Posted on 02/15/2005 10:19:32 PM PST by quidnunc
Last week, Wal-Mart's Canadian division said it would close its first unionized store in North America, making Quebec the latest battleground in the retailer's struggle against unions.
Wal-Mart's decision triggered vicious rebukes from leftist Canadian politicians. David Christopherson, a Canadian Member of Parliament, even called Wal-Mart's decision to close the store "economic terrorism."
It is difficult to understand how workers are exercising their free choice by banding together to negotiate with their employer, but Wal-Mart is the corporate equivalent of Bin Laden because it is choosing not to stay in business under the union's terms.
Putting that aside, there is a greater irony here. The United Food and Commercial Workers union has spent years blasting Wal-Mart for violating human rights, putting local stores out of business, exploiting workers and being an all around evil corporate citizen. The union has a large presence in Canada, but it is based in Washington, D.C. and has campaigned to unionize Wal-Mart in both countries.
"Quite simply the benefits of having a Wal-Mart in your neighborhood are outweighed by the cost in store closures, lost jobs and other adverse effects Wal-Mart has on a community," the union's Website reads.
Based on these statements, one would expect the union to be celebrating the closing of a Wal-Mart in the parking lot like a conquering army. The union has liberated one town from the clutches of the Wal-Mart empire. It should be declared VWM day!
But the union is singing a different tune.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Righteously, comrade. Long live the glorious struggle of the proletariat against the running dog capitalist oppressors. The masses must control the means of production. The worker’s flag is the deepest red! Down with the imperialist plutocrats!
Oh yes, a "livable wage"! 'Cause we all know that companies are REQUIRED to pay what some pinhead says is a "livable wage", right? I mean, just because you go out and build a company, and hire people to work for you, and those people CHOOSE to be your employees, doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to dictate what you pay them, right? I am so tired of this "living wage" crap. No one is obligated to give you a job, and no one is obligated to pay you any particular amount (apart from the old minimum wage, of course).
If you don't like what they're paying you, go get a job someplace else. Or better yet, start your own company. Of course, if you did that, you might run the risk of becoming "rich", which is obviously a bad thing in your opinion. Yes, Wal-Mart is too rich, that's the problem! If we could only make them and every other company that is successful poor, everything would be just peachy. Just like if we could just somehow make all the rich more like the poor, then everyone would be better off. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Well, that gives them plenty of time to work a second job, now, doesn't it? Unless they prefer wallowing in their "poverty."
That "knee jerk distaste" is a learned response, not a "knee jerk" instinct.
There are a few issues with your assertion here. First, you have subliminally stated that a Walmart job should pay a "living wage", despite the fact that most positions at the store are unskilled (in the labor sense), and are therefore not able to draw a high wage.
Second, why should someone like me - who has followed a career growth path in a high-tech industry for coming on fifteen years - pay more for retail goods to help someone else out of "staying poor"? I paid for my own college with 8 years of my life (ROTC scholarship - thank you taxpayers, and I hope I repaid that debt well enough with my service). I married, and now have 3 kids. I have only EVER purchased 1 vehicle new - and my wife drives that one for my family's safety.
Where in the social contract does it say I now have to overpay for merchandise in order to pull up someone else's financial status?
I'm sorry if you think this is harsh, but these folks are responsible for themselves. Wally-world doesn't owe them a living - the company merely owes the agreed upon wages for the hours worked.
Walmart deserves to get hit. They came on, bragging of thier "made in the US" business, then sold us out for virtual slave labor.while making huge money at the top.
You're partially right on this one. When Sam Walton was still at the helm, Walmart had better quality goods and many (MANY!) more "made in the USA" items. Once Sam died, the inheritors appear to have shifted their paradigm, importing more from China and other offshore places. This is about the time Sam's Club started selling beer (does anyone else remember the time when the club didn't sell ANY alcohol?).
However, the bottom line is that the price for the goods is commensurate with their quality. I have priced the same quality of product at other discount department stores for more money. I'm not stupid enough to waste money that way.
Walmart is notorious for treating its people badly, I believe they are vulnerable to a major action coordinated via the net. "stay home today"
Being "notorious" for unspecified alleged sins is a great way to avoid having to spell out the issues, if they exist. Unsubstantiated allegations rarely stand up or are even allowed in the court of Free republic, in my experience.
Also, any employee participating in a "stay home today" type of coordinated attack on the company is vulnerable to being released from their employment - fair and square. The coordinators probably should be vulnerable to racketeering charges in their attempt to coerce protection money from the company, although I'm not sure I would support such an application of RICO (I haven't thought it through, yet).
I am by no means anti-business, but the pendulum has to swing back a bit. Unions became corrupt and useless, but they changed the world for the better at one time.
Yes, and most of the life-saving rules and regulations (along with myriad less valuable ones) are now embodied in federal law and regulations, preserving these labor union victories (and then some) for all of posterity. You're using a straw man based on the physical hazards addressed by unions in their heyday to support the unions' socialistic agenda of today.
You say, tough luck, go somewhere else. You ever been there, done that?
Yep. Twice. Got a better job, with better money and more growth potential, both times. It's called "experience".
There is no justifiable reson to not give folks 40 hours, to not pay them a decent wage.
Their is no justifiable reason to force a company to "give" its employees anything. Wages are EARNED, not given. Hours are at the discretion of the employer, not the employee. The employER, after all, is the one who risked their start-up capital to get the company up and running.
We are talking about one of the largest, most profitable, haRDnosed companies in the world here.
Profit is one thing, greed, arrogance and slave labor is another.
Walmart is profitable in part because it IS so hardnosed. "[G]reed, arrogance and slave labor" is a subjective characterization unsupported by any cited facts. Don't try to polemicize without underlying facts.
Right on!
"I am by no means anti-business, but the pendulum has to swing back a bit. Unions became corrupt and useless, but they changed the world for the better at one time. "
Once unions believed that they could hold up corporate management out of greed, they became irrelevant. Management knows what it could pay out and still be productive, competetive and make a profit. The unions are still operating in the 1950's.
Fair point! Especially with all the coal miners dying in China, of late!!! In that regard, you're right!!!
In short, the people negotiating for this union did a pi__ poor job and screwed their workers.
And the Eagles lost the Super Bowl.
The workers had a losing team representing them.
What does he think his Canadian unions do? They're economic terrorists.
bahblahbah and that picture = pathetic
LOL you'll never find that kind of enlightenment when it comes to a thread on Walmart. The hate foreigners/love Gephart/Buchanan faction wears blinders and simply blames it all on Walmart.
Troll?
Yes, better wages and benefits for those that are allowed to keep their jobs. Unions would rather have 50 people who are overpaid employed than 100 who are paid the proper wage.
Given that unions always vote collectively demoncRAT or for liberal leftist candidates, more power to Wal-Mart. I shop there and find good bargains.
The "people" of china rebelled and changed their government once, if they are really that miserable they can do it again.
If Tiananmen Square didn't motivate them to change their government's ways, that isn't my fault. I don't see why I shouldn't use the opportunity to make my living costs cheaper.
If you had a speck of a clue of what you speak, then you would know that Wally-World employees get full-time benefits at 32 hours. It was 28 hours until 3 years ago when they raised it to 32. They also pay at least the going rate in their locale, but usually about 10% more. How do you think that they hire and keep so many employees.
You are woefully misinformed if you swallow the dreck spewed by the anti-business WalMart bashers. Put the Cool-Aid down and back away from the BrainDead bar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.