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.
On another aspect of our Charter right of ‘freedom of association’ this ought to mean that we don’t have to join the union in order to work in a particular company.
But this isn’t the fact – you can’t get a job in these union-embedded large industries or the public service, unless you are a member of the union. You can opt out, and say that you don’t want to be a member but that’s superficial; the union will still deduct your ‘dues’ even if you don’t want to join their association.
So much for the Charter Rights of the individual; the unions ignore them. Again, Unions are not there for the worker; they are there to make money.
Interesting comment Hugger, just tell me one thing, where is it written that an employer must provide a pension for an employee? If I was looking for employment I would try and find a place that offers that, but it is not a right or a requirement, right?
Unions had a place at one time, but that time is past now. Bringing up conditions of 100 years ago is really pointless as the world has moved on. Yes, there are still places you can work and get paid for piece work, but no one is forced to work there! That is the whole point of this pointless conversation… no one is forced to work anywhere, they chose to work somewhere.
Last, if you don’t like your salary, get more education, a trade, whatever, and look for a job that pays more! Don’t form a union to force some company to pay you more since the union will take most of that away from you anyway, get a better job!
“The history of all countries shows that the working class exclusively by its own effort is able to develop only trade-union consciousness.”
~Vladimir Lenin
“Outstanding leaders go out of their way to boost the self-esteem of their personnel. If people believe in themselves, it’s amazing what they can accomplish.”
~Sam Walton
“There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.”
~Sam Walton
Wal-Mart stores are unionized in every country outside of North America.
Lichtenstein, Nelson. 2006. Wal-Mart: The Face of Twenty-First-Century Capitalism. New Press.
Posted by: Dwayne at December 21, 2008 1:38 PM
Great synopsis given the current rate of layoffs.
Question, have you ever been 45 and out of work in a depressed economy?
hugger-
the fact is, an employer isn’t obligated to hire employees.
A union has no rights to insist that he do so; that he retain an employee even when, for example, the employer can’t maintain the salary; or the employee is incompetent; or the work is no longer needed.
The employer is not a Parent; he has no obligations to the worker. None. During the contract between them, the two do have a contract; the employer pays for work done. Not for work not done. the worker carries out the job and shouldn’t expect to get paid for not doing so.
You example of ‘piece work’ refers to an out-of-date era. Legislation now has moved in to ensure the viability of the work place. Your example is no longer realistic.
Your comment about being ’45 and out of work in a depressed economy’ has nothing to do with the obsolute role of unions nor the role of an employer.
Unions should not exist to make employers retain workers. The only reason unions insist on this, is because they are, themselves, capitalist enterprises and want to maintain a high number of workers – to keep their own income from dues.
I’ve been in the work force for over forty years, worked in many different industries, both union, and non-union. Now I operate my own non-union contracting company.
Unions were originally trades guilds, the object of which was to maintain the quality of the tradesmen. Somewhere along the line, and it happened in different unions at different times, unions were seen as a vehicle to power by both organized crime, and communists. It’s been downhill ever since.
When I was in the BCGEU, we had an excellent working relationship with the employer, but in the late 60’s and early 70’s, labour agitators from England joined the executive of the union, and quickly changed the cooperative atmosphere to one of “them vs us”. In my branch, people that had been friends, and with whom we socialized, were now the enemy,”management”, and a wedge was driven between management and staff.
Now, 25 years after I left, the union/management relationship in the B.C. government services is completely adversarial, to no one’s benefit but the union agitators, who continue to prosper off the work of the members.
Union IS big business, and workers are now truly caught between “a rock and a hard place”.
When I first started my business, I investigated becoming a union company so as to get access to the big construction contracts. I spoke to a couple of unions, and their arrogance and enmity was so apparent, I didn’t bother, more trouble than it was worth.
Every company I’ve seen, including Wal-Mart, has entry level positions, with low wages. It gives an employee incentive to work hard, and move up to better wages. I see nothing wrong with that concept. There must be an incentive or employees will become complacent, as in government unions, and service will suffer, it’s human nature.
As someone said, it’s the workers right to organize, and it’s the employers right to open or close a business. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
The Wal-Marts in my community have been surrounded by smaller, independent businesses, feeding off the big box traffic. Seems like a Wal-mart is a winning situation for everybody.
If the unions force Wal-Mart out of Hull, the only losers will be the shoppers and employees, and the union will move on to leech somewhere else.
“Someone really should send these idiots a copy of Atlas Shrugged for some light reading over the holidays.”
But of course. Because what the world really needs are more egoistic, materialistic and greedy people using right-wing ideology to justify their actions.
You can’t reason with them ET, the entire concept of unionization is unreasonable. Its simple thuggery, really. “We have more guys than you, so you will do what we say or we will burn down your store.” THAT is the ultimate basis of “collective bargaining”.
Thanks to 100 years of Kanuckistanian Progressivism, they don’t have to go to all the trouble of throwing Molotov cocktails anymore, the Quebec government does it for them.
One does not reason with such people. For them you use the Louisville Slugger. Modern version of that is Walmart locking the door and leaving town. They are big enough they can kiss off all of Quebec and not even miss it in the annual report. Or all of Canada if it comes to a Taliban Jack lead coalition.
I would encourage them to do so. I also encourage the car companies to stop conforming to California regulations. Stop selling cars in California. F- ’em, let them WALK.
debozo, unny thing about “egoistic, materialistic and greedy” right wing people. They work for what they get. Unlike those of you on the caring, non materialist wonderful Left who seem fine with stealing from those “egoistic, materialistic and greedy people” who worked for it.
Oh, I’m sorry. I should have said “redistributing”. There, is that better?
Btw, you expect me to believe you’ve actually read Atlas Shrugged? Come on, pull the other one. It has bells on.
ulianov/lberia – one of the fundamental rules of blogs is that you never misuse the rights of the poster to their online name. You are ulianov/lberia. I don’t use your personal name. You have no right to use my personal name in any post. That’s arrogance on your part.
I notice that when leftists/socialists are confronted with factual data, they turn, instantly, to insults. So, we now have ulianov/lberia calling us ‘fascists’, and a host of insults along with that.
Why not simply deal with the issues? No, the leftist-socialist doesn’t do that. Instead, it’s the rants, the bullying, the strikes, the threats.
dmorris – very nice outline of the unions. Yes, they changed from the original guild to an adversarial framework that harms both sides. The public service unions, as you note, are set up to effectively shield the worker from accountability so public service deteriorates.
debeauxos, yes, the unions are indeed egoistic, materialistic, and greedy capitalist corporations, very greedy for more and more money from the workers’s dues, which they invest in capitalist investment schemes. Unions are parasites on the workers. When the workers try to reject unions, you have the thugs in the union come out to harass and intimidate people into allowing a union on site.
ulianov/lberia – no, you are abusing my privacy. If I choose to use a blog name, as do you, then you have no right to violate that right. Period.
Your fallacious ‘appeal ad populam’ (everyone knows) not only is incorrect but such a fallacious appeal doesn’t justify your abuse of my privacy.
I provide facts and analysis based on those facts. That includes references to the charter and the SCC; it includes an outline of the historical development of unions, and the harmful effects, now, of unions in our economy by their unreasonable inflation of wages and benefits beyond the carrying capacity of the industry and economy.
I’m an elitist? heh. No, you, the socialist-left are, with your insistence on the downtrodden nature of the worker. With modern legislation, the worker is not downtrodden. It is you, the socialist, who requires that they exist in such a state.
The democratic right to associate in groups is NOT a definition of a union. Associating in groups says nothing about the closed shop nature of unions which are closed to non-union members; the dues that they take from the wages of the worker; their investment of these monies into enormous wealth which is not returned to the worker; their support for incompetence and indifference; their greediness in trying to get as many workers..that is, dues..into the fold. Their hostage taking of third parties, when, for instance, a public transit union goes on strike and effectively takes the riders hostage. None of that adversarial and economically dysfunctional behaviour has anything to do with ‘association in groups’.
You haven’t a clue what fascism means. Criticizng unions has nothng to do with fascism, and are you seriously going to suggest that unions have moved into some theistic holy state and outside the realm of questioning them, criticizing them, dissenting from them? Unions are Holy? Heh.
Yep, I certainly do assert that unions are parasitic and I do want to curtail union rights. Now, stick to the issues. Why don’t you argue why unions are NOT parasitic and why we should NOT suggest curtailing their rights. I’ve explained why I conclude that they are parasitic and why they should be curtailed and even ended. Now, it’s your turn. Without the insults. Without the abuse of privacy.
The employer is not a Parent; he has no obligations to the worker.
by ET at 2:41
Firstly, your name isn’t Dwayne. Secondly the employer does have obligations to the worker.
Not to be rude, but your perception has obvious limitations. I was an employer for 16 years. A shop foreman for 2 years and have a great deal of background with employees. The good, the bad and the ugly. I don’t assume them all to be bad though, unlike you seem to be doing.
Without the good employees, I would not have been able to do business and earn money.
Hey Hugger:
Don’t bother trying to reason with the fascists.
By Ulianov @ 4:01
I have been here before. Occasionally I feel the need to point out some truths to those who post here. I think some do associate when presented with a differing take on things.
There used to be a couple of quite intelligent people who posted on this site. I admired them for their patience. Don’t know if they are still around or not.
I remember Butt hargrove pleading with liberals and other assorted skum to vote for the blok instead of the conservatives.
Not much more needs to be said about that slimebag.
Hugger said: “There used to be a couple of quite intelligent people who posted on this site.”
You mean Johnny Maudlin and Ti Guy? Or was it ok4ua and real/haye/new/mos/blah/blah/blah?
Yep, those guys were real intelligent. Regular brainiacs.
hugger – I am not talking about employers and employees; I’m talking about unions.
An employer and employee have a contract, where the one does an agreed-upon work process, in return for wages, benefits, etc.
As for good/bad workers, unions inhibit getting rid of the incompetent.
Unions have moved into a status as middle-agents, standing between the employer-employee. In many situations, the employee isn’t allowed to interact with the employer directly; he has to go via the union.
I’m saying that in this day and age there is no need for these unions and that they have become transformed into, themselves, capitalistic enterprises, obtaining their money from the wages of the workers. That’s parasitic. Their agenda is to increase their profits, which means getting more money from the worker and investing it; the worker gets little benefit in return.
The more problematic aspect is that this narrow-focus by a parasitic enterprise on profits ignores the effect on the wider economy. The union’s driving up wages to increase your own profits means that consumer costs increase; the worker doesn’t benefit from this.
I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘dwayne’.
I hope the Wal-Mart employees of Weyburn read this.
It would be a shame to lose any business and especially one of that size from their city.
Associating in groups says nothing about the closed shop nature of unions which are closed to non-union members; the dues that they take from the wages of the worker; their investment of these monies into enormous wealth which is not returned to the worker; their support for incompetence and indifference; their greediness in trying to get as many workers..that is, dues..into the fold.
By ET @ 4:59
Gracious ET, do you realize how much your description sounds like the greedy corporate bastards that have wrought this economic disaster upon the world?
Did you know Canada’s 2nd wealthiest family increased their personal fortunes by 34% in 2007, and that a member of that family will be sitting on the advisory council to the Conservative Government? Did you also know that they threatened to move to another province if they didn’t get cheaper electricity rates?
Does the word enough exist in their world?
Do you have some real world business experience?
You mean Johnny Maudlin and Ti Guy? Or was it ok4ua and real/haye/new/mosv
Posted by: The Phantom at December 21, 2008 6:30 PM
Umm, no, and it wasn’t you either.
hugger – what do you have against personal wealth? What’s wrong with working and investing and building industries?
The only way to build an industry is to develop SURPLUS, which is called ‘wealth’. Then, you invest this surplus into more industrial development. The nature of industrialism is that it requires long term investment of infrastructure and research. Therefore, it takes a lot of surplus wealth requirement..to invest in the future.
If you choose instead to produce NO Wealth/Surplus, then, you live hand-to-mouth, so to speak. This is called a Sustenance Economy.
Unions don’t enable wealth production for the workers; they drive up consumption costs for all, and this means that the wealth production capacity of the society is reduced. That’s why socialist countries, which disable wealth production, eventually economically collapse.
There MUST be wealth production. The fact that you envy such – so what? No, the current economic situation is most certainly NOT caused by ‘greedy corporate bastards’. Such a reductionist view is quite incorrect. What is going on now is a massive global shift in production and consumer roles – and wealth productive capacities, particularly with the movement of India and China into the global economy.
I suggest you read a recent book, winner of the 2008 Best Financial Book (Goldman), called ‘When Markets Collide’ by M. El-Erian.
Your focus only on Employer-Employee relations ignores that an economy is much more complex than this relationship.
ulianov/lberia – don’t move into the common leftist strategy of personal insults and name-calling. Try to be above such tactics.
And because someone repeats a conclusion, such as E=MC2, doesn’t mean that the conclusion is wrong.
Therefore, if someone concludes that unions have no constructive function in this modern era, and repeats this conclusion – the fact of repetition doesn’t make it wrong. Or right.
You see, repetition doesn’t prove anything. Surely you know that; you repeat the same things yourself; it doesn’t mean that your opinions are wrong. Or right.
Oh, and I don’t go to ‘those places’ for my research and analysis. And so far, neither you nor hugger have provided any reason for unions to exist in our modern era. Not one reason. Asserting that the SHOULD exist isn’t a reason; it’s a conclusion. How about some reasons?
Ulianov, debate, you don’t know the meaning of the word. ET presents facts and reasons why unions are parasitic and you bluster and attack her because you have no counter points. As a true lefty you never defend your position just personally attack the individual or try to humiliate them.
You are truly pathetic. Go back to Kos with your fellow creatures.
While most manufacturing and retail unions do more harm than good I often think that the construction unions are a benefit to the average construction worker.
The job of the business agent is to find work for his members as well as negotiate their wages and benefits. Since many construction jobs are ‘short term’ employment the union with its job board approach is a great help to our economic well being. Also the benefits and pension offered to construction workers allows them stability in what is otherwise a very unstable work environment.
BTW I worked one union job just out of high school, hated it, and have never joined a union in my life.
The workers at a WalMart in Weyburn, SK have just been granted union certification by the SLRB. Considering WalMart’s dominant merchandising position in this booming community, I wonder how quick they are going to be to shut this store down?
Ulianov
What will you do when there is no longer union jobs out there for you and your ilk.I personaly, who am an employer would look at your last place of work,and know that you were a union sh@it head and shread your application as quickly as i read it.Guess what, I am not the only one that thinks that way and now you have no job period.
You would be considered in the priviate non-unionized sector as unhireable in other words useless to productivity.Like I say,” one bruised apple will spoil the bunch”.
Terry, I wonder how quick the union will be to jack them up for a raise and benefits package? It’ll be a race to see who tells who to step off first.
Walmart is hated by all these wonderful, loving, progressive types like hugger and Iberia because they refuse to be taken for a ride by the unions like the Big Three were. The Walmart kahunas seem to actually give a crap if their company lives or dies.
Wow, lots of comments.
I have been 45, but not laid off… my line of work does not have many lay offs, so to speak, just to answer the question someone answered. I don’t lack compassion for people who are laid off, but I did point out that if someone is not happy with their situation it is up to them to improve it, not anyone else, and certainly not a union.
To get back to the real conversation, unions and the businesses that have to support them, I think ET said it best when he points out the parasitic nature of the unions today. The only way to expand the union’s power and income is to expand, and the only way to do that is to get more non-union shops to become unionized. What is sad here, as also pointed out, is that if Wal-Mart closes their doors the people who lose out are the employees who didn’t vote to become a part of the union and the consumers who will be forced to go farther afield to find another Wal-Mart, if that is where they wanted to shop.
Unions had their place and time, but that is now past… the only people who benefit from the unions today are not the people who work and pay the dues but the union executive, staff and other parasites whose pay relies on those workers who toil for the money they pay to the unions.
Posted by: ET at December 21, 2008 7:51 PM
I asked you a simple enough question and you didn’t answer it. Really ET, you do more preaching than debating.
The current economic crises was created by wall street banking and investing giants, speculators, lack of adequate supervision of financial instruments, collusion among many from a variety of fields, both commercial and political and a whopping amount of arrogance and greed. That’s the short version.
As far as the industrial might of the third world countries goes, who do you think financed it? Who do you think is going to finance a recovery in the West? Who is going to finance the cost of organizing the recovery in the West?
As for your question about personal wealth, who is it that has a bug in their buns about people acquiring some level of wealth? Isn’t that what the unions do? Are they not offering a service for a fee? How is that unlike the corporate profit structure or vendors of professional services?
Lastly, I ask again. Do you have some real world business experience?
The commies of the USSR banned unions and killed all the labour leaders.
Not even commies can stand unions. Nuff said.
Hugger said: “Isn’t that what the unions do? Are they not offering a service for a fee? How is that unlike the corporate profit structure or vendors of professional services?”
Because the “service” they offer is really nothing more than extortion. They don’t -make- anything, they don’t add value, they run a protection racket. “Nice store, Mr. Walmart. Be a shame if anything were to… happen to it.”
Kind of like the difference between bees and ticks, hugger. Companies are like bees, they make things. Union thugs are like ticks. They hide in the long grass and wait for something to wander by so they can latch on and suck its blood.
If any ticks were affronted by this, I humbly appologise.
They don’t -make- anything, they don’t add value, they run a protection racket. “Nice store, Mr. Walmart. Be a shame if anything were to… happen to it.”
Posted by: The Phantom at December 22, 2008 2:36 PM
I expect this will be the only time I will respond to you.
What do Lawyers make? What do accountants make? What do politicians make? What do journalists make?
Would you like a hint?
Nice posts. I’ll argue a point rarely taken on unions: envy. Jealousy can be found, if only slightly, in all comments.
The right envies unions because of their uncanny ability to maximize profit (for the union, that is).
The left loves their ability to support the working class.
And the middle because of their ability to do both – those f’ers make a TON of money AND they help out the working class!!
And since we all are jealous, we all both love and hate them. Only those who feel they are needed will ever speak of their love. And those who don’t, only speak of their dislike.
Think about it, if you could start an organization that would reap 5 – 15% of total wages paid to non-management staff at your town’s biggest employer, wouldn’t you at least review what is required of you to reap this reward? So what if it causes some temporary chaos in your community, you’re helping the working class (good PR), and you’re raking in the loot!
But in the end, the economic impact unions have is simply a tax or commission, depending on your point of view, on the end product, which is simply passed on to the end consumer. This will always be the case. We are clearly entering (ok, have entered) a consumer driven economy. If consumer actions in the next two years don’t drive many unions out of business, or significantly reduce powers of major unions, I don’t think anything will.
Unfortunately, consumers of public sector services will never have the type of clout consumers of private sector goods and services have. So these unions continue to grow. Argh!