. Seems like I am almost buying stock in them isn't it? Also go to my local co-op, and bank at a credit union.

Edited November 30, 2009 by punked

bush_cheney2004 · November 30, 2009

Funny I pay my union dues every month, donate to labour council and other organized labour organizations. Seems like I am almost buying stock in them isn't it? Also go to my local co-op, and bank at a credit union.

Almost doesn't count...union dues are mandatory. So brave! :lol: