[Dayseed]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I think there is a place for unions but if a company doesn't want to play with them it's up to them.
Wal Mart isn't a social service, it's there to make a profit.
Put up a barrier to them making the margin they want and they will go elsewhere.

This was a no-brainer court decision.

I agree. The question before the Supreme Court was essentially: Is there a Quebec labour law that compels a company to remain in business? The SCC's answer? Nope. Apparently, they reached into their bag of common sense for that one.

They left the door open for labour unions to take WalMart to court if they could demonstrate anti-unionization tactics by the retail giant.

Remember, it's up to labour to prove that WalMart engaged in these practices; it's not enough for labour to play upon people's suspicions and prejudices such that WalMart is left HAVING to prove itself innocent of vague allegations.

Maybe WalMart screwed over the union huge...but the ball is in the union's court and their first tactic, appealing to Quebec's labour laws, has come up woefully short.

[Brenda]

$1:

"With the highest respect for the Supreme Court, we are disappointed by the decision to allow Wal-Mart to squeeze by on a technicality," said Wayne Hanley, national president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, said in a news release. "But the workers at the Jonquiere store know in their hearts why Wal-Mart shut their store. So do most Canadians. So does Wal-Mart," said Hanley, whose union organized the workers at the defunct store.

Murderers walk free because of technicalities. Stop whining, and blame yourself.
Sorry, but in this case, business is business. I am not a walmart fan, but I am a bigger non-fan of unions.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

What technicality? The fact that the union and it's "workers" couldn't prove their point? Didn't realize a lack of evidence was a technicality. Morons all of 'em

Edit: UFCW, or Union of Fucking Cocksucking Whiners.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

So then why do you take such an issue whne theya re called on it then? Is it because you think they should be able to mistreat them?

Because I don't think a company should be forced to keep a store open, and I don't think Walmart "kills" its employees. I never took issue that Walmart has a history of employee abuse, highlight where I did. Don't try to create red herrings, because I'm not falling for it anymore.

$1:

I wouldn't classify an assistant manager at WalMart as a higher up. Actually, since they're the first-tier of salaried workers, they often get the brunt of it.

Read again. He was the manager AND assistant manager. You avoided that.

$1:

Well, this is in the US, so I doubt I'd get much traction taking it up with them. I don't shop at Walmart anyways. If such a government policy existed here, I'd fight it. Getting sued does not mean that you lose any monetary gains you might have won. For instance, many companies will happily pay lawsuits and fines for pollution as a cost of doing business, because it is still profitable for them to pollute.

Right, lawsuits settlements usually are in the millions, not 500,000 or however much a life insurance policy might be worth. Companies are much more willing to pay fines/settlements/whatever instead of dealing with long, drawn out lawsuits that damage their reputation or drag sensitive information out in the light.

[Proculation]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

faulty logic, proc.

thats like declaring Big Macs must be the most nutritious meal in the world because they are the #1 food purchase.

Truth is that one of the foundations of capitalism is that there will always be more people needing jobs than there will be jobs.

Walmarts size has nothing to do with choice, it has to do with scarity of jobs.

I think it's you who are using faulty logic. BigMacs do not sell because they are nutritious, they sell because people like them.

We have to import mexicans to do farm jobs because nobody wants those jobs. Does Wal Mart have to import people to fill their jobs ? No. They easily find people. In the United Stated, you get health insurance, you can buy Wal Mart stocks at low prices and they put money of dividends in their employees fund. That's not SOOOO bad. Except the little song every morning maybe

Yes Wal Mart jobs are "shitty" and not paying a lot but do you work their if you have a Master in Engineering ? no ! You work there because you are studying, have low education or you want a part time job.

[CanadianJeff]

Proculation Proculation:

Way to go Wal-Mart !
Don't like ? Don't work there, that's all.

If it was sooo bad, Wal-Mart would not be the #1 employer in the world.

Nope sorry that's an epic fail.

As far as the top 100 best employers go according to fortune magazine wal-mart is not even in the top 100 never mind first place.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... full_list/

You'll forgive me when I say it's bullshit that these judges think it's some corporations god given right to shut doors whenever they want because they have failed to make peace with their employees.

As far as I'm concerned as a business that's a HUGE part of being successful is making your employees want to come to work and enjoy doing their jobs as much as you can. Wal-Mart has failed epically at this especially when you see their overseas production factories.

Sorry but even as someone new to managing it's plain as day to me working with my staff that if I keep them happy and let them feel like they can come talk to me about anything that I'm going to get a far better response when I need them to step up and make changes to the way we do business.

Wal-Mart is a testament to me about the bad side of being blindly free market over free market with oversights and care towards those you employ.

[Brenda]

Since when is it necessary your employees love what they do or be loved for being there? Employees are there to make money, not love.

[CanadianJeff]

maybe it was the wrong word choice but you have to take care to respect and provide for those you employ. that is my point.

[Brenda]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

maybe it was the wrong word choice but you have to take care to respect and provide for those you employ. that is my point.

Oh of course. Your business is made or broken by your employees. That is why you keep the good ones, and fire the bad ones. Apparently, Walmart thought unionized employees are bad ones. Since you cannot just fire unionized employees, you just close the store.
Business as usual, and when your philosophy is "Unions are bad for business", you don't want unions in your business.

[CanadianJeff]

Oh you can still fire unionized employees it's just a huge pain in the rear end.

But even on that front when you sit down to work out the contract you can still leave yourself quite a bit of breathing room on that front.

For example in my case if I can prove even the slightest bit of theft "grazing" or otherwise on any employee they can be dismissed instantly.

I don't think employment protection was likely the aim of these Wal-Mart employees though. They likely wanted better wages.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Canadian Jeff Canadian Jeff:

You'll forgive me when I say it's bullshit that these judges think it's some corporations god given right to shut doors whenever they want because they have failed to make peace with their employees

Soooo what you are saying then is, when a PRIVATE business wishes to shut its doors it needs court permission?

I owned a business, and quite frankly, it WAS my God given right to do whatever I wanted with it, as long as it was legal. If I wanted to shut it down then that was MY perogative, not some judge's. But I guess as soon as a union is formed, then MY rights a business owner should be subjucated to the union? Tell me Jeff, why should someone that has invested THEIR time and THEIR money, be told how they will operate their business by a bunch of morons that have contributed NOTHING to it?

I am so sick of unions trying to enforce their will on who can do business in Canada and HOW they will do business. They scream that intimidation is being used in places where the unions are being kept out, then use the same tactics to try and force their way in.

Let me cite you an example. There was a little factory just outside of Windsor ON. The CAW had been trying to get in there for years. The CAW then started screaming about how the company was using intimidation tactics on the employees to keep the union out. Now, I knew several people that worked there. Wanna know the "intimidation" that was used? The company paid their workers a MORE than fair wage, gave them benefits equal to what the CAW gets for it's sheep, and every 6 weeks, they got the Friday afternoon off..WITH PAY. There was only one catch, they had to stay for the barbeque. Sooo, the CAW's claim of unfair tactics was total bullshit, although they were quite vocal and public about it. Apparently it's unfair to treat your employees well enough to keep the union out!

This story with Wal-Mart is a testament to me about how unions still think that THEY can dictate how business will be done in Canada.

[Brenda]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Oh you can still fire unionized employees it's just a huge pain in the rear end.

Which is what I said

$1:

But even on that front when you sit down to work out the contract you can still leave yourself quite a bit of breathing room on that front.

For example in my case if I can prove even the slightest bit of theft "grazing" or otherwise on any employee they can be dismissed instantly.

There are more reasons to want to fire an employee other than theft...

$1:

I don't think employment protection was likely the aim of these Wal-Mart employees though. They likely wanted better wages.

Then they shouldn't work at Walmart.

[Proculation]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Proculation Proculation:

Way to go Wal-Mart !
Don't like ? Don't work there, that's all.

If it was sooo bad, Wal-Mart would not be the #1 employer in the world.

Nope sorry that's an epic fail.

As far as the top 100 best employers go according to fortune magazine wal-mart is not even in the top 100 never mind first place.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... full_list/

You'll forgive me when I say it's bullshit that these judges think it's some corporations god given right to shut doors whenever they want because they have failed to make peace with their employees.

As far as I'm concerned as a business that's a HUGE part of being successful is making your employees want to come to work and enjoy doing their jobs as much as you can. Wal-Mart has failed epically at this especially when you see their overseas production factories.

Sorry but even as someone new to managing it's plain as day to me working with my staff that if I keep them happy and let them feel like they can come talk to me about anything that I'm going to get a far better response when I need them to step up and make changes to the way we do business.

Wal-Mart is a testament to me about the bad side of being blindly free market over free market with oversights and care towards those you employ.

I didn't say "#1 best employer", I said "#1 employer", it employs the most people in the world.

Read before you rant.

[Benn]

The closings are clearly to break the unions and send a message. The store in Gatineau was closed due to high local wages. Then Wal Mart opened a newer bigger store a few blocks down the street and hired from the same employment pool. I guess wages were cheaper a few blocks away, or they figured people got the message.

[EyeBrock]

The message is. Get qualifications or go work for Wal-Mart.