Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

[cybercoma]

Who said Walmart doesn't have a right to close stores? Walmart can close all the stores it wants. I hope every store in the world unionizes and they shut all of their doors.

[Riverwind]

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.

Whatever the exact number Costco's number will be smaller because of the checks they have in place and losing a small percentage of sales does have a significant effect on the company's profit because retail operations have razor think margins.

[OddSox]

Whatever the exact number Costco's number will be smaller because of the checks they have in place and losing a small percentage of sales does have a significant effect on the company's profit because retail operations have razor think margins.

I was a member at Costco for years and their 'checks' are a joke. How many shoplifters do you know that put the item they are stealing into their cart, go through the checkout and then out the door? You could easily go into Costco and fill all the secret pockets in your coat with frozen salmon and then walk out the door. As long as you don't have a cart nobody will look at you.

[capricorn]

The odd thing about this Walmart case is that although the union won its arguments in front of the Quebec Labour Relations Board, it ends up a loser. Had the union negotiated a wage that Walmart considered fair, those laid off workers would not be unemployed and would be paying union dues. Now, they get nothing from that group of workers.

But the union will continue to boast a victory.

[Riverwind]

You could easily go into Costco and fill all the secret pockets in your coat with frozen salmon and then walk out the door.

You are missing the point. The issue is whether the checks significantly reduce shop lifting when compared to other retails stores. I think it does and so does Costco because they are paying people 40K/year to stand at the door checking receipts. I would have thought this point was too obvious to dispute but I was wrong... Edited October 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[blueblood]

The odd thing about this Walmart case is that although the union won its arguments in front of the Quebec Labour Relations Board, it ends up a loser. Had the union negotiated a wage that Walmart considered fair, those laid off workers would not be unemployed and would be paying union dues. Now, they get nothing from that group of workers.

But the union will continue to boast a victory.

a pyhrric victory is still a victory...

[capricorn]

What is pyhrric?

[blueblood]

What is pyhrric?

You've never heard of a pyrhic victory? The one where the cost of victory is so great that it renders the army useless.

[capricorn]

You mean Pyrrhic?

"achieved at excessive cost <a Pyrrhic victory> ; also : costly to the point of negating or outweighing expected benefits <a great but Pyrrhic act of ingenuity>"

I had never come across that term. But I have an excuse. I'm French Canadian.

[Peter F]

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 if Walmart willingly gave these people pay increases then it would be ok.

[Peter F]

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.

and they would have been even better off if the Union had negotiated wage cuts above and beyond what management wanted, I'm sure. Perhaps the Union could have done the employee's a favour by negotiating conditions of serfdom for them.

At what point are wage cuts no longer worth it to the employee's? Is there any condition where a union should reject wage cuts?

[cybercoma]

You are missing the point. The issue is whether the checks significantly reduce shop lifting when compared to other retails stores. I think it does and so does Costco because they are paying people 40K/year to stand at the door checking receipts. I would have thought this point was too obvious to dispute but I was wrong...

It's not too obvious to dispute because your opinion is that it reduces losses from shoplifting compared to other retail stores, which have different loss prevention methods. My opinion is that their losses due to theft would be relatively the same. Until one of us can provide any hard facts about it, it's a dead argument.

[cybercoma]

and they would have been even better off if the Union had negotiated wage cuts above and beyond what management wanted, I'm sure. Perhaps the Union could have done the employee's a favour by negotiating conditions of serfdom for them.

At what point are wage cuts no longer worth it to the employee's? Is there any condition where a union should reject wage cuts?

With the number of lawsuits filed against Walmart for employees missing breaks and not being paid for overtime, you'd think it would be obvious that a union is needed. Nope. Unions are evil and serve no purpose. Screw the slaves working at Walmart. They're too stupid to have real jobs and deserve what they get.

[blueblood]

and they would have been even better off if the Union had negotiated wage cuts above and beyond what management wanted, I'm sure. Perhaps the Union could have done the employee's a favour by negotiating conditions of serfdom for them.

At what point are wage cuts no longer worth it to the employee's? Is there any condition where a union should reject wage cuts?

When the company is running in the red. No company = no jobs period. Better to take a pay cut than take no pay at all.

[blueblood]

With the number of lawsuits filed against Walmart for employees missing breaks and not being paid for overtime, you'd think it would be obvious that a union is needed. Nope. Unions are evil and serve no purpose. Screw the slaves working at Walmart. They're too stupid to have real jobs and deserve what they get.

Oil field workers aren't unionized and they are on par skillwise as Walmart employees. Oil field workers get paid more to boot.

[Peter F]

Oil field workers aren't unionized and they are on par skillwise as Walmart employees. Oil field workers get paid more to boot.

Uh huh. Thats because the Oil companies have great big hearts and are very concerned about the standard of living of their employees right?

...or maybe its because they couldn't get anyone working for them without paying more. Unionized or not.

[Peter F]

When the company is running in the red. No company = no jobs period. Better to take a pay cut than take no pay at all.

Perhaps, if the company is going broke, a negotiated wage cut may be the thing to do. They've certainly gone that route here with the pulp mills.

Note, however, the use of the term 'negotiated'. If the company is going broke they can easily shut down and put everyone out of a job. That has been done often enough too.

But Riverwinds example is a very poor one.

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.

Negotiations implies a little give and take. What was the BC government offering in return for the wage cut? They get to keep thier jobs?

No. Not at all. They offered nothing. The BC government was simply going through motions. They had every intention of sacking those people but couldn't do so without the 'negotiations' failing for political appearances sake.

The proof of such is: "the government fired the employees and contracted out the work."

Wich means the government realized they need someone to do the work. They didn't hire anyone to replace the workers sacked. They didn't grandfather the present workers into the contractors deal.

They had no intention of keeping the employees on at reduced wages. They wanted the work those employee's were doing removed entirely from the responsibility of the government. So they sacked them and signed deals with contractors to provide the still needed service.

There was no attempt to 'negotiate' wage reductions.

The union knew that and rejected the bogus 'offer' of the government.

[blueblood]

Uh huh. Thats because the Oil companies have great big hearts and are very concerned about the standard of living of their employees right?

...or maybe its because they couldn't get anyone working for them without paying more. Unionized or not.

happy workers are productive workers, happy workers also won't unionize. The oil companies know this and that's why they do so well.

[Riverwind]

Negotiations implies a little give and take. What was the BC government offering in return for the wage cut? They get to keep thier jobs?

Exactly. The government correctly pointed out that certain classes of workers were overpaid compared to people private sector and was perfectly justified in asking for wage rollbacks. When the union refused it fired the people and hired many of them back at much lower wages via contracting firms. No one can reasonable argue that the union protected the employee interest - the union screwed the employees because it did not want to accept wage rollbacks.

No. Not at all. They offered nothing. The BC government was simply going through motions. They had every intention of sacking those people but couldn't do so without the 'negotiations' failing for political appearances sake.

BS. The government wanted to save money and would have been perfectly happy to take the overhead paid the contracting firms and give it directly to union employees. The only problem was the union that refused to negotiate.

They wanted the work those employee's were doing removed entirely from the responsibility of the government. So they sacked them and signed deals with contractors to provide the still needed service.

If you actually took the time to ask yourself why a government would want to do something like this you would realize that it is a direct consequece of inflexible unions demanding ever increasing wages and benefits - wages and benefits that often cannot be justified when compared to the private sector. A union that was flexible with it demands and work rules would not have to deal with contracting out.

[cybercoma]

Oil field workers aren't unionized and they are on par skillwise as Walmart employees. Oil field workers get paid more to boot.

People across the country should pack up and move to Alberta then, but all those people working part-time making near minimum wage don't have all kinds of disposable income for such a move. This probably explains why retail stores in Alberta have to pay employees higher wages than other parts of the country.

[GostHacked]

If WalMart can afford to put up a new store and then abandone it, they can afford to pay their employees beter under a union. The employer needs to be kept in check in treating it's employees fairly. I am not a big fan of unions, for they can protect the itdiots that are part of the union as well as the good employees.

But this could be a great strategy to get rid of WalMart in Canada (i am not a fan of WalMart at all) Threaten to unionize, and watch them leave.

Blueblood.

happy workers are productive workers, happy workers also won't unionize. The oil companies know this and that's why they do so well.

Amen to that good sir. When people feel they are being taken advantage of then the threat of a union becomes very real. Employees don't mind being used (meaning the job they were hired for) but employees definately don't like being abused.

[Argus]

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.

The payment is minimal, and preteens aren't big shoplifting risks. They steal candies not jewelery. None of this accounts for the massive difference in the way Costco treats its customers, employees and suppliers as compared to Wal-Mart.

[Argus]

The odd thing about this Walmart case is that although the union won its arguments in front of the Quebec Labour Relations Board, it ends up a loser. Had the union negotiated a wage that Walmart considered fair, those laid off workers would not be unemployed and would be paying union dues.

Yes, if only they had accepted a "Fair" wage, which, apparently, was minimum wage, they would still have their glorious jobs in Wal-Mart's auto shop at $8hr. Oh the horror! Wherever will they find jobs that good!?

I imagine that played a part in their thinking when they voted to unionize. If Wal-Mart did close it down, well big deal.

Btw, I'd rather not have my car looked after by people making minimum wage.

[Peter F]

When the union refused it fired the people and hired many of them back at much lower wages via contracting firms. No one can reasonable argue that the union protected the employee interest - the union screwed the employees because it did not want to accept wage rollbacks.

The government wanted to save money and would have been perfectly happy to take the overhead paid the contracting firms and give it directly to union employees. The only problem was the union that refused to negotiate.

A union that was flexible with it demands and work rules would not have to deal with contracting out.

Yes, Riverwind. The union should be 'flexible' and agree with wage cuts or anything else management wants. The union did not screw the employee's by fireing the employee's. Management fired the employee's. Unions do not fire employee's: they can't. Only management can fire employee's. The reason those people were fired is because management fired them. Management could have done what you said and happily paid them what they supposedly offered to pay them but instead the BC government passed an act of legislature allowing management to sack the employee's concerned -they did not pass an act of legislature allowing management to pay them less. An action declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, I happily add.

So get off the horsebullocks that its the unions fault. The union did exactly what they were supposed to do. Management had NO intention of paying those employee's what they were worth. Thier negotiations were a sham.

[Riverwind]

The reason those people were fired is because management fired them.

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.

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 Court found that sections 6(2), 6(4) and 9 of Bill 29 violated the freedom of association provision in the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 6(2) eliminated any contracting-out protections from health care collective agreements – past and

future – affecting non-clinical services.

Section 6(4) eliminated any provisions that required consultation before contracting out non-clinical services.

Section 9 restricted layoff and bumping language.

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.