Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

[segnosaur]

Wal-Mart - third rate goods with fourth rate service in ugly, crowded stores. White trash central. Who shops in these holes anyway?

I shop at Wal-mart.

Are the stores ugly? No more so than any other department store, or 'big box' store like Home Depot. You don't shop at any department store because you like the looks.

Are the goods 'third rate'? Not any more than in, say, Zeller's. Yes, if you went to places like Sears or some boutique in a mall you may get higher-quality brands on average, but not everyone really sees the need to buy top-of-the-line brands when just the basic brands/models will do. (And Walmart does sell name brand merchandise such as Black & Decker as well as the lower-brand stuff.)

Is the service 'fourth rate'? Compared to what? I really don't need anyone to hold my hand if/when I go buy soap or kitty litter. And consider that Wal-mart has opening hours that far exceed the majority of other stores in my city, PLUS they have a return policy which is much better than many other stores.

I don't buy everything at walmart. I usually shop around for the best deals. But I fail to see the logic in paying more for a tube of toothpaste and a bag of M&Ms at some specialty store just because I get some false sense of superiority by looking down at Wal-mart shoppers.

Edited August 11, 2008 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

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.

I had a Costco membership for a while.

The rumours of its 'great prices' are overrated. Yeah, you could buy some stuff cheaper (especially if you were willing to buy in bulk), but in many cases I could get the same stuff cheaper at other stores. Not to mention the fact that people have to pay memberships.

I do find it ironic that there would be complaints about the looks and customer service of 'wal-mart' in a previous post, yet here you're praising Costco. The costco stores I've been in have been a lot less attractive (More or less just big warehouses, with little effort done on interior design), and have had much worse customer service (longer lines at the checkouts, customers restricted to American express only, much shorter opening hours.)

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

Well, lets see...

Last year their profit margin was 3.5%. That's within 0.1% of the industry average for retail sales.

Compare that to, say, manufacturing (net profit average 6.2% in 1998), or the fast food industry (industry average 12.9% in 2007, or McDonalds with 18.9%)

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/resea....asp?symbol=wmt

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encycl...fit-Margin.html

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsu...&Symbol=MCD

So, while Wal-Mart isn't necessarily poor, the reason they have so much total profit is because they're so big.

[madmax]

Hmmm.

Guyser?, Argus? and.......madmax all on the same page?

Did something freeze over?

I hate those two guys?

Edited August 11, 2008 by madmax

[AngusThermopyle]

I had a Costco membership for a while.

The rumours of its 'great prices' are overrated. Yeah, you could buy some stuff cheaper (especially if you were willing to buy in bulk), but in many cases I could get the same stuff cheaper at other stores. Not to mention the fact that people have to pay memberships.

I love Costco. The membership is no big deal, in fact I made the membership back with my first purchase after renewing my card. Being a guy who builds his own computers I tend to watch hardware and peripheral prices very closely. My new UPS was $35.00 cheaper than the next best price I could find anywhere in town and this trend continues with their other goods they offer. Not to mention the fact that they do stock merchandise of far higher quality than Wal Mart.

Besides, go around supper time and you can just wander around eating the samples. Presto! No need to worry about cooking supper!

[segnosaur]

I love Costco. The membership is no big deal, in fact I made the membership back with my first purchase after renewing my card. Being a guy who builds his own computers I tend to watch hardware and peripheral prices very closely. My new UPS was $35.00 cheaper than the next best price I could find anywhere in town and this trend continues with their other goods they offer. Not to mention the fact that they do stock merchandise of far higher quality than Wal Mart.

Well, like I said, some things you can get cheaper at Costco. My experience wasn't quite the same. Maye its a western vs. eastern Canada thing.

When it came to electronics, I found that best-buy and future shop were competitive with what I could get at costco. (But then, I'm not into building computers). As for food, you could get good deals if you were willing to buy (for example) 3 loaves of bread at a time, but I don't have to storage space to make that worth while.

As for the quality of merchandise... it may be true that Costco has a higher average quality, but often I don't need stuff that's top-of-the-line. I didn't need the high-price VCR with every possible feature; I was quite happy going to futureshop and getting the more basic model.

[stevoh]

When your company's main reason for attracting business is simply low prices, you have to do everything you can to keep those prices lower than everyone else. Including paying staff less.

I am not saying whether I support or oppose that decision, but fact is, if Unions succeed in getting into Walmart, and salaries go up, then the prices would have to go up as well.

Would that be the end of Walmart? They certainly are fighting it like it would.

[AngusThermopyle]

When it came to electronics, I found that best-buy and future shop were competitive with what I could get at costco. (But then, I'm not into building computers).

We must be polar opposites. I don't like stores like FS and BB. They tend to hire anyone they can and product knowledge suffers as a result. Many times before I gave up on them I ended up explaining a product to store staff as they simply didn't have a clue about the product. Add to that the frustration one feels when trying to get service as you watch the employees go out of their way to avoid contact with you whilst continuing their little chat about the weekend and you have all the elements needed to lose my business.

As for stereo stuff, well the last place I would shop would be FS or BB. They tend to carry main brand stuff, not the good stuff. When it comes to stereo I go with specialty stores such as Target Hi Fi in London or Peak Audio in Halifax, these are stores that sell first class equipment and have employees who are extremely knowledgeable. Yes, I am anal enough to actually wait until I'm in these cities before making a new audio purchase.

I also love buying bulk. When I buy food from Costco I divide it up into single person sized servings and the bulk goes into the freezer for individual use. This is no more than I would have to do if I shopped elsewhere. Most retailers do not cater to single people so you usually end up repackaging for single use.

[Argus]

When your company's main reason for attracting business is simply low prices, you have to do everything you can to keep those prices lower than everyone else. Including paying staff less.

Costco.

[Argus]

I shop at Wal-mart.

Are the stores ugly? No more so than any other department store, or 'big box' store like Home Depot. You don't shop at any department store because you like the looks.

Are the goods 'third rate'? Not any more than in, say, Zeller's. Yes, if you went to places like Sears or some boutique in a mall you may get higher-quality brands on average, but not everyone really sees the need to buy top-of-the-line brands when just the basic brands/models will do. (And Walmart does sell name brand merchandise such as Black & Decker as well as the lower-brand stuff.)

Name brand? Yes. You will find name brand stuff at Wal-mart, but none of the higher quality stuff. Most major manufacturers now have multiple lines with varying quality. The higher quality, higher priced stuff goes to, as you say, Sears, the Bay, and higher quality electronic, sports and clothing stores. The low end stuff goes to Wal-Mart and Zellers. Not all Black and Decker stuff is alike, you know.

Is the service 'fourth rate'? Compared to what?

The aisles are more narrow, the help hard to find if you need it, the waits at the cash and returns lines long. Zellers is, by comparison, more shopper friendly, to say nothing of the Bay or Sears.

I really don't need anyone to hold my hand if/when I go buy soap or kitty litter. And consider that Wal-mart has opening hours that far exceed the majority of other stores in my city, PLUS they have a return policy which is much better than many other stores.

I don't need to shop at two in the morning. And when I brought back a pair of Sony headphones to Best Buy last week all I told the returns person was that they were crap. She didn't put up any arguments and refunded my money immediately. That's generally the case in most large outlets.

I don't buy everything at walmart. I usually shop around for the best deals. But I fail to see the logic in paying more for a tube of toothpaste and a bag of M&Ms at some specialty store just because I get some false sense of superiority by looking down at Wal-mart shoppers.

Just remember that the stuff you're putting in your mouth from Wal-Mart likely came from China. Do you really know what's in it?

[stevoh]

Costco.

Costco's target market is different. They are mostly bulk buying stores, especially for food and cleaning supplies. So if you need 5 gallons of Salsa, Costco is your place. However, if you want to buy the regular 8 ounce jar of salsa for cheap, then Walmart is the place.

Costco has decided, and I agree, that cutting back on staff wages and benefits is one of the things they are NOT willing to do in an effort to reduce final costs to the consumer. Walmart has.

Increase Walmarts costs in any way, including raising wages, and that money has to come from somewhere.

[segnosaur]

Name brand? Yes. You will find name brand stuff at Wal-mart, but none of the higher quality stuff. Most major manufacturers now have multiple lines with varying quality. The higher quality, higher priced stuff goes to, as you say, Sears, the Bay, and higher quality electronic, sports and clothing stores. The low end stuff goes to Wal-Mart and Zellers. Not all Black and Decker stuff is alike, you know.

Believe it or not, not everyone needs/requires top quality stuff for all their uses. I'm not a handyman; I'm quite happy with a low-end basic models for my power tools. I'm not a stereo-phile. I'm quite happy with a basic stereo and don't have the need to have 10,000 watts of surround sound output with a 25 disk CD changer.

Interesting that you lumped Zellers in with with Wal-Mart as a retail outlet specializing in lower-priced items. Is your concern against Wal-Mart specifically or with all 'discount' material? Do you automatically look down on anyone who purchases lower cost items regardless of where they purchase them?

The aisles are more narrow,

They're also quite narrow in the Zellers I shop at. It is true that there is a bit more room in the Bay and Sears, but I've also found those stores have less merchandise (at least merchandise I'm interested in.) Easier to have more room when you don't sell as much stuff.

the help hard to find if you need it,

I've had the same experience in Zellers and Sears the last time I was there. (Sears is particularly frustrating since they tend not to have cashiers near the exits.)

Its a department store. If you want personalized service, go to some speciality store or boutique. But, you tend to pay more for such service. Fine if you want to spend the money for it. I choose not to.

the waits at the cash and returns lines long.

I've experienced long lines at Zellers too.

Wait a sec... how exactly would you know how long the lines are in Wal-mart? Early on you were questioning why anyone would shop at wal-mart and suggesting your only experience is when you 'peer in'.

I don't need to shop at two in the morning.

I don't need to shop at late hours. However, I do occasionally find it convenient. Not everyone wants to follow the same schedule. More open hours gives you more options.

And when I brought back a pair of Sony headphones to Best Buy last week all I told the returns person was that they were crap. She didn't put up any arguments and refunded my money immediately. That's generally the case in most large outlets.

But its not necessarily the case in smaller retail shops (you know, one of those stores that you seem to think is better than Wal-mart.)

Just remember that the stuff you're putting in your mouth from Wal-Mart likely came from China. Do you really know what's in it?

Like it or not, pretty much all stores sell stuff that was made in China or other foreign countries. Zellers does. Sears does. My local Loblaws does. Only way you can prevent it is if you eliminated trade between the 2 countries. (Should also be noted that there have also been product recalls/defects with stuff made/manufactured in North America.)

[bush_cheney2004]

...I don't need to shop at late hours. However, I do occasionally find it convenient. Not everyone wants to follow the same schedule. More open hours gives you more options.

Indeed...this point was illustrated last night as I waited in a long line of humanity for Madden 2009. The crowd was diverse, orderly for the most part, and thankful for the opportunity to buy at the stroke of midnight. Walmart may be slumming, but sometimes it's just what I want.

[jefferiah]

If people don't like Wal Mart they do not have to shop there. And also, if people do not like the wages Wal Mart pays they do not have to work there. Someone here compared it to slave labor. Is this person on drugs?? None of these employees are owned and forced to work at Wal Mart. They can leave at any time. They accept employment at the store at a certain wage. There is something snooty and spoiled rotten about people who would even dare to compare Wal Mart jobs to slave labor. It's like a teenager calling his parents fascists for grounding him.

I worked at Wal Mart. It's not slave labor. It's a regular job. It's not the highest paying job, but no one has to work there. If you agree to work at a place that offers a certain wage, how is that slavery???

Wal Mart has no obligation to continue running a store it wants to close for whatever reason.

Causing mass unemployment??? Without them there would not be the mass employment in the first place? It is not their responsibility to create jobs and keep them going. It's their store!!! Not the unions. Nobody owns a job. The same way that Wal Mart does not own customers. If a regular Wal Mart customer decides to purchase a bottle of Pepsi at Zellers because they have a better sale on, Wal Mart cannot say "But you are our customer!! Your business belongs to us!!" But unions think that they own "customers"--that is, in their case, companies who pay workers for a product called "labor". Which is why they are quite violent to regular people who, in the invent of a strike, are quite happy to fill in their position and do the job ten times better at less pay.

Edited August 13, 2008 by jefferiah

[Peter F]

Sorry Jeff, I don't buy your line that the employer is always right...take the money they offer and be happy to even get that.

Employer's are not Gods.

[jefferiah]

Sorry Jeff, I don't buy your line that the employer is always right...take the money they offer and be happy to even get that.

Employer's are not Gods.

I never said the employer was always right. But no one is forced to work for them. Wal Mart owns the store. They can open it, they can close it. The store doesn't belong to the Union. You don't have to take the money they offer. You don't have to work for them at all. If you were to put a "For Sale" sign on your car, and someone offered you 3000 bucks and that's his offer, you can either accept or not. But you don't own the customer. You can't tell him, "no you must pay me more and you must purchase my car". If he doesn't want to pay more, he can look for a car someplace else. He doesn't belong to you.

Edited August 15, 2008 by jefferiah

[Peter F]

I never said the employer was always right. But no one is forced to work for them. Wal Mart owns the store. They can open it, they can close it. The store doesn't belong to the Union.

Certainly. But that isn't the dispute.

[Renegade]

Sorry Jeff, I don't buy your line that the employer is always right...take the money they offer and be happy to even get that.

Neither the employer nor the employee is "always right". The employer simply offers the employee an exchange: compensation in return for labour. The employee is free to accept or reject the offer. The employer is free to make the offer if it so choose or not make the offer if it so chooses. The fact that the employer makes the offer and the employee takes it, indicates that both are percieved to be better off than any alternative. (ie they are "happy to even get that")

Employer's are not Gods.

Of course they aren't. Neither are employees or unions. They simply make an exchange until such time that one side decides that they are no longer satisified with the terms of the exchange.

[Peter F]

...additional to the above...

The dispute, I believe is this:

Employee's have a legal right of association.

Employee's have a right to form a union for collective bargaining purposes.

Given that not all employee's at a particular work-place wish to be in a union, there are laws in place which specify the how's and wherefores of establishing collective bargaining rights - or rejection of those rights.

The employee's at this particular (no longer in existance) Wal-mart went through this process of voting to see if they would have collective bargaining rights or not.

Wal-mart did not close the store down when they became aware the process was going to happen. They accepted that the employees get to determine, according to the laws of the land, whether to have collective bargaining rights or not.

Management made it very clear to the employee's that Collective Bargaining would be a bad choice for the employee's.

At no time did management tell the employee's that should they accept collective bargaining the store would be closed.

During the first certification vote, Wal-mart did not dispute the result or the process involved.

After the second certification vote Wal mart closed its doors.

The question is: Do employee's have a right to collective bargaining? If the process of determining wether a worksite will have collective bargaining or not is legal and legitimate and acceptable to the employer, should it the vote turn out one way, why does the employer then have a 'right' to close down if the vote goe's another way?

Should not Wal-mart shut down as soon as they become aware of the certification vote? Once they have accepted the process and the employee's right can they then close up once the vote doesn't turn out as they wished?

The right to association and collective bargaining is not an 'empty' right. It is a real right and Wal-mart or any other employer

has no 'right', as I see it, to cease operating simply because a work site becomes unionized.

[Peter F]

Neither the employer nor the employee is "always right". The employer simply offers the employee an exchange: compensation in return for labour. The employee is free to accept or reject the offer. The employer is free to make the offer if it so choose or not make the offer if it so chooses. The fact that the employer makes the offer and the employee takes it, indicates that both are percieved to be better off than any alternative. (ie they are "happy to even get that")

Of course they aren't. Neither are employees or unions. They simply make an exchange until such time that one side decides that they are no longer satisified with the terms of the exchange.

Obviously so. Negotiations, either collectively or individually, is part and parcel of the above

[Renegade]

They accepted that the employees get to determine, according to the laws of the land, whether to have collective bargaining rights or not.

They accepted??? How? It is not left to Walmart or any employer to accept or not accept. That obligation is mandated by the government should the employer wish to do business within that juristiction.

At no time did management tell the employee's that should they accept collective bargaining the store would be closed.

So? What obligation does management have to do so? Does an employee have an obligation to tell the employer that if you don't pay me $X I'll quit, or can they simply quit without disclosing the reason.

The question is: Do employee's have a right to collective bargaining? If the process of determining wether a worksite will have collective bargaining or not is legal and legitimate and acceptable to the employer, should it the vote turn out one way, why does the employer then have a 'right' to close down if the vote goe's another way?

Because they essentially what they are being told (by the employees and the government) is "The conditions for doing business in this location is that you must deal with the employees through collective bargaining". There responses is "Fine. We will cease doing business". The employees have the ability to choose how they deal with the employer (individually or collectively). The employer has the ability to determine if it will do business on those terms.

Should not Wal-mart shut down as soon as they become aware of the certification vote? Once they have accepted the process and the employee's right can they then close up once the vote doesn't turn out as they wished?

The employer is under no obligation to shutdown at any particular time or to disclose the reason for the shutdown. Why should it? It is simply your opinion that it should shut down as soon as they became aware of the certification vote. There is no obligation in law or otherwise for them to do so.

The right to association and collective bargaining is not an 'empty' right. It is a real right and Wal-mart or any other employer

has no 'right', as I see it, to cease operating simply because a work site becomes unionized.

Well I appreciate that is your opinion but it is not the law. Walmart has followed the law. My opinion is that Walmart's obligations to its employees are parallel to its employees obligations to Walmart. If an employee can quit for any reason and at any time without disclosing it to the employer, the employer should have that same priviledge.

[Renegade]

Obviously so. Negotiations, either collectively or individually, is part and parcel of the above

If you agree with that. Why do you insist that one party should be forced to accept terms it finds unfavourable and is not entering into agreement freely?

[jefferiah]

After the second certification vote Wal mart closed its doors.

The question is: Do employee's have a right to collective bargaining? If the process of determining wether a worksite will have collective bargaining or not is legal and legitimate and acceptable to the employer, should it the vote turn out one way, why does the employer then have a 'right' to close down if the vote goe's another way?

Yes, they do. And Wal Mart has the right to close down a store which Wal Mart "owns" at any time it wishes. The union still has a right to congregate and whine collectively after they've screwed themselves out of a job.

[Peter F]

If you agree with that. Why do you insist that one party should be forced to accept terms it finds unfavourable and is not entering into agreement freely?

I insist nothing of the sort. What "terms" have I claimed that Wal-mart must accept that they aren't already willing to accept?

[Renegade]

I insist nothing of the sort. What "terms" have I claimed that Wal-mart must accept that they aren't already willing to accept?

You have insisted that Walmart must keep the store open. That is something they are not willing to accept.

[Peter F]

Yes, they do. And Wal Mart has the right to close down a store which Wal Mart "owns" at any time it wishes. The union still has a right to congregate and whine collectively after they've screwed themselves out of a job.

Ah. The employee's screwed themselves out of a job...and how did they do that? They voted to Unionize. Apparently that simple fact - not any new contract; no raises in pay; no restrictions on hours of work - gives the employer the right to sack the lot of them.

Sorry Jeff. If the employee's right to collective bargaining is a real right, then the employer must accept the employee's choosing collective bargaining.

As has been pointed out previously, any employer can open or shut thier businesses as they please...except they cant do so to nullify employee's rights to collective bargaining.

If Wal-mart cannot come to an agreement with the unionized workforce over terms and conditions of employment - fine, they can close down and move out. If Wal-mart finds that they have entered into an agreement with thier unionized workforce that makes thier operations unprofitable/unworkable then fine, they can close down and move out.

But they cannot close down because thier employee's are unionized where otherwise they would not close down at all - as was the case here.