Here is another in a long line of examples of Wal-Mart battling unions (this time in Canada).
So, is this an example of unfair labor practices? Or should Wal-Mart be allowed to do whatever it wants to increase the bottom line?
Well, what are the alternatives in this case? Force Wal-Mart to continue operating the store?
What are the practices? All the article talks about is WalMart decidind to close the store rather than agree to union demands. Is it considered unfair to close your business?
WOW!!
190 + 30 = 220 plus additional hours for workers.
That means a fifteen percent plus increase in payroll!!!
RIGHT ON!!
That’s like demanding a 15% raise from your boss.
Well, this and the recent SAQ debacle (not to mention the McDonald’s that was closed in Quebec a few years back, shortly after its employees unionized) should clearly demonstrate one thing: unions can’t gaurantee success. Personally, I think it’s a lesson that’s long overdue.
This isn’t an unfair labor practice. Its a bit of a scorched earth policy, but not unfair. Walmart isn’t obligated to have the store there after all. Unfair would be knee capping all the union organizers or buying up mortgages and foreclosing a la Snidely Whiplash. The employees could tell the union to pack it in and go back to work at their old crappy wages. If they’d rather be out of a job than to work under what they consider to be unfair conditions, then I’m proud of them, even if it means unemployment. But this is always an option and should be considered when negotiating.
I’d be interested to see if this becomes a tactic that Walmart uses to kill unions in other, more profitable areas, or if it becomes a tactic that small towns use to get rid of Walmart.
CJ
It will be interesting to watch. Walmart has the right to do as they see fit with their property, even when it includes closing stores. The various unions will probably encourage their members to start shopping somewhere else. Whether towns will use this to “deny access” to Walmart, it depends on which town. In real union towns, they may do it. In towns with less union strength, they may not.
So why doesn’t Walmart just hire people that will work for them? Are they required to hire union only employees? People in Jonquiere don’t need jobs?
Now that’s an interesting idea! (sorry if it’s been proposed before, but I havent seen it)
Is it legal for a local government to force this as a condition to receiving a business permit?.Say, to require that once a year, the business allow its employees to organize a vote on the premises on the issue of unionism.?
If I were a union organizer, I’d target the most profitable WalMart store(s) in the areas where unpemployment is the lowest. With more to lose on WalMart’s side, the union should have more leverage.
OK, here are some articles/sites about Wal-Mart labor practices:
From the Nat’l Organization of Women (obviously not a news site)
And on and on and on. You can find plenty more if you like. (Note: you’ll want to read the full articles, the quotes I put in here are just teasers).
And I bet the employees of that closed store would tell you it’s unfair. Would you say it’s fair to fire someone because they tried to join a union? That’s essentially what Wal-Mart did - except instead of one employee, they “fired” the whole store. Shouldn’t that be just as illegal as firing the employee?
In debate terms, that’s called “moving the goal post”. Those cites aren’t relavent to the store mentioned in the OP. I have no doubt that WalMart has engaged in “unfair labor practices” at some time or another. But you haven’t provided any evidence of unfair labor practices at the store mentioned in the OP.
So what? I think it’s unfair that you don’t give me $1M. Does that make me right?
No, it should not be illegal to close a store. If it were, very few stores would ever open for fear of not being able to cut loses. Besides, the store is owned by the owners, not the employees. It’s like you telling me I can’t sell my house because my gardner might lose business if I do.
Fair enough. I really wasn’t trying to move any goalposts - you asked for examples of unfair practices and I provided them. I missed that you were specifically referring to just this one store - my bad. I do think it’s relevant that Wal-Mart has a history of union busting that puts this closure into some context.
And no I haven’t provided evidence for the store in the OP - that was the point of opening the thread. Is the store closing itself evidence of an unfair labor practice? You say no. I say…I’m not sure. Thus the question.
Um, huh? Talk about moving goalposts! You and I have no relationship and…I won’t even bother going into it. Stop being silly.
In debate terms, this is called not answering my question. (Sorry, couldn’t help myself 
). The question is not “Should it be illegal to close a store?” Of course not. The real question is “Should it be illegal to close a store for the sole purpose of busting an attempt to unionize?” This is what I was getting at with my analogy to the fired employee, which is the issue I’m trying to explore. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
I still say no. See below.
I wasn’t being silly. It was an analogy.
The first word in that part of the post was “no”. That was the answer. I also gave a reason for the answer. The “for the purpose of busting a union” part is irrelevant. First, you’ll never be able to prove that that is the sole reason for closing a store. Secondly, it’s still the property of the owners. You might put conditions of operation on the owners, but I would never agree that you could REQUIRE a store to ramain open for any reason whatsover.
If it were illegal to close the store to keep out a union, how long would the store have to remain open? 1 year? 5 years? Forever? Could the store reduce its hours of operation? Could it reduce the number of days its open? Could it reduce the number of products it sold?
It’s just not practical. You can’t legislate that a business remain in business. Not even if the fate of the world depends on it. If you can do that, then you have de fracto nationalized the busniess.
Then allow me to suggest that it was not a very good one. 
In practice, you’re absolutely right. It could never be proven and it’s impossible to force someone to keep a store open. That’s why it’s such a brilliant move from Wal-Mart’s perspective. Unless there’s some kind of national unionization movement (can’t close EVERY store), I’m sure it will continue to work.
I still think it is a smarmy way to avoid union-busting legislation. All these folks did was try to organize for better pay and benefits, and now they are out of a job. It sucks.
What kind of idiot ‘retail consultant’ thinks Walmart has few competitors in Canada?
I can’t think of anything Walmart sells that I can’t buy in at least a dozen other stores.
It is it fair is not a relevant question when talking about labor-managment relations. Thats like asking whether its fair for Kevin Garnett to block Earl Boykins shot in basketball. Of course its not an even match up Garnett is almost a foot and a half taller than Earl. But as long as it is within the rules of the game every action taken by either party is fair. Walmart has a huge amount of resources and the ability to crush any union at its stores. Just becuase it has this advantage and uses it does not make its actions unfair. You may argue that the rules that the unions and Walmart play by are unfair but as long as the action is within the rules it is fair.
I would argue that Wal-Mart is violating the rules that are in place, albeit in a tricky way. IANAL, but I believe there are laws in place (in Canada and the US) that prevent employers from intimidating or threatening employees into not joining a union. In fact, Wal-Mart has been sued for these practices in the past (see articles I’ve cited in previous posts in this thread).
So, having been sued over these practices, Wal-Mart instead evades the rules by simply closing the store down (which, I would also argue, is a way of intimidating other Wal-Mart workers who might be thinking of unionizing, but that’s another story). So it’s legal, but it’s really violating the spirit of these laws, i.e. it’s a loophole. And as stated above, I don’t know how to close the loophole - you can’t force them to stay open.
So it’s not Garnett blocking Boykins shot. It’s Garnett’s blocking Boykins from getting into the arena. OK, that’s a lame analogy, but do you see what I’m getting at?
What if Wal-Mart’s business model only works because they hire cheap labor? Should a company be forced to allow their members to unionize, even if it means destruction of the company?
What about all the low-income people that shop at Wal-Mart? Should they be forced to absorb the additional labor costs?
There are a number of large companies that survive simply by offering lower prices than the alternative. I hate shopping at Wal-Mart, because it’s crowded, the aisles are narrow, the merchandise is often messy because the people who shop there don’t care if they pick something up and toss it back in the wrong spot or open boxes and leave them, parking is a hassle, and there are always lines at the checkout. But we still shop there, for one reason only: we save money. That’s Wal-Mart’s entire business model: do away with the frills, get by with the least amount of staff you can, pay them the least you can, and use the savings from that to offer lower prices than the competition. Unionize the work force, and you have just taken away Wal-Mart’s sole competitive advantage.
In Canada, we have a grocery chain called Safeway. Safeway had a very powerful union that dominated the cost overhead of the company. Boxboys and cashiers at Safeway in 1980 were making $12-$15/hr. But Safeway survived this way for some time because of its existing infrastructure, large number of stores giving it volume pricing ability, etc.
Then in the 1990’s a wave of big-box discount grocers came on the scene - Superstore, Costco, and others. Their workers made half of what Safeway workers were paid, and as a result these stores were significantly cheaper. Safeway was almost destroyed - at first, the union refused to accept wage rollbacks, so Safeway had to cut staff and service. But it didn’t help, and Safeway continued to close stores and lose market share. Eventually, the union gave in and accepted a two-tier system - the existing employees would continue to make union wages, but the new hires would be paid on a new scale that was much lower. So you could have a situation where two people doing the same job could have wildly different salaries simply because one was hired a month earlier than the other.
Safeway still survives, but its high-priced union labor almost destroyed the entire chain. It could easily happen to Wal-Mart or any other business that is labor intensive and sells cheap products.