Wal-Mart's profits threatened by Canadian Union

[DanS]

Do Canadian laws allow companies to crush their unions? Allowing this seems to provide a lot of balance.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Do Canadian laws allow companies to crush their unions?

Nope. Canada is a civilized country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think che has misread what Berz was saying. He wasn't saying a union shop impacts him being hired, he was saying it impacts who HE can hire.

Scabbing should be outlawed.

Ah yes, monopoly of labor . Scabbing should not only be legal, but attack on scabs should be morally frowned upon and carry high penalties.

That's right, the proponents of union shops want to take away the worker's choice to NOT join a union. You have to pay part of your salary to a group you may not support in order to have a job. What crap. Can't let the workers decide for themselves? .

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Wal-Mart's profits threatened by Canadian Union

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The interesting part of it is that closing a business because of the presence of an union is a legal offense in Quebec.

What can they do, anyway? How do you force someone to keep a store running?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think che has misread what Berz was saying. He wasn't saying a union shop impacts him being hired, he was saying it impacts who HE can hire.

Only with some contracts do the unions have input on who can be hired. These are a result of contracts to which employers agreed.

That's right, the proponents of union shops want to take away the worker's choice to NOT join a union. You have to pay part of your salary to a group you may not support in order to have a job. What crap. Can't let the workers decide for themselves? .

Surprisingly, I agree with you. The problem, however, is in right-to-work states, you can be hired at a union shop, not join the union, but the union has to provide benefits to you anyway and you're covered by the contract. You get all the benefits for being ain a union with none of the responsibility.

I think employees who don't want to be in the union should have to fend for themselves. It would also force the unions to be more democratic, since they'd have to listen to rank and file input or risk losing members. Flawed as they are, however, 90% of the time, you're much better off with a union than without.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Berzerker
Don't new hirees need to join the union?

That doesn't impact your being hired. It just means that you automatically become part of the union.

And have to pay union dues.

[Kuciwalker]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

How do unions react to scabs?

Scabbing should be outlawed. In any event, the unions can't stop employers from hiring scabs, except in civilized countries like Canada.

People shouldn't be allowed to hire other people when their employees refuse to do work?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And have to pay union dues.

Which has nothing to do with Berz's point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Surprisingly, I agree with you.

No you don't... you want to ban scabs . I support letting the workers decide for themselves if they want to join a flawed union or not. And if they want to cross the picket line, then that is their choice and the employer should be allowed to hire those who need work and want to work.

[Shi Huangdi]

Unions
Wal Mart
Ted Striker

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: Wal-Mart's profits threatened by Canadian Union

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What can they do, anyway? How do you force someone to keep a store running?

No, the only thing is that if it can be demonstrated in court that the closure of a business was directly related to the creation of a union, then you've broken the law. Since this process would take many years, no business is 'required' to stay upon; the end result would probably be that the company would have to pay reparations to its former employees.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


People shouldn't be allowed to hire other people when their employees refuse to do work?

I can very well see this to be an implicit part of a social contract, that property over means of production will be allowed as long as a deal about working conditions can be struck between the workers and the owner.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DanS
Do Canadian laws allow companies to crush their unions? Allowing this seems to provide a lot of balance.

Poor Wal-Mart, it will have to pay for expensive lawyers to prove that their store wasn't shut down because of the union.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Yes lets boycott walmart. And while we're at it, lets put them out of business too. Then they won't have to complain about wages anymore because they won't have a job.

Of course, when the store closes, each and every of its customers will disappear and won't buy stuff in other stores. Economy is an absolute principle built around Wal Mart, and when one of their store shuts down it creates a black hole that irremediably absorbs GDP.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Scabbing should be outlawed. In any event, the unions can't stop employers from hiring scabs, except in civilized countries like Canada.

I wish it was true, but scabbing is only outlawed in certain provinces. Quebec, as dictated by its status of socialist lame dog, is of the number.