Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

[Riverwind]

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.

The message was more like: we are low cost retailer and operate on thin margins and that increases in the cost of doing business will make stores unprofitable.

[Renegade]

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, you keep insisting that it is "illegal". Can you please cite what specifc law has been broken that forces an employer to stay in business if his employees unionize?

IMV, an employer can decide to go out of buisness for whatever reason he chooses, just like an employee can choose not to work if he so chooses.

[guyser]

Peter, you keep insisting that it is "illegal". Can you please cite what specifc law has been broken that forces an employer to stay in business if his employees unionize?

The SC of C is hearing the case so I would suspect something is not kosher.

[Peter F]

Peter, you keep insisting that it is "illegal". Can you please cite what specifc law has been broken that forces an employer to stay in business if his employees unionize?

IMV, an employer can decide to go out of buisness for whatever reason he chooses, just like an employee can choose not to work if he so chooses.

Canada Labour Code

PART I

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Division I

Basic Freedoms

Employee freedoms

8. (1) Every employee is free to join the trade union of their choice and to participate in its lawful activities.

Unfair Practices

Article 94

Prohibitions relating to employers

(3) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall

(a) refuse to employ or to continue to employ or suspend, transfer, lay off or otherwise discriminate against any person with respect to employment, pay or any other term or condition of employment or intimidate, threaten or otherwise discipline any person, because the person

(i) is or proposes to become, or seeks to induce any other person to become, a member, officer or representative of a trade union or participates in the promotion, formation or administration of a trade union,

...you will no doubt note that Walmart has claimed that they are acting within the bounds of the above. They did not close the store because the staff are unionized, because they know that is illegal. They claim instead that the store had become unprofitable for other reasons. So even Walmart does not agree with the position that the employer can go out of business for "whatever" reason they choose. They cannot go out of business simply because the staff are unionized.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Peter F

[Peter F]

The message was more like: we are low cost retailer and operate on thin margins and that increases in the cost of doing business will make stores unprofitable.

Yes, that was the message: Don't unionize or we will shut you down

[Riverwind]

They did not close the store because the staff are unionized, because they know that is illegal.

The law says nothing about that case. It is possible that they could win the case if they insisted they had the right to close a business for whatever reason but that would be a riskier strategy than claiming profitability.

[Peter F]

Only if it affects business.

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

And you are very wrong, Thus the court cases that decided against the UFCW and in favour of Walmart.

[Peter F]

The law says nothing about that case. It is possible that they could win the case if they insisted they had the right to close a business for whatever reason but that would be a riskier strategy than claiming profitability.

Sure, there are hundreds of reasons to shut down shops. But a unionized workforce isn't one of them.

[Renegade]

...you will no doubt note that Walmart has claimed that they are acting within the bounds of the above. They did not close the store because the staff are unionized, because they know that is illegal. They claim instead that the store had become unprofitable for other reasons. So even Walmart does not agree with the position that the employer can go out of business for "whatever" reason they choose. They cannot go out of business simply because the staff are unionized.

I believe you are quite wrong in your interpretation of the law. As RW has stated, the law says nothing about prohibiting an organzation from going out of business.

I fully realize that even if Walmart did shutdown because they did not want a unionized operation, that they would not to pubiclly state that as the reason for the shutdown.

FYI: No Union Please, We're Wal-Mart

Under Quebec law, a company is legally entitled to shut down a store or a factory for any reason -- even to thwart unionization -- as long as the closure is permanent. Wal-Mart recently has cancelled its long-term lease of the building it occupied in Jonquière, eliminating any possibility that the store will reopen.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Renegade

[Peter F]

I believe you are quite wrong in your interpretation of the law. As RW has stated, the law says nothing about prohibiting an organzation from going out of business.

I fully realize that even if Walmart did shutdown because they did not want a unionized operation, that they would not to pubiclly state that as the reason for the shutdown.

FYI: No Union Please, We're Wal-Mart

Interesting. You appear to be correct - as long as the shut down is permanent they can do whatever they want...which I suppose is what the UFCW disagree's with and why they appealed to the SCC. Is that not legitimate? I think so.

If that is why Walmart shut down the store, and its perfectly legal and within thier rights to do so, then why don't they just say so? Is their intent to fool the public into thinking different? Why the charade?

[Renegade]

Interesting. You appear to be correct - as long as the shut down is permanent they can do whatever they want...which I suppose is what the UFCW disagree's with and why they appealed to the SCC. Is that not legitimate? I think so.

It is "legitimate" for UFCW to dispute Walmart actions, however I don't see what legal basis they have for doing so. Even if there is not a legal basis, the UFCW may be persuing legal action in order to try an pressure Walmart to providing better severence by settling out of court (I'm speculating).

If that is why Walmart shut down the store, and its perfectly legal and within thier rights to do so, then why don't they just say so? Is their intent to fool the public into thinking different? Why the charade?

Let's not be naive. Even if legal, Walmart would want to minimize the negative public perception which would result. It is much more general and ambigous to simply state that the store was closed for business reasons. In any case, unionization my have been an indirect cause for the store closing. (ie the union demands for better conditions led to increased operating costs which Walmart refused to accept). If this is the case it is not innaccurate to state that the store was closed for business reasons.

[CANADIEN]

Canada Labour Code

PART I

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Division I

Basic Freedoms

Employee freedoms

8. (1) Every employee is free to join the trade union of their choice and to participate in its lawful activities.

Unfair Practices

Article 94

Prohibitions relating to employers

(3) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall

(a) refuse to employ or to continue to employ or suspend, transfer, lay off or otherwise discriminate against any person with respect to employment, pay or any other term or condition of employment or intimidate, threaten or otherwise discipline any person, because the person

(i) is or proposes to become, or seeks to induce any other person to become, a member, officer or representative of a trade union or participates in the promotion, formation or administration of a trade union,

...you will no doubt note that Walmart has claimed that they are acting within the bounds of the above. They did not close the store because the staff are unionized, because they know that is illegal. They claim instead that the store had become unprofitable for other reasons. So even Walmart does not agree with the position that the employer can go out of business for "whatever" reason they choose. They cannot go out of business simply because the staff are unionized.

The Canada Labour Code applies to federally regulated employers (such as the bank). In the case of Wal-Mart stores in Quebec, the Quebec Labour Code applies. Mind you, it basically says the same anyways.

As for the key issue at hand, I, like most people, do not believe the closure of the Jonquière store just after its employees unionized to be a coincidence.

Edited August 9, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Peter F]

The Canada Labour Code applies to federally regulated employers (such as the bank). In the case of Wal-Mart stores in Quebec, the Quebec Labour Code applies. Mind you, it basically says the same anyways.

You are correct, of course. The Quebec labour code would apply. My understanding is that a provincial Labour Code must also comply with the Canada Labour Code as the CLC is the minimum standard across the country. But perhaps I am mistaken about that too.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Peter F

[CANADIEN]

You are correct, of course. The Quebec labour code would apply. My understanding is that a provincial Labour Code must also comply with the Canada Labour Code as the CLC is the minimum standard across the country. But perhaps I am mistaken about that too.

Not sure on that one; you may be right.

[Argus]

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.

Not for me. Wal-Mart is easily capable of closing a store as an example to others. If they let one Wal-Mart store operate in a union environment then others will try to do the same. Wal-Mart's owners are power freaks. They do not want anyone challenging their right to do whatever they want to or with their employees. If Wal-mart could get away with it it'd use only indentured slaves as employees. That's why most of its production is in China, and why it encourages (strongly encourages) other suppliers to relocate to China.

[Argus]

The message was more like: we are low cost retailer and operate on thin margins and that increases in the cost of doing business will make stores unprofitable.

Costco. Employees get far higher salaries and wages, far better benefits, are treated far better than at Wal-mart, and yet the stores make handsome profits on merchandise that isn't usually as shitty as what Wal-Mart sells, but is usually cheaper.

Wal-Mart's profits are not that thin. It's a hugely profitable organization.

[CANADIEN]

Wal-Mart is the world largest public corporation by Revenue (Fortune Global 500, 2008). Looks to me like they are making money.

On the other end,, members of the Walton family (who own most of the shares) seem to be falling on hard times. At least three or four of them used to be among the top 10 on Forbes' magazine list of American billionaires, and the top 20 on Forbes' worldwide list. Nowadays, they are barely in their mid-teens and early thirties respectively. Must be all those unions.

And Wal-mart has a long history of bending and even breaking the rules to avoid unions at all cost, short of actually pulling out of an entire market (even then, local labour laws and relations is one possible reason why Wal-mart pulled out completely from the German markets, and there were rumours in 2005 that Wal-Mart was considering pulling out completely from Quebec unless there was a change in labour laws.

[Riverwind]

Costco. Employees get far higher salaries and wages, far better benefits, are treated far better than at Wal-mart, and yet the stores make handsome profits on merchandise that isn't usually as shitty as what Wal-Mart sells, but is usually cheaper.

Costco's 'membership model' has always bugged me (mainly because for years I did not fall into one of the arbitrary categories that qualified). I don't like WalMart - don't shop there and likely never will. I am simply defending the right of any company to choose to close down their business if they don't want to deal with a union.

[Argus]

Costco's 'membership model' has always bugged me (mainly because for years I did not fall into one of the arbitrary categories that qualified). I don't like WalMart - don't shop there and likely never will. I am simply defending the right of any company to choose to close down their business if they don't want to deal with a union.

I don't have a problem with that either, except that I believe it's a sacrifice they make to intimidate employees at other stores who want to join a union. You can be sure that whenever the union tries to sign people up Wal-mart makes sure every one of them is reminded of what happens when a store becomes unionized.

[August1991]

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.

The unintended consequence of this will be fewer companies will set up or operate in Quebec. IOW, there will be fewer jobs available and higher unemployment.

Who wants to operate a business in a jurisdiction where a union can take you to court simply because you want to shut down?

Similar consequences follow from labour laws that make it difficult to lay off an employee. As a result, fewer employees are hired. This is the exact situation in many European countries.

[Peter F]

The unintended consequence of this will be fewer companies will set up or operate in Quebec. IOW, there will be fewer jobs available and higher unemployment.

Who wants to operate a business in a jurisdiction where a union can take you to court simply because you want to shut down?

Similar consequences follow from labour laws that make it difficult to lay off an employee. As a result, fewer employees are hired. This is the exact situation in many European countries.

Are you suggesting that a company would hire two employee's where it can get by with one?

[Riverwind]

Are you suggesting that a company would hire two employee's where it can get by with one?

It is not that simple. In many situations the work is there if they had the people but the potential profit from the work is too small or too risky to justify the burden of taking on extra employees. The company ends up foregoing profit making opportunities which limits a company's ability to grow. It also penalizes younger workers without a track record. The difference in unemployment numbers between the UK and France is pretty compelling evidence that stricter labour laws create higher unemployment. Edited August 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[Argus]

The unintended consequence of this will be fewer companies will set up or operate in Quebec. IOW, there will be fewer jobs available and higher unemployment.

Who wants to operate a business in a jurisdiction where a union can take you to court simply because you want to shut down?

Exactly. Why, there are no companies in Europe. None whatsoever. The land is a wasteland, its people impverished.

[August1991]

Exactly. Why, there are no companies in Europe. None whatsoever. The land is a wasteland, its people impverished.

None whatsoever? It's a question of degree, Argus. You know that.

The point is that a law intended to help workers by offering job security or defending the ability to form a union has the opposite effect and hurts them.

As Riverwind has pointed out above, alot of the social unrest among young French youths is due in part to France's labour laws.

[M.Dancer]

And you are very wrong, Thus the court cases that decided against the UFCW and in favour of Walmart.

If they decided for Walmart, then I am right. Very right.