Wal-Mart to close unionized store in Quebec

[Peter F]

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

I understand why you would conclude that. But, No, I do not insist such.

But I do think they should be penalized for what they have done.

[Peter F]

I understand why you would conclude that. But, No, I do not insist such.

But I do think they should be penalized for what they have done.

The Quebec court has said that company's can close thier doors. The courts of Quebec say employee's must accept this fact as long as such closures are permanent and not mere subterfuges to avoid the results of certification votes.

Fair enough.

But, obviously, I do believe that Right of Association is real and to be real needs to be legally enforceable.

That was what the UFCW was contending in thier appeals against Walmart and I think/hope that is what the SCC will be addressing in thier hearing of the appeal.

[Riverwind]

The Quebec court has said that company's can close thier doors. The courts of Quebec say employee's must accept this fact as long as such closures are permanent and not mere subterfuges to avoid the results of certification votes.

I would agree that if the company opened the store again that the union would automatically be re-instated. However, the courts should not be able to force a company to keep a store open because the court's interpretation of the motives for closing the store. The rights of the employees to collective barginning do not trump the right of a business choose where it maintains stores.

In fact, I don't even understand why the union is even trying to fight this because Walmart always has the option of locking out its employees forever and the union (legally) could not do anything about it. From Walmart's perspective the keep the store/permenant lockout option is almost the same as closing the store down except they would have to keep paying rent on the property.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Riverwind

[Renegade]

I understand why you would conclude that. But, No, I do not insist such.

But I do think they should be penalized for what they have done.

They already have been penalized. The cost of shutting down operations, paying severance, and forgone profits is the penalty Walmart must pay.

[Riverwind]

They already have been penalized. The cost of shutting down operations, paying severance, and forgone profits is the penalty Walmart must pay.

Don't forget the public relations black eye amoung the pro-labour segment of the population in other communties.

[Renegade]

The Quebec court has said that company's can close thier doors. The courts of Quebec say employee's must accept this fact as long as such closures are permanent and not mere subterfuges to avoid the results of certification votes.

Fair enough.

And there is no evidence that the store closing is anything but permanant. Each day that goes by without the store opening, further sthrengthens the case that the closing is permanant. Walmart has followed the rules in place and been inflicted the consequences and penalties of those rules.

But, obviously, I do believe that Right of Association is real and to be real needs to be legally enforceable.

That was what the UFCW was contending in thier appeals against Walmart and I think/hope that is what the SCC will be addressing in thier hearing of the appeal.

The SCC and lower courts do not make the laws they simply interpret them. Which law has Walmart violated which imposes penalties for closing a store (for whatever reason)? Consistently lower courts have ruled in favour of Walmart. I predict that the SCC will do the same because the UFCW doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

[Peter F]

... I predict that the SCC will do the same because the UFCW doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Which explains why the SCC has decided to hear the appeal...But I agree, the SCC will in the end reject the UFCW's contentions probably on the grounds that the Right of Association is outwieghed by the right of the company to do business.

but we will see what we will see

Edited August 15, 2008 by Peter F

[M.Dancer]

Which explains why the SCC has decided to hear the appeal...But I agree, the SCC will in the end reject the UFCW's contentions probably on the grounds that the Right of Association is outwieghed by the right of the company to do business.

but we will see what we will see

The rights are not conflicting...the right to unionize does not infring on the right to do business and vice versa. They are free to organize and I am free to take my business elsewhere.

While Walmart will no longer do business in Jopnquiere, the Jonquire union can still have meetings, picket and cry in their beer.

Its a win win situation.

Edited August 15, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Peter F]

Its a win win situation.

100% agreement.

[Moonbox]

While I'm not a huge Wal-Mart hater bought my milk there yesterday, what they did was absolutely illegal and against the best interest of everyone. If you think Wal-Mart is actually doing your community any good, you're sadly mistaken. You're never REALLY saving that much money shopping there. They undercut their competitors barely so as to keep their margins high enough to be one of the most profitable corps in the world.

Wal-Marts don't create wealth for communities. It's a veritable siphon of wealth sending money down south and overseas to shareholders while employees working there don't even make enough money to live on. These low-wage employees are burdens on our social welfare and healthcare systems which, in the end, cost the average Canadian taxpayers more than they would if they were being paid fairly.

Wal-Mart is a HUGE polarizer of wealth wherever it goes, and while I applaud their successes in supply-chain management and material cost-control, I'm disgusted by such blatent bullying.

[bush_cheney2004]

While I'm not a huge Wal-Mart hater bought my milk there yesterday, what they did was absolutely illegal and against the best interest of everyone. If you think Wal-Mart is actually doing your community any good, you're sadly mistaken. You're never REALLY saving that much money shopping there. They undercut their competitors barely so as to keep their margins high enough to be one of the most profitable corps in the world.

But it's not just about you and your savings....fact is, WalMart is a very important retailer for poor and lower income families for essential consumer items, just like the milk you purchased. I sent my niece a gift card from a high end retailer last year for her newborn, and though grateful, she asked that next year it be from WalMart, where she can get a lot more.

[Moonbox]

But it's not just about you and your savings....fact is, WalMart is a very important retailer for poor and lower income families for essential consumer items, just like the milk you purchased. I sent my niece a gift card from a high end retailer last year for her newborn, and though grateful, she asked that next year it be from WalMart, where she can get a lot more.

That's not being disputed. Obviously low-end retailers are going to provide service for lower-income families. My dispute with Wal-Mart is thus:

Every corporation has obligations to its three main stakeholders: It's employees, communities and shareholders.

With $13B in profit last year I think they've covered the shareholders pretty well. Now, as far as giving back to the community and looking after its employees, I think Wal-Mart fails on almost every level. It provides pitiful incomes to its employees and has been widely criticized the world over for its bullying tactics against any employees looking for a fairer deal. It drives smaller or more specialized business into bankruptcy (where employees often earn better wages) and contrary to popular opinion, its prices are NOT substantially better on most of the items it sells.

I remember doing case studies at university specifically on Wal-Mart and its pricing strategies. What it DOES do is make sure it has the absolute lowest prices anywhere on weekly-type staple goods and then little to no price advantage on the rest of its goods in comparison to similar bargain competitors. When people see that the milk they buy every week is always cheaper at walmart they naturally just assume that it's the same for everything else. Take a more careful look at the price comparisons and you'll see that a lot of the non-staple household items are often MORE expensive than at other stores.

It's REALLY intelligent marketing on their part, and 95% of people don't know any better.

[bush_cheney2004]

I remember doing case studies at university specifically on Wal-Mart and its pricing strategies. What it DOES do is make sure it has the absolute lowest prices anywhere on weekly-type staple goods and then little to no price advantage on the rest of its goods in comparison to similar bargain competitors. When people see that the milk they buy every week is always cheaper at walmart they naturally just assume that it's the same for everything else. Take a more careful look at the price comparisons and you'll see that a lot of the non-staple household items are often MORE expensive than at other stores.

Irrelevant...when it comes to staples, you admit that WalMart offers a price advantage.

It's REALLY intelligent marketing on their part, and 95% of people don't know any better.

OK...WalMart is smart and the rest of us are dumb. Item: I spent Monday night at WalMart with my son to get Madden 2009 Collector Edition at midnight...the line was at least 200 long. Good thing we got their early. It wasn't available from any other local retailer at that time. I coulda purchased some milk too.

[Peter F]

They already have been penalized. The cost of shutting down operations, paying severance, and forgone profits is the penalty Walmart must pay.

Thats being penalized? Hah! To walmart thats the costs of doing business- money well spent! They willingly and probably gladly, chose to do so in order to avoid a unionized workforce. Penalized my arse.

[jefferiah]

Thats being penalized? Hah! To walmart thats the costs of doing business- money well spent! They willingly and probably gladly, chose to do so in order to avoid a unionized workforce. Penalized my arse.

Why do you think people should be penalized for doing as they please with something they own?

[Peter F]

Why do you think people should be penalized for doing as they please with something they own?

Owning a car doesn't allow one to do whatever they want with it. Usually restrictions on what one doe's with ones own property appear when one does nasty things to others with that property. Thus Labour laws etc. ... I know you're not in favour of them either.

[segnosaur]

While I'm not a huge Wal-Mart hater bought my milk there yesterday, what they did was absolutely illegal ...

Isn't it up to the courts to decide whether it was illegal?

...and against the best interest of everyone.

Its not against the best interest of those who shop there... after all, if wages are forced to increase, it will increase prices. Even if someone is a careful shopper and only shops for things at walmart for things that they are sure are cheap, they end up loosing out.

There are estimates that the lower prices provided by Wal-Mart's competition in food alone save $50 billion to U.S. consumers, and those most benefiting from the savings are poor people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5112700687.html

If you think Wal-Mart is actually doing your community any good, you're sadly mistaken. You're never REALLY saving that much money shopping there. They undercut their competitors barely so as to keep their margins high enough to be one of the most profitable corps in the world.

Wait a second... first of all, you say you're "not saving that much money". Doesn't that actually imply that you are saving money (even if its not as much as you might think)? So if you're saving money, doesn't that actually help the people that shop there?

Secondly, there was a study done by an economic think tank (Global Insight) which suggested that the competition provided by Wal-Mart actually keeps prices over 3% lower overall (not just at Wal-mart, but across all retailers) than it would otherwise.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/07/business/walmart.php

Wal-Marts don't create wealth for communities. It's a veritable siphon of wealth sending money down south and overseas to shareholders...

And this is different from other large retailers, how?

Lets see,

Zellers/Hudson's bay: American Owned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company)

Sears: American Owned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears,_Roebuck_and_Company)

Futureshop/Best Buy: American Owned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shop)

Every corporation has obligations to its three main stakeholders: It's employees, communities and shareholders.

With $13B in profit last year I think they've covered the shareholders pretty well.

Ummm..... I've already posted statistics about this previously.

Wal-Mart may have huge profits, but that's only because the company itself is so big. Their net profits (3.5%) are within about 0.1% of retail industry average, and much much smaller than the profit margins of other industries (fast food industry 12.9%, manufacturing industry 6%). If you've got money to invest, Wal-mart may be a 'safe' investment, but you can get much higher returns elsewhere.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....mp;#entry328044

Now, as far as giving back to the community and looking after its employees, I think Wal-Mart fails on almost every level. It provides pitiful incomes to its employees...

Except that Wal-Mart's wages and benefits packages are pretty much competitive with other large retailers like K-mart and Target...

From: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-404212,00.html

Wal-Mart's wages are competitive with those paid by rivals such as Kmart and Target. ...its stock plan has been a wealth builder for many lower-level employees...two-thirds of its managers come from the ranks of store associates, which is what Wal-Mart calls all employees.

Yeah, Wal-Mart employees may earn less than doctors, lawyers, etc. But, for better or for worse, they are often unskilled workers; normally, when people lack certain skills they should expect their wages to be affected.

It drives smaller or more specialized business into bankruptcy (where employees often earn better wages)

Not accurate at all...

While some specialty shops may loose out, others manage to survive (and some even see their business improve). And often the locations of the specialty shops that go out of business get taken over by other specialty shops.

Wal-mart is not in competition with small specialized shops. You don't go to Wal-mart if you need a particular service, or want the higher quality merchandise available

From : http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/sobel/WalMart/Walmart.pdf

Contrary to popular belief, our results suggest that the process of creative destruction unleashed by Wal-Mart has had no statistically significant long-run impact on the overall size and profitability of the small business sector in the United States.

By the way, ever see the TV series Bullsh*t, by Pen and Teller? (A great series, where they debunk all sorts of myths.) In one episode, they talked about people opposing Wal-Mart. They went on a tour of some city that successfully fought to keep Wal-Mart out...the guy was pointing out all the businesses that had closed (and this was the city that kept wal-mart from opening a store there).

I remember doing case studies at university specifically on Wal-Mart and its pricing strategies. What it DOES do is make sure it has the absolute lowest prices anywhere on weekly-type staple goods and then little to no price advantage on the rest of its goods in comparison to similar bargain competitors....Take a more careful look at the price comparisons and you'll see that a lot of the non-staple household items are often MORE expensive than at other stores.

So people have to comparison shop... what's the problem with that?

When you say the prices of non-staple items are 'often' 'more' expensive, how often is often? and how much 'more' is more? Those are such vague terms as to render your argument meaningless.

[M.Dancer]

Owning a car doesn't allow one to do whatever they want with it. Usually restrictions on what one doe's with ones own property appear when one does nasty things to others with that property. Thus Labour laws etc. ... I know you're not in favour of them either.

True..you must follew the rules...so far the rules have not infringed on the right to chose who works on the car and when I can sell it.

[madmax]

Why do you think people should be penalized for doing as they please with something they own?

Walmart does not "own" the people they hire. If the people they hire choose a union and Walmart chooses to close its operation, particularly before anything was negotiated, then Walmart deserves whatever it gets.

However, if Walmarts operation was non profitable and they were deciding to close the operation, then that would be disappointing for the workers whether they were unionized or not, and not in violation of any law, nor need to be "penalized".

[jefferiah]

Walmart does not "own" the people they hire. If the people they hire choose a union and Walmart chooses to close its operation, particularly before anything was negotiated, then Walmart deserves whatever it gets.

However, if Walmarts operation was non profitable and they were deciding to close the operation, then that would be disappointing for the workers whether they were unionized or not, and not in violation of any law, nor need to be "penalized".

No one said they own the people they hire. How does closing down a store constitute an attitude of ownership of people? If I didnt invite you to my birthday party would you show up at my door saying, "You don't own me Jefferiah."

[jefferiah]

Walmart does not "own" the people they hire. If the people they hire choose a union and Walmart chooses to close its operation, particularly before anything was negotiated, then Walmart deserves whatever it gets.

They certainly don't own the people. What they do own is the store. The people are free to do whatever they choose. They can even form a union of unemployed people if they want. They can do what they want with what they own. They have the right to freedom of association. That right does not include the exclusive right to Wal-Mart's business.

If you hired a teenager to do your lawn. And for whatever reason, you decided you didn't want him to do it anymore, and you wanted someone else. By letting him go you are not acting as if you own him. You are acting as if you own your lawn. If you were to tell him what he could do after letting him go, or that he could not do other lawns, you would be acting as if you own him. By the same token, if he were to say, you can't let me go without a reason, that would be him acting as if he owns your business, your lawn, your money, and he is putting a restriction on where you can spend it...you must spend it on him.

Edited August 18, 2008 by jefferiah

[madmax]

True..you must follew the rules...so far the rules have not infringed on the right to chose who works on the car and when I can sell it.

Not so! If you want to sell cars, you require a dealers license. If you are selling a private vehicle, you have many restrictions. You need a licensed mechanic to safety your vehicle. And backyard mechanics have no insurance on work that they do, prior to you taking it to a licensed mechanic. Also certain provinces limit how many cars you can buy and sell in a given year. Provinces prevent curbsiding. You cannot change odmeter readings. But hey, its your car, why shouldn't you be allowed to do what you want to it.

However, I do want you to know that I am willing to buy your car sight unseen. I know it is low k (FOR REAL)

Your Bicycle, however, might have too many kms on it:)

[M.Dancer]

If you are selling a private vehicle, you have many restrictions. You need a licensed mechanic to safety your vehicle.

No..sorry I don't. The buyer may have to have it certified, but I don't. Otherwise how does one sell a junker?

[madmax]

No..sorry I don't. The buyer may have to have it certified, but I don't. Otherwise how does one sell a junker?

Probably don't require a sellers package either eh? hmm. I would still buy your car.

[jefferiah]

Owning a car doesn't allow one to do whatever they want with it. Usually restrictions on what one doe's with ones own property appear when one does nasty things to others with that property. Thus Labour laws etc. ... I know you're not in favour of them either.

But it is not as if Wal Mart is taking something away from them. Nor are they getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a mobile Wal Mart store and driving it over pedestrians. They are simply recanting the offer of their business with the employees. We will no longer pay for the product of "labor" from you. We will pay someone else for this product. They are not robbing them of something which was their's to begin with. The same way Wal Mart does not own your business. If, as a regular Wal-mart shopper, I decide to spend my money elsewhere for whatever reason (I don't need permission from Wal-Mart to do this, I don't need a good reason. I can stop shopping there because I don't like the blue lettering), I have that right. They do not own exclusive rights to my business. I am not taking away something they own. I am refraining from dealing with them and giving them something I own: my money. I am not acting as if I own Wal-Mart by taking my business elsewhere. I am acting as if I own my money.

Edited August 18, 2008 by jefferiah