Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

[White Doors]

So if workers unionize they can lose thier jobs - not because the store becomes unprofitable - but because they unionized. Is that how you see this?

yes, of course. Workers have the right to organize and a business has the right to make business decisions.

They shut the store. Neither the state or the union should be able to tell a company that they aren't allowed to close up shop. if the supreme court rules that way we are going to become a laughing stock. (even more than we are now with the HRC and 'free speech' issues we are having)

[Peter F]

yes, of course. Workers have the right to organize and a business has the right to make business decisions.

They shut the store. Neither the state or the union should be able to tell a company that they aren't allowed to close up shop. if the supreme court rules that way we are going to become a laughing stock. (even more than we are now with the HRC and 'free speech' issues we are having)

Ah, the meaningless Right. I have the right of joining a union and the employer has the right to cease employing me for doing so.

[Peter F]

Lets get this straight. Walmart closed thier store in Jonquiere claiming the decision had nothing to do with union certification. It was simply a sound/unsound business decision.

Thats fair and I can support that position. Thats what businesses get to do.

What businesses don't get to do in this country is sack employee's for thier perfectly legal union activities.

The question is, then, did Walmart in effect do that very thing? Are employer's allowed to terminate employee's because they are unionized? If so then what are all the laws and rules and regulations regarding union certification about?

[Peter F]

Both. They have the right to unionise and Walmart has the right not to do business with them. They can't lock them out but they can close the shop.

I disagree here. Companie's in Canada do not have "the right not to do business with them".

Employer's can certainly dispute the bargaining agents authority to bargain for the employee's (thus certification and all the rest of it); Employers can dispute the demands the bargaining agent makes; But they cannot dispute the right of employee's to union representation.

[guyser]

. Loblaws and other companies much smaller have had to adjust their business practices to compete with Walmart.

Is Loblaw still charging up front money to put products on their shelves?

Does Loblaw still cancel orders , and not pay for them, when the product is at their door ?

Do they still ignore the fact that they have signed a contract outlining the payment terms and do otherwise?

Fact is , might is right.

I am no fan of Wal-Mart, so much so that I have never set foot inside one of their stores. Dont plan to either.

But Loblaw can be almost as bad.

It is because of Walmart you now see our Superstores all over Canada. Not only did stores get bigger, our stores are selling more different products than just food. Diversity was needed to keep growing.

So I can blame WM for those Superstore monstrosities? I know I need the exercise, but do I really need to walk the 4KM 's from the dairy case to the veggie aisle?

But, on topic, if it can be proven that WM closed the store because of unionization (wont that be hard) then I am glad the SCC is hearing the case. If nothing else, it will provide an insight to theri practices.

[stevoh]

Walmart has been advising their American store employees not to vote Democrat because Obama plans to make it easier to form Unions.

Walmart is anti-union, no doubt. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

[Riverwind]

Employers can dispute the demands the bargaining agent makes; But they cannot dispute the right of employee's to union representation.

Give me break. A company that wants to close a branch or an office is perfectly entitled to do so for what ever reason. Their only obligation to the workers is covered under the guidelines for severance. Allowing the government to control when a business can choose to close it doors is rediculous. If we try to use the law to force WalMart to keep its branch open does that mean we can use the law to force GM and Ford to keep their factories open?

[Peter F]

Give me break. A company that wants to close a branch or an office is perfectly entitled to do so for what ever reason. Their only obligation to the workers is covered under the guidelines for severance. Allowing the government to control when a business can choose to close it doors is rediculous. If we try to use the law to force WalMart to keep its branch open does that mean we can use the law to force GM and Ford to keep their factories open?

It is illegal in this country to sack employee's for union activities. If Walmart closed the store solely because the employee's accepted the union, then Walmart is behaving illegally and should be fined or whatever the powers that be find appropriate. I understand you find that rediculous. Please understand that I don't.

The store in Jonquire is closed and has been closed for a couple of years now. Why you say that this will force Walmart to open the store is beyond me.

Ford and GM have been bargaining with unions for years. They have been shutting factories to cut costs - not because those factories have been unionized. So relax, the issue here is not being forced to keep a store open, the issue at hand is did Walmart punish employee's for unionizing?

Edited August 8, 2008 by Peter F

[M.Dancer]

Walmart has been advising their American store employees not to vote Democrat because Obama plans to make it easier to form Unions.

Walmart is anti-union, no doubt. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Cool, got a citation for that?

[M.Dancer]

So if workers unionize they can lose thier jobs - not because the store becomes unprofitable - but because they unionized. Is that how you see this?

Why they close the store, or plant, or office is between management and the sharholders.

[M.Dancer]

Ah, the meaningless Right. I have the right of joining a union and the employer has the right to cease employing me for doing so.

That is sophistry. As you already know a company cannot just fire workers for being in a union. The company has only two choices, work with the union or cease operations.

I agree though that there should be more freedom of choice....the freedom of workers to seek employment and not be forced to either join a union or forced to pay extortion to the union and that companies should have the freedom to compensate non union employees dfferentyl than the colletive agreement.

[M.Dancer]

I disagree here. Companie's in Canada do not have "the right not to do business with them".

Employer's can certainly dispute the bargaining agents authority to bargain for the employee's (thus certification and all the rest of it); Employers can dispute the demands the bargaining agent makes; But they cannot dispute the right of employee's to union representation.

Is this more sophistry? The option not to do business with a certified union is to close the shop. That's what they did.

[Riverwind]

It is illegal in this country to sack employee's for union activities. If Walmart closed the store solely because the employee's accepted the union, then Walmart is behaving illegally and should be fined

When a business closes a store they sacrifice any profits they might make from that location - that is enough of a penalty.

The store in Jonquire is closed and has been closed for a couple of years now. Why you say that this will force Walmart to open the store is beyond me.

You want to fine a company for closing a store for "inappropriate" reasons. That is equivalent forcing the companey to keep an unwanted store open. WalMart could have kept the store open but reduced the operating hours to 1 hour a week and laid people off accordingly. Woudl you then argue that the government had the right to force business to open a minimum number of hours per week?

I don't disagree with the protections given to individual workers to ensure they cannot get fired for organizing a union. However, If a newly formed union cannot offer the employer a deal that will convince the employer to keep the store open then the union has clearly overplayed it hand and the government has no business protecting poor negotiators.

Edited August 8, 2008 by Riverwind

[M.Dancer]

It is illegal in this country to sack employee's for union activities. If Walmart closed the store solely because the employee's accepted the union, then Walmart is behaving illegally and should be fined or whatever the powers that be find appropriate. I understand you find that rediculous. Please understand that I don't.

The store in Jonquire is closed and has been closed for a couple of years now. Why you say that this will force Walmart to open the store is beyond me.

Ford and GM have been bargaining with unions for years. They have been shutting factories to cut costs - not because those factories have been unionized. So relax, the issue here is not being forced to keep a store open, the issue at hand is did Walmart punish employee's for unionizing?

Nonsense. Deciding not to operate a branch because of an untenable environemnt is a legitimate business decsion. If they punished the employees then they also punished themselves by not doing business in the Jonquire market. On the otherhand, allowing a unio in could drive up operationg costs that would jeopardize the walmart business model and make that location unprofitable. Ensuring that no walmart store would be allowed to unionize and remain in operation is good business sense.

[HisSelf]

Wal-Mart - third rate goods with fourth rate service in ugly, crowded stores. White trash central. Who shops in these holes anyway? Occasionally I peer in as I wander by to see if anyone is having sex with their sisters in the aisle.

Want to let someone know how little you think of them? Buy them a present at Wal-Mart.

Bleh. Anyone who considers this a better way of doing things needs a bit of a rethink.

Wal-mart. The biggest trading partner China has ever had.

Walmart sells. Who is buying?

I know that I can make a lot of money buying hi-tech things from China. No secrets here. They hire engineers from Inja. Well maybe just translators.

Walmart Bleh. Exackly.

[GostHacked]

It has happened many times with Walmart. The employees want to unionize, or a union wants to get in as the store is being built. Walmart decides to shut the door.

There are quite a few empty Walmart locations across North America. Unions cost them more money that it is to just say, screw it, lock the doors.. let's go somewhere else.

Cheap wages, cheap benifits, cheap products, cheap service. Yay!

[Peter F]

I don't disagree with the protections given to individual workers to ensure they cannot get fired for organizing a union. However, If a newly formed union cannot offer the employer a deal that will convince the employer to keep the store open then the union has clearly overplayed it hand and the government has no business protecting poor negotiators.

Certainly. But how do you know that this was how Walmart saw it? What were the outrageous UFCW demands that made Jonquire unprofitable? So far we know nothing about why Walmart did what it did. I find it difficult to believe that Walmart - without market study's etc - determined that a store in Jonquiere was a really good idea; puchased property; built the thing; staffed and stocked it; then determined that oops they were wrong and Jonquire is unprofitable after all. Walmart doe'snt have a history of senior management being dopes.

On the other hand, maybe they were dopes. Afterall lower courts upheld Walmarts position.

[Peter F]

Nonsense. Deciding not to operate a branch because of an untenable environemnt is a legitimate business decsion. If they punished the employees then they also punished themselves by not doing business in the Jonquire market. On the otherhand, allowing a unio in could drive up operationg costs that would jeopardize the walmart business model and make that location unprofitable. Ensuring that no walmart store would be allowed to unionize and remain in operation is good business sense.

It certainly is good business sense. So what? The Union is the bargaining agent. If the union demands will make the location unprofitable then, yes, no contract is signed and the store ceases operation. Fair dinkum.

Apparently Walmart has successfully made that case to lower courts. The UFCW is not saying that Walmart can't close stores and must enter into contracts with unions. The UFCW is saying that Walmart closed the door's, not because of unreasonable demands, but because the employee's certified a union. That is illegal.

[Peter F]

Nonsense. Deciding not to operate a branch because of an untenable environemnt is a legitimate business decsion.

It certainly is. I don't dispute that.

If they punished the employees then they also punished themselves by not doing business in the Jonquire market.

They cannot punish employee's for unionizing. The argument that a company can do so as long as they punish themselves somehow is without any legal basis whatsoever. It certainly does't apply between companies. Imagine the argument that Magna reneged on thier contract to GM for auto parts...but its ok for them to do that because Magna management forgo a weeks holiday as punishment. LOL.

On the otherhand, allowing a unio in could drive up operationg costs that would jeopardize the walmart business model and make that location unprofitable.

Certainly possible...thus negotiations. On the other hand they have that very same problem even if the staff aren't unionized. Staff want raises and either Walmart gives them raises or they don't. There is no difference between a unionized staff or a non-unionized staff in this regard.

Ensuring that no walmart store would be allowed to unionize and remain in operation is good business sense.

It certainly would be, but is illegal in this country. Employee's have a right to unionize without being punished for it. You are claiming that company's should be allowed to punish unionizing. Should company's punish employee's for political affiliation too?

[stevoh]

Cool, got a citation for that?

Original Story From Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755649066303381.html

Walmarts Denial in Huffington post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/2...-mart-politics/

Of course, each has their own side of the story, but even walmart admits (about the Obama supported union bill):

Wal-Mart spokesman Dave Tovar told The Associated Press that the company did discuss the bill with its employees, including what it sees as the negative impact, and noted that the company's stand on the legislation is no secret.

[Riverwind]

What were the outrageous UFCW demands that made Jonquire unprofitable?

Whatever demands they made were enough to convince Walmart that closing the store and foregoing any opportunity to make profits in Jonquire was better than accepting the demands. That is enough evidence for me that that the unions demands were too expensive for WalMart. Companies should not be expected to justify their minimum profit expectations per store. It costs money to abandon a store which is enough of a disincentive to ensure that companies would not do so arbitrarily. Edited August 8, 2008 by Riverwind

[Peter F]

Whatever demands they made were enough to convince Walmart that closing the store and foregoing any opportunity to make profits in Jonquire was better than accepting the demands. That is enough evidence for me that that the unions demands were too expensive for WalMart. Companies should not be expected to justify their minimum profit expectations per store. It costs money to abandon a store which is enough of a disincentive to ensure that companies would not do so arbitrarily.

I think you are mistaken. I think Walmart shut it down as an example to every other employee. You unionize and we shut you down.

[madmax]

I think you are mistaken. I think Walmart shut it down as an example to every other employee. You unionize and we shut you down.

That is what has to be proven.

[Peter F]

That is what has to be proven.

Yes. So far the UFCW has failed to do so.

[M.Dancer]

Should company's punish employee's for political affiliation too?

Only if it affects business.

It certainly would be, but is illegal in this country

Certainly isn't. Companies do not need to justify to anyone other than the board and shareholders their reasons for shutting down an operation.