Quebec unions are nothing if not persistent. Just months after Wal-Mart shut down a unionized tire shop in Gatineau rather than attempt to run a high cost operation, a union has been certified at a Wal-Mart store nearby in Hull.
By now Quebec unions really should understand that Wal-Mart is serious about only operating stores if they can be successfully managed according to their business model. Their model requires consistent low prices, operating efficiency and flexible employee scheduling. Naturally, those are exactly the things the union will insist on negotiating out of any proposed contract, and if history is any guide the company will simply close the store rather than tarnish their brand with the high costs and inefficiencies of idiotic work rules that would surely get imposed by an arbitrator.
Someone really should send these idiots a copy of Atlas Shrugged for some light reading over the holidays.
Out of curiosity, what is the employee turn over rate at Wal-Mart?
How long before our "conservative' government legislates heavy penalties for branch closures precipitated by unionization? Before you answer, remember that this is a country that subsidizes shitty business practices, rewards abject failure of business imagination and uses your money to maintain unsustainable levels of compensation in heavily unionized industries.
UNIONS SUCK!
I hope Wal Mart shuts down the Hull operation. The morons in Hull, apparently, think they'll fare better than their komrades in Gatineau. May they be proven wrong. Idiots.
I think that NOW would be an excellent time to hold a referendum for independece in Quebec. That is, as long as the rest of Canada can vote too. How about it "La Belle "stuck-on-the-teat" Province de Quebec?
"Out of curiosity, what is the employee turn over rate at Wal-Mart?"
I take your point. If people are willing to work these jobs, by implication these jobs must be appealing.
Signed,
Serfdom
Is there any further ways that a UNION can pi$$ me off.
If it involves a union, I will not buy participate or support. I ask, first.
Out of curiosity, what is the employee turn over rate at Wal-Mart?
The employee turnover rate is fairly high - Wal-Mart tends to hire people who have trouble getting jobs elsewhere. Your typical Wal-Mart greeter was probably someone who was on welfare or unemployed not long before. They don't stay at the lowest paying jobs for long. They usually move fairly quickly to better jobs within Wal-Mart or, having gained at least a little experience, are able to find better jobs elsewhere.
The more senior positions within the store are much more stable, but there's certainly a high turnover at the entry level jobs.
"The more senior positions within the store are much more stable, but there's certainly a high turnover at the entry level jobs.
Posted by: Kevin Jaeger at December 21, 2008 12:09 AM "
Ummmmmm....got some figures to back that up? I don't know about Saskabush,but here in AB.,Wal-Mart pays way more than Mac'Ds for relatively easy jobs.And I seem to keep seeing the same people working there every time I go in.Pro-union,are you?
First off, Atlas Shrugged would be lost on all of the leftists. Secondly, every Wal-Mart that unionizes and closes in Quebec brings a cheer to my lips. A business should be allowed to close and move on if they decide to, anyone who thinks that you can legislate that they remain open to provide union jobs is just another moonbat lefty that thinks that the government should provide all for everyone at no cost to anyone... or at least to themselves.
OC, no business deserves a subsidization in a real conservative world, but to try and impose something so mind boggling to a socialist means never getting elected in Canada.
Unions today are an anachronism anyway as every province in Canada has labour standards far and away better than anything ever dreamed of even 50 years ago. A union now is something that self perpetuates on raising a person's salary high enough to collect unions dues from them, and putting in place rules that over emphasis incompetence of workers and not competence and efficiency.
I always remember what happened in Victoria a bunch of years ago as the clerks at Safeway became unionized. There were 3 Safeway stores and they closed two of the stores. So, yes, the clerks were earning a lot more money, which they gave a chunk to the union, but there were a lot less jobs left because of it. And don't tell me that someone swiping a label over a scanner really "deserves" $12.00 an hour because I don't really believe it.
And they can have a copy of Rest of Canada Shrugged when it's available, which ought to be soon.
Unions are only good anymore for unskilled labourers, who are suppressed by union bosses in order for the union to keep making money off them.
If you have any tangible skills that could be used in the private sector, you would probably make more money, and at least have room to grow into other roles to make more money.
In Edmonton, where the job market has been tight, tight, tight, whenever a Walmart opens there is always a lineup around the block of applicants who want to work there. People vote with their feet and whoever says that Walmart gets only those who can't get a job elsewhere is either misinformed or a fool.
ya that's right ulianov shut down Walmart and all the jobs that go with it. Hail the mighty UAW who are now so bankrupt they need my tax dollars to pay their exorbitant wages and benefits. Good work if you can get it, too bad it looks like they priced themselves out of the market and into the food line. Walmart maybe ain't lookin so bad anymore since beggars can't really be choosers.
How do you teach stupid people anything? Start off with the mule method, a hammer between the eyes just to get their attention and repeat several times a day. Today only a half wit joins a union and half wits with learning disabilities run them.
I look at this world wide economic downturn as a wake up call, one gigantic reality check that will separate the teat suckers from the producers. A long overdue accountability assessment, a wheat from the chaff sort of thing. Personally I would like to see this downturn cut very deep, deep enough to force the liberal left loser class off their whining unproductive asses. Deep enough to force them to focus their attention on eating rather than constantly coming up with goofy air headed ideas as to how I should be living and conducting my life.
I guess we will see if it is a good call by another Einstein union.
Ulianov correct me if I am wrong but the fascists in Germany belonged to the National Socialist Workers Party.
"And the day that Walmart shuts down their last store can't come soon enough"
Typical leftist screed. Why does the left hate Walmart so much? Certainly not because of the fact that so many people on lower incomes can afford to shop there, because that's and advantage for The People.
Is it just the non-union management model? Probably that has much to do with it. God knows, any company that bucks the "RIGHT TO ORGANIZE" must be intrinsically evil, and shut down, eh? I think what really drives ulianov & his ilk to distraction is that, while the Walmart employees have the right to organize, nobody has the right to force the employer to stay open and recognize said union. It's the old maxim, "When you pick up one end of the stick, you also pick up the other".
I've worked with unions in manufacturing for 22 years, and it's not only the wages issue that makes unions unpalatable to companies. If companies could get away with paying more to unionized workers but enjoy higher output and productivity to go with the higher pay, things just might work out.
But unions spend far too much time protecting the lazy, the stupid, and those who don't wish to contribute. So you have idiotic rules requiring numerous tradesmen to tackle a job that one could, by rights, do by himself. Or other rules that prevent more effective use of labor on a production line to improve capacity. I've seen illegal job walk-offs because a supervisor dressed-down a worker for deliberate substandard performance. The list is endless...
... and the leftists of the world delude themselves into believing unions are necessary. Maybe to the unproductive, the union leadership, and pension funds, they are; but as far as allowing members to compete with the imports or (in the case of the auto industry) japanese transplants, the hardheaded CAW model is a dead man walking... they just haven't realized it yet.
All you have to do is look at how well unions have worked in the public sector to understand truly how useful they are. You can increase the size of the shovel that throws more money at education each year, but all it does is pad teachers' salaries and pensions, and there is not a dime allocated to actually encourage anybody to do one whit better at educating our kids than the worst schlub in the school district. Thus, the leftish mantra that "we need more money for schools" is completely wrong-headed; IMO you could do as much for education by cutting funding for salaries and directing it at facilities, books and resources. This way the truly useless ones who only stay for the money might just shove off for something else, and the improvements in ancilliaries might just inspire the good teachers to start (or keep) putting more effort into teaching.
I'm always accused of being "anti-education", but actually, I'm not. My response (it drives my retired father in-law and sister-in-law - both teachers - crazy) is I value education so much that I believe teachers should be put on salary, so the good ones can be paid what they are truly worth, and the bad ones can either get sacked or shove off of their own volition.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
Oh yeah...wallmart. the guys fueling the US rade deficet as they ship american dollars to china by the railcar. I guess Sam Walton was a nice enough guy. His kids are more known in little rock for the huge quantities of cocaine they consumed throughout the 90's.
on another front...didn't ol' ayne rand have a thing for amphetimines? as in...wrote the fountain head over a long weekend binge. great stuff!
national Socialists...nearly their 1st order of business in germany was killing all the trade unionists. Henry Ford liked that idea so much, he supported the nazis. probably why george bush's grandaddy bankrolled them national socialists. probably why his conviction for violating the US Trading with the Enemy Act" was mearly a wrist slap...you know...nazis...who anyone with a clue recognizes as right wing...like all fascists. I think their 1st order of business was actually killing the real socialists and commies...but you could like...read up on that.
of course, some right wingers like El Duce liked the word "corporatists" better than fascist. on the bright side, I think it was italian socialists who shot him and his girl and hung 'em up in the town square
Folks, I've come to the conclusion that "ulianov" and "harumph" are simply the pseudonyms of J. Layton and O. Chow.
'Nuff said.
"It was during this period of nonstop work on The Fountainhead that Ayn went to see a doctor. She had heard there was a harmless pill one could take to increase one's energy and lessen one's appetite. The doctor, telling her there would be no negative consequences, prescribed a low dosage of a small green tablet which doctors had begun prescribing rather routinely. Its trade name was Dexamyl. Ayn took two of these pills each day for more than thirty years."
"The more senior positions within the store are much more stable, but there's certainly a high turnover at the entry level jobs."
I would certainly like to see the data on that also. In my business (taxi) I run across quite a number of Walmart employees and they seem generally happy to work there. No more or less complaints than people at other jobs.
Even if it is a stepping stone job for a lot of people I think that is a positive thing. Is it not?
Reading the comments that get left here by Eastern Canadian Communists just makes me lean further to the notion of Western Separation.
This seems to me like the most logical course of action, simply because it is the most effective way to cut the disease of Marxism from our Canadian souls.
Marxism has NEVER been defeated. It has fallen apart (perhaps? It could have been a head fake, if you study the historical nature of Perestroka/Glasnost), but it has never been defeated. Marxism is a war of the mind. There personal is the political, remember? All of that violence at the hands of Socialists (100 Million dead at the hands of gov't in 90yrs) is merely a tool of mind manipulation that became Leninism. The violence only alters the mind quicker, where as the gradualist/Fabian method (which Canada is following), does not use violence, but rather uses time and the generation gap (lost human memory over generations) to achieve their goals of Socialism. What takes four years with violence, take 40 years without. But, the 40 year long people are much more eager to keep their oppressors because they have been stupified for so long that they don't remember any other way.
Have a look at when the Soviet Union fell apart. Most of the people wanted Socialism back because they were so screwed in the head that they no longer could comprehend how to function without it. Even worse, they had never been exposed to absolute truth and thus, had no concept of how to operate in the real world. (Ever wonder why they were so enamored with the Bible? Consider this: It was the first time they were EVER exposed to the Absolute Truth - a truth that never changes - after spending a lifetime with truths that change faster than a hooker's underwear).
The same is true of Canada and its Eastern love affair with Socialism.
You will NEVER convince them of anything remotely reasonable. Try to convince them that taking God-given rights out of the constitution and replacing it with state-granted rights is a sure fired path to genocide... A non-christian should easily understand this, and yet, leftist non-christians do not. It goes on and on. It is not worth it to argue with these idiots, nor can they even comprehend how to provide for themselves without big government - and they never will, just like the people in Russia after "the fall."
Since the West is so obviously united politically, as well as sharing a decent measure of cultural hegemony that is completely foreign to Eastern Canada (but similar to the Canada of old), perhaps we should just cut our losses and do as the Bible says... if your left arm causes you to sin...
The longer we stay with these mooks, the more we will become infected with their ideology, the more our chances at true freedom diminish.
There is probably no place in the world that has such a large land base, so full of resources, that is politically/culturally of more or less the same attitude.
Such a situation could really be advantageous, as suddenly there would be a place for the hated white heterosexual people who cling to their guns and their religion to emigrate to - England, Oz, New Zealand, the USA etc. Conservative people are under attack and it is not getting better. Let them all emigrate here so we can counter the horrific 1.5 birthrate (suicide) without embracing Communist styled multiculturalism - something that is so noble that it causes all the problems in the Middle East, Africa (Kenya Riots), France (Paris Riots), the Former Yugoslavia, it started World War One... and well, it goes on and on.
In another 20 years, because of the generational gap (and our schools now declaring that education is meant to indoctrinate, not educate), it may be too late and we will never get the opportunity again, you know, after our children are all plugged into the borg...
People think that somehow we still have capitalism, corporate monopolies, or government ones (communism) is the same thing. Unfortunately for each to survive they have to work hand in hand.
Walmart is not the problem our system is.
Peter
I would disagree with the general thread that If my history is correct, unions were established because of the lousy way the bosses treated their employees.
While conditions have improved drastically and while there are now labour standards laws there are still too many managers who shouldn't have any responsibility for people.
They may be technically very competent but can not deal with people.
So I would disagree with the general thread that Unions per se are the problem.
However, as written by mhb at December 21, 2008 2:45 AM
“But unions spend far too much time protecting the lazy, the stupid, and those who don't wish to contribute. So you have idiotic rules requiring numerous tradesmen to tackle a job that one could, by rights, do by himself. Or other rules that prevent more effective use of labor on a production line to improve capacity. I've seen illegal job walk-offs because a supervisor dressed-down a worker for deliberate substandard performance. The list is endless...”
My Dad worked at a company that had a Company Employees Association. They had good pay, reasonable benefits and one of the first profit sharing programs in the country. Generally relations were good with senior management knowing many of the line workers personally. Then a small majority signed up with a big international union. The employees lost their profit sharing, benefits decreased, and management employee relations became very confrontational.
In my own situation I experienced a case where an employee, among other things, threatened the lives of his supervisor and me, unfortunately there was not enough evidence for the police to act but it was enough to move the rifle to the front closet. This case went to a national level hearing. The employee was suspended for three days and moved to another job. Union stewards unofficially told us that they agreed this person was wrong and not worth support but that they had to fully support him because of union solidarity.
The problem isn’t Unions per se it’s the mindset of the minority radicals who often end up running them, because of union member unwillingness to run, to vote or to use logic.
Come to think of it this is a reflection of our national governance as while.
Walmart will shut down the Hull store. They don't allow unions to run their business, case closed.
Their whole success in business is due to reasonable
prices and that comes about through astute management,offering employment and fair wages for the work done.
well said sam. i think it is already too late.
"Unions are so bad that unionized workers make on average 20% more than non-unionized workers. "
Have you ever heard of union dues? Most if not all of that 20% goes back to the union. Usually a zero sum game for the employee....
Wal Mart, Abitibiti/Bowater, Bear Stearns, the great cash for cars giveaway... Looters, moochers, progressives and socialist's...
What's needed is not that Atlas Shrugged is read, but that it is understood.
My daughter just moved back to Sk. after being in Calgary for a number of years. She got a part-time job at 13.00/hour. The union dues are 100 dollars per month. Her first cheque? $400 gross and $100 for the union. I said welcome to socialism. So Ulicantgetoff, the union owes her 5%. Ok?
"ulianov" = Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin)", aka lberia.
"Marx & Friends in their own words
"Let them shoot on the spot every tenth man guilty of idleness." - V. I. Lenin ... "Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!" - V. I. Lenin ... (marxwords)
Workers have a right to organize and companies have a right to re-locate.
You want the best lesson of what a radical union does to a community look at Brantford Ontario. Mid 70's it shipped products, combines and other farm equipment, around the workd. Bankrupt and broken by 83 due to a combination of bad mgt, high costs imposed by a radical union and collapsed commodity prices that slashed demand.
Point is, this is about the time that the auto parts industry really got going in Ontario. Brantford was in the middle of it but it got nothing because nobody wanted to set up a lant in a place where the work force was so radicalized, no matter what their skill. Better to hire hard working farm boys an hours drive north than experienced unionistas.
It killed the community, it killed the jobs. So if Ken lewanza want to do that to Oshawa and St Catherines they can, I suspect the workers are less radical than the leadership...but the jobs, union jobs, wont come back...ever....a community with a radical union will not see another similar industry set up in town, they avoid it like the plague.
Once again, all workers have a right to organize and all business owners have a right to shut down and locate where they wish.
Premiums, whether labour or otherwise, can be commanded only if there is a reason. So if any of "the brotherhood" can explain why a worker at an assembly plant for Chrysler deserves a premium over an assembly worker at a Honda plant based on superior quality, flexibility or skill I would like to hear it.
ahh, uianov/lberia, your 'facts' are wrong.
First, the Supreme Court does not guarantee any right to 'collective bargaining' ; the 1987 cases guaranteed only the right to join a union, section 2d but not to engage in union activities. Another judgment same year said 'does not include a guarnatee of the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike". Got that?
And 2007, 'the right to bargain collectively and to strike are modern rights created by legislatures ..not fundamental freedoms and are not included in freedom of association".
So,ulinaov/lberia, I suggest you bone up on your facts.
Unions are parasites. Their origin in the 19th c was legitimate but since legislatures have taken over their original role for minimum wages, equality, workplace safety etc, these unions have become enormously wealthy corporations in themselves. How do their get their money? Not from the production of goods and services. No way.
They take money from the worker. Simple as that. Then, they 'negotiate' heh, threaten, for more and more money. That increases their income. The problem is, these increases wages, benefits, pensions, increase the costs of the goods. And this increase bleeds into the economy. All goods increase in cost. So, the worker actually isn't better off, since the cost of living has increased everywhere.
So, unions as corporations, parasitic corporations, are actually in our modern era extremely harmful to an economy.
Oh, and ulinaov/lberia, just because something is in the Charter doesn't mean that it's a just or good law. You've fallen into the trap of 'appeal to authority'.
Try again. Think.
As for Wall-Mart, I hope they close. There is no reason why a store like that should be unionized. I'll bet the unions campaigned with those workers to get in there...and now, they've achieved their goal..which is, another source of union income.
There was a time when Unions were a very important structure which protected the rights of employees against abusive companies ... That time has passed.
Right now, Unions are mostly found in companies that hire uneducated, unskilled labour and serve the purpose of inflating the cost of running the company to the point where it becomes uncompetitive.
Walmart is never going to let a Union form in any of their stores because they can not afford to double/triple their labour costs.
Any union I have been in only protected those who were incompetent and would not be able to work elsewhere. I didn't see any increase in my wages once a union took over - in fact my takehome went down because of the union dues. I have been union free for 18 years and loving it.
As for WalMart - they are one of my favorite stores - good product, good price and employees who actually are willing to help you find things - many in my local store have been there since it opened and this in a hot, hot labour market. So it must be an OK place to work or they would have left to go to other jobs a long time ago.
Sam, what happens when you have no place left to run to?
Lefties love unionism because it is all part of their love of control and solidarity of the brothers against the evil capitalist. Of course the fact that the evil capitalist provides them with a standard of living unexcelled in the world is just details.
People like ulianov or lberia always confuse left and right in the political spectrum. Pretty simple really. Right is less government, more personal freedom and responsibility. Left is MORE government control and less personal freedom and responsiblity. Communism, Nazism, socialism are all left wing forms of control, ie shared misery for the masses but not for Beria as he got to butcher the masses and lived well until his time came, paying attention lberia.
Over 2/3 of Walmart management comes from the entry level clerk. Lefties hate Walmart because of this seamless movement of management and associates all working together to generate $404 billion in sales! They always want a rigid line between the cruel, vindictive, exploitive management and the downtrodden worker who of course the union management exploits with their dues.
When tough times come, like now, a non-unionized company will shed those it deems isn't vital for its survival in both management and non-management, cut wages, reduce work, whatever it takes. In the unionized company it has to keep all its seniority employees and lays off even excellent workers per union rules. As CAW is saying now, we wont cut our wages as the brothers have done enough.
Unfortunately there exists no good, readily available and complete translation of "Atlas Shrugged" in French. This makes Quebec's case even more desperate...
unions DO increase the take home pay and benefits of workers, while enriching themselves as a corporation. I repeat, unions are not 'workers' associations'; they are capitalist corporations. Their agenda is to MAKE MONEY.
They don't invent any goods or services,don't make any goods or services; they simply attach themselves, as a parasite, to the worker. Then, they take the worker's money. To get more money they must increase the worker's wages,
The problem, as I've noted, is no part of the ecoomic system is isolated; it's all entwined together as a network. So if you increase worker's costs you increase the costs of the goods they make or sell. That's what's happened, in large part, with the auto industries. The unions have driven them out of business.
Again, unions are not, any longer, worker's associations. They are enormous corporations interested only in profit, in getting more and more money, which they invest..for their own profits. And it certainly isn't for the long term good of the working people.
"as they ship american dollars to china by the railcar"
There's trains between the USA and China now? Who knew?
I shop at Walmart and have done so for years with out sending a single penny to China. That is, unless, Tide and Kleenex and Kellogg's cereals and Folger's coffee, you know, the same goods for sale at Zellers, Safeway and Sobey's, are made in China.
I buy them at Walmart because they are cheaper and I have a responsibility to my family's budget to get the most bang for the buck. Paying too much for tp doesn't help us.
Walmart will just shut down the Hull store and that means the Quebec shoppers will have to drive to Ottawa to shop the W.
Quebec loses jobs, sales tax revenue etc. Ontario gains all the way around.
Gotta love Quebec unions, promoting regional development, jobs & prosperity in Ontario.
I live in rural Eastern Ontario. A Walmart located in the outskirts of a nearby town several years ago. The small ad for employees drew 3 times the anticipated number of prospective employees and the hire hall had to be held over 2 days to accomodate the numbers. The town itself which had seen local store closings until Walmart now has a full main street of retail and additional new retail buildings have been built to accomodate demand. Yeah, Walmart is terrible.
Up above, somebody said they couldn't wait until the last WalMart closed in Quebec.
I agree. I hope Walmart shuts every single store these unionized protection scammers try to "organize". Union thugs being what they are, they won't learn, they'll keep going until all stores have closed up and moved to Ontario.
You want a union? Start your OWN damn store.I want to see the unions start a retail outlet, I really do. Unions are great for sucking the blood out of enterprises -other people- start. Not so good at starting their own.
"Reading the comments that get left here by Eastern Canadian Communists just makes me lean further to the notion of Western Separation."
Sam, I don't blame you.
However, if the west were to leave, your economy would fare much better than what's left of Canada and your government would be far more stable and rational.
The benefits would be apparent. It would also draw the locusts to honey.
How long before the filthy blood suckers leave the corpse of Canada and force their way onto a new fresh victim?
With the wealth increases and opportunities, it's already happening in the west. Just as it happened to Toronto.
Unfortunately the burrowed-in miscreants may end up having to be defeated by more bloody means. And the two commenting on here should give sane people pause to think. They are not us. They do not share in Canadian history. They have no similar beliefs or values. They are political aliens and enemies of our forbearers, democracy and western tradition. They do not contribute, they take. Their life purpose is spreading misery and hate, veiled by a thin veneer of false altruism.
How long before their black souls are fully exposed? As maz2, stated:
"Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!" - V. I. Lenin ... (marxwords)
History does repeat itself. They've declared war.
Conservatives loving Walmart... Why should one need Progressists?
The fact is that the leftist ideology sets up a totally fictional world. People like ulianov/lberia (who are obviously one and the same) live in this fictional world, a world that excludes reality.
They will claim, as ulianov/lberia does, that our Charter includes 'the right to collective bargaining'. It doesn't do any such thing and indeed, the Supreme Court interpretations of the charter's simple 'freedom of association' rejects any such claims. But, when people like lberia/ulianov make their claims, how many of us actually know what is in the charter and the SCC decisions? Most of us don't have the time or focus to garner that information. And so, these people assert their claims as Powerful Truths when they are totally wrong.
I've heard the mayor of Toronto, who is deeply embedded with the unions, assert that the TTC cannot be designated as 'essential' to the Toronto economy (which in reality is is) because the UN Charter of Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, asserts that the 'right to strike' is a fundamental human right. The Document says no such thing - but again, how many of us have that document in front of us and can check on it and know that the mayor was lying?
And why do they support unions? They live in this fictional world, a 19th century Dickensonian novel, which sees the workers as 'downtrodden' and the 'owners' as slobbering evil 'capitalists'.
If they would try to move out living, entranced, in the fictional world of the novel and into the hard light of reality - they might realize that this world no longer exists. Legislatures have moved the worker out of such realms. And unions have moved themselves out of being worker's associations into huge private corporations. Focused only on one things: profit.
And, their only income, is those worker's dues, which they take off the wages of the worker. Then, they invest into, heh, corporate investment schemes...to make more and more money. Does any of this profit go back to the worker? You bet not.
But the unionized workers, who are the elites and not the downtrodden, with their huge wages, their benefits, their pensions, are living in a ponzi scheme world. For the Corporate Union Costs increase the cost of producing their goods and services beyond the 'carrying capacity' of the economy.
What a unionized industry does is it removes the industry from the market forces and sets up a false, fictional economy. One based on more and more wages and benefits. Ignoring that these increase consumer costs. Eventually, this situation reaches reality with a crash - and we see what has happeend with the auto industries. Why should we taxpayers pick up the unions?
It's time to end unions. They are totally out of date, and as a parasitic corporation, they are amoral and unethical. And harmful to the economy and the worker.
ET I always enjoy reading your posts. Here is a gem which you will enjoy researching, it is called "SKILLED INCOMPETENCE" and comes from the thinking of Dr. Chris Argyris. Initially it was directed at management, however the topic can be directed at any part of an organisation and particularly at Unions with regard to their own management structures and the results of their effect on companies.
I'm now 66 years old and have never been in a union. Like many posters here I'm not afraid of speaking my mind. I can't imagine being in a union and objecting to some union policy or rule. The thought of union heavies paying me a visit is quite intimidating.
Some years ago I worked at a mine where the crew was transported underground on a small train. One evening, as the night shift was assembling, it became apparent that the locomotive operator was stinking drunk. The mine manager in charge immediately made a move to send the driver home with the rapidly departing afternoon shift. He could have had the man cited for being drunk on the minesite, which would have been an "immediate termination" offence.
The manager then indicated that he would drive the locomotive himself. He was qualified, and under the terms of the union agreement, he was allowed to drive the train under extenuating circumstances. (such as, one would presume, a regular driver unable to dress himself)
The unionized miners immediately refused to board the train, and the strike lasted until well into the next day.
I guess unions would rather have a drunk driver at the controls than a manager concerned for their safety.
Sorry, union supporters, you have had your brains removed by the spirit of "collectiveness". You will never again have my support.
So in actuality then, are the unions not acting as another (communist) government within our country? The dictate labour rules (laws) on unionized workers, collect dues(tax) off the workers pay, and spend it as they see fit. And if their real political wing (NDP) ever gets power they will inact this communist model on everyone in the country, not just the unionized workers they currently control. Scary
I often visit Canadian based retailers before going to Walmart and find what I want. Cheaper too. There was life before Walmart. Remember?
As far unions are concerned, before you follow the pack mentality, you should do a little research on why we have unions. The conditions that brought them about, and the violent reactions by the established and the wealthy.
What I think you are missing is the balance they bring to the game. If not for them, most people would earn a great deal less. I'm not including public sector unions, as they are unnecessary.
Before unions, a tradesman working in a railway repair shop was paid piece work. There were penalties for non performance. On occasion said tradesman would work all day and end up owing the railway money because there was no material for him to work with and meet his quota.
I know a welder who quit his employer recently because after 16 yrs and multiple promises, the employer still hadn't provided some form of pension arrangement. He now works away from home all week so he can work in a unionized environment where there is a pension. He is 56 yrs old.
Back to Walmart. So what if they leave? The jobs redistribute and people go there to shop. Big deal.
no, ulianov/lberia, I'm not a propagandist; I stick to reality. Not your fictional world.
The June 8, 2007 agreement of the SCC said that collective bargaining is not a fundamental right but one created by legislatures. Therefore, you can certainly meet and tell each other your wishes, but,
"Section 2(d) of the Charter does not guarantee the particular objectives sought through this associational activity but rather the process through which those goals are pursued."
And "does not impose on the parties an obligation to conclude a collective agreement, nor does it include a duty to accept any particular contractual provisions"
And "there is no constitutional protection for the substantive outcome of a collective bargaining process".
And, in Section 15,2003 BSC " The trial judge, Garson J., dismissed the plaintiffs’ freedom of association claim on the ground that collective bargaining was not an activity recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as falling within the scope of s. 2(d) of the Charter. Indeed, she noted that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence consistently and explicitly stated that the ability to bargain collectively was not a Charter-protected activity."
And, S 19, "We conclude that s. 2(d) of the Charter protects the capacity of members of labour unions to engage, in association, in collective bargaining on fundamental workplace issues. This protection does not cover all aspects of “collective bargaining”, as that term is understood in the statutory labour relations regimes that are in place across the country. Nor does it ensure a particular outcome in a labour dispute, or guarantee access to any particular statutory regime. What is protected is simply the right of employees to associate in a process of collective action to achieve workplace goals."
Therefore, you can associate all you want but so what? There is no constitutional guarantee of any result. Nothing. Oh, and as I said in my original comment, there is no 'right to strike'.
By the way, please bone up on the definition of 'fascism' which has nothing to do with either bastardy or unions.
And I know a great deal about the constitution, which in itself says very little about anything, and even more about that travesty of a document, the so-called 'Charter of Rights'. I could go through it, point by point, and argue how deeply undemocratic a document it is.
Now, ulianov/lberia - back to the facts. Unions are a 19th c phenomenon, emerging quite validly when the legislatures were not engaged in setting up an industrial infrastructure. That is not now the case, for legislatures have taken over the original role of unions in setting minimum wages, safety, security and so on.
There is now, no need for unions, and therefore, the unions have changed; they have become enormously wealthy capitalist corporations. Engaged in only one agenda: Profit. Their income comes from one and only one source - the wages of the workers. They are parasitic on the workers.
Now, ulianov/lberia - explain to us why you support such a capitalist corporation as the Union? Hmm?
hugger - so what if the employer didn't have a pension plan. Set up an RRSP and other investments (purchase land to resell later) and obtain the same, if not more benefits on your own. Why should it be up to the empoyer to look after you, rather than yourself?