WalMart - Store closing over unionising, Boycott called

[no1important]

RE: WalMart - Store clos

Well is it just coincidence when Wal Mart bought Woolco in order to move into Canada they only bought non-union Woolco's? I would say no. Wal Mart has a famous reputation for being anti union. I see they are now closing a store in Maine because of the fact the store voted to go union.

You can not tell me some of these stores they closed and will close in the future because people exercise their democratic right to join a union, are all losing money and are the only ones losing money as Wal Mart would make out?

I see Wal Mart negioated an 11 million dollar fine yesterday in America for using illegeals, so that there should tell you what SCUM Wal Mart really is.

 

[Doc]

RB

Sure, it takes money to open a store. Don't you think there are plenty of entreprenuers waiting to fill the void? I do. But I doubt they will really be able to offer a better deal.

Its inaccurate to state that WM is doing "what it has always done" by pulling out. From what I've read, this is the first time they've ever closed a store in Canada for reasons other than relocating to a nearby site.

Regardless, I have a solution. Now that WM is moving out, the UFCW can put their money where their mouth is and buy the store. I'm sure WM would be happy to unload it. Then, the UFCW can employ the current work force, hire a bunch of new workers, pay them all $20/hr, and provide whatever benefits they care to offer. If they need more money, they can just raise prices.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: WalMart - Store clos

Actually, union-owned businesses have traditionally done reasonably well, so that's not completely off the wall. Union-owned means owned by the workers though, not the mother-union.

That store wouldn't have the buying power or advertising ability of Wal-Mart though. That's another major factor.

You seem to be a little less open-minded about unions than you first presented yourself, Doc.

 

[Doc]

I'm trying to remain objective, but the UFCW is making that difficult. I'm not refering to unions in general, but specifically this battle between UFCW and WM. Everyone knows the anti-union position and motives of WM, and WM makes no secret of it. The UFCW, on the other hand, pretends to be fighting for the workers when in fact they are fighting for themselves (the union, not the workers). The UFCWs only concern is self-preservation. At least WM is being honest. Workers know where WM stands, and they choose to work there. If they had better employment opportunities elsewhere, they'd be working somewhere else.

I don't believe this is a battle of workers vs. WM. This is a chess match between the UFCW and WM that began when WM entered the grocery business in the US market. The UFCW has chosen to battle WM in Canada, because they perceive Canadian labor laws to be more union-friendly. Sadly, the workers are pawns in their chess match, and, as we see, they are the first casualties. There are roughly 60,000 employees at 235 WM stores in Canada. If WM decides to pull the plug, will the UFCW come up with 60,000 new jobs?

I am serious about the union buying the store, if they are truly looking out for the workers. But, I believe they are more interested in fighting WM than helping these workers. The UFCW has accomplished very little for its membership in recent years (for example, the Safeway/Ralphs/Vons job action in California, 2003-04).

After railing for years against WM and their evil ways, why is the UFCW now begging them to stay?

 

[Reverend Blair]

The workers need to invite the Union in first to organize though. After that they have to get the union voted in. To say that the employees aren't involved and/or don't want the union is simply not true.

It is also not the UFCW's role to provide emploment, but to ensure that workers who want to be unionized are able to do so. To try to make the union for the predatory actions of a corporation doesn't really make sense. Wal-Mart would do the same if it was a small union formed by and specific to Wal-Mart employees. The shut-down is nothing more than a union-busting scare tactic by Wal-Mart. Which union is involved is immaterial.

UFCW is one of the only unions large enough to take on a corporate entity as large as Wal-Mart though. Not many can provide the resources and experience required.

 

[Doc]

I didn't mean to suggest that the workers were not involved. But, my view is that the UFCW is being two-faced. They are not really fighting for the workers, but for themselves. To say it is not their role to provide employment is a cop out. It is their role, if they chose to make it their role. That is, if they really want to put some action with their words. It wouldn't be the first time a union did so.

Again, I say the UFCW is more interested in fighting WM than helping the workers. Why are they now begging WM to stay, when they pretend to be anti-WM? Only because they need WM to get what they want, more dues.

If they truly believe what they say, that WM is bad for the local community, then why don't they just declare victory and move on?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: WalMart - Store clos

They aren't really begging Wal-Mart to stay. What they are doing is trying to force Wal-Mart not to use a union-busting technique that will serve to undermine attempts to unionize other locations.

Is that self-serving? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that if they can get Wal-mart to unionize instead of closing up shop, they will have won a battle for all of the labour movement.

That provides a precedent should other big-box retailers be faced with a union drive...a message that union-busting is not acceptable in Canada. It also includes many more unions than just the one because future union drives at other places will include other unions.

It also serves to protect unionized employees at places like Safeway and Westfair Foods by strengthening the entire union movement and not allowing Wal-Mart an unfair advantage over their competition.

It is also about not joining the race to the bottom that Wal-Mart and others are leading with their insane push for globalization. It's about the long-shrinking real wage of the middle and working classes too. It spins off into workers rights and higher wages for non-union employees working in the area around Wal-Mart.

This is far more than one union acting in a self-serving manner to protect its income. It has implications for the entire work-force because it represents, in a very real way, the erosion of workers rights that we've been seeing since the early 1980s.

 

[mrmom2]

Get it straight boys its CHINA MART

 

[Doc]

Given that China Mart (aka WM) views unions as the business equivalent of cancer, I don't see that the UFCW can "force" them into anything. In fact, it is precisely the wrong strategy for the union to take.

Lets suppose that the UFCW is successful in unionizing WM. It will then be just a matter of time until another business, CM2 (China Mart 2), comes along to undercut a unionized WM, so long as it is legal to do so. Of course WM knows this (they pioneered the strategy), and so they are going to fight for their own survival. Thus, if the UFCW truly wants to shepard in a new era of workers rights, they will have to move beyond fighting WM and pursue their cause through legislation.

The laws are the standard to which companies are held. It makes no sense to single out one company, and try to hold them to a higher standard. It won't work. WM doesn't make the laws. They are doing nothing illegal nor unfair by employing non-union workers. Nor is it illegal for them to close a store. Furthermore, the union will get nowhere fighting WM on moral principals (my opinion).

If the law says it is ok for WM to pay $8/hr, then where is the problem? Is the problem with WM, or with the minimum wage law? Let's face it, there are any number of unskilled jobs that pay less. If there is a problem, then the laws need to change for every employer, not just WM.

The unions should be working on lawmakers and public opinion to effect changes in the law. It is their task to convice a majority of the electorate that they are right. That's how a democracy is supposed to work.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: WalMart - Store clos

Much of the push is to get tthe various levels of government to bring in ant-union busting legislation though, Doc. That makes it a much larger issue than just Wal-Mart and also addresses your concerns about another company coming in later with the same strategies.

Even if law is not enacted, the power and rights of the workers, with or without unions is strengthened, making it more difficult for this to happen again.

When it comes to wage legislation etc., organized labour has always pushed, and continues to push, for higher wages and more protection for all workers whether those workers are unionized or not.

 

[Brad_the_Great]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS I will, and I do

Let me tell you about Walmart. 2 percent of Americas GDP, moved stores to CHina to fully take advantage of thier market too. Screw people at every turn, big business run amuck.

Praise be to NYC, kicking the 'Mart out.

I can't believe how much crap they get away with. its a complete demonstration of how horrible corporations are.

 

[Brad_the_Great]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS I will, and I do

Let me tell you about Walmart. 2 percent of Americas GDP, moved stores to CHina to fully take advantage of thier market too. Screw people at every turn, big business run amuck.

Praise be to NYC, kicking the 'Mart out.

I can't believe how much crap they get away with. its a complete demonstration of how horrible corporations are.

 

[missile]

Did WalMart ever crack the Los Angeles market? There was plenty of opposition against it .

 

[Doc]

Cheers... to the sensible reply from Brad (x 2) :mrgreen:

 

[Doc]

RB, I agree its a much larger issue than WM. Precisely my point. WM is not breaking the law. The union is simply not satisfied with the laws that exist. So, why do they waste so much time, money, and energy beating their heads against the Wal? (sorry)

The only legitimate way to change the status quo is to convince the public and the legislature that they have better ideas on how to run a business.

Of course, there is a very real possibility that the majority of public opinion is not on their side. Regardless, that is not an excuse to breach the political process.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: WalMart - Store clos

Politics and laws are based on precedent and public opinion though, Doc. Wal-Mart and their anti-union stance is a chance to bring this to the forefront and set precedents while getting public opinion on the labour side of things.

Big business has been waging a war on unions and labour in general for a very long time now. A lot of that has been the demonization of unions in the public eye through use of the media and anti-union legislation. Unionizing Wal-Mart is a large part of fighting back.

This is very much about changing the status quo, about shifting things back in the other direction.

 

[mrmom2]

Have you people seen the new ad campaign for China Mart as a lifestyle?Like you can have any kind of life on a China Mart wage?

 

[Doc]

True, it is an opportunity for the union to air their ideas in public. But, if they overplay their hand and people continue to lose jobs, I'm not sure that will help their public image. It could well backfire on them.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: WalMart - Store clos

Which is why they are pressuring Wal-Mart to stay open.

 

[Doc]

Yep. Don't think that will happen though. WM knows that would allow the union to save face, grasping victory from defeat.