# How to get rid of Wal Mart in Canada



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Unionize!

Abolish wage slavery. 

I would post a link to an article in the Toronto Star but I don't know how...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I heard that on CBC today - excellent way . Personally I'm boycotting Walmart - not that I bought a lot but at this point I think they are not good for teh NA economy and anythong that takes them down a notch gets my :clap:.

I'll try and post the article.


----------



## Howard2k (Feb 9, 2005)

Aren't the unions only for people who can't hold jobs in a competitive environment?


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Howard2K - You're right so long as the union is old and bureaucratic enough that it has lost the original point of a union.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

This is a bit old now, but it sheds some light into the labour (yes, I'm British) practices of Walmart.

http://www.legalnewswatch.com/news_280.html

This is a horrible company with only one goal- to crush everyone/thing that gets in the way of it destroying local and national economies.

I won't go there. Neither should you.  
James


----------



## 32bitJesus (Jun 3, 2003)

Canadians spell labour the same way...


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

its good to make that connexion! thanks ;]


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Sounds like stereo typing to me*



Chealion said:


> Howard2K - You're right so long as the union is old and bureaucratic enough that it has lost the original point of a union.





> by Howard2k Aren't the unions only for people who can't hold jobs in a competitive environment?


Unions are for people who believe they need a Union. A Union is certified at a workplace only after a democratic decision, by the workers involved. 

In my experience employers are the party in the workplace that generally drive the workers to want a union in the first place.

Unions are people organization and as such are operated to the level that the people in that Union truly desire or tolerate.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I suppose that union busting and slave wages are the way you become one if not the wealthiest corps in North America. I believe that they are a blight. A blight to the workers, our urban landscapes and the mom and pop businesses they have buried in their imperical wake.

And now, boo hoo hoo, a union. Workers standing up for their rights demanding better working conditions and fair wages. Wal Mart go home!


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

There is some evidence to show, though, that members of a union are not always convinced of their union's goodness:
one could look at Canada Post, or perhaps even the NHLPA as examples of unions that aren't always looking out for their members best interests.

To say that Unions just do what the people who are members of it want it to do doesnt help to explain the above: namely that members of a union aren't always happy being unionized-the beauracracy of a union can outgrow the wishes of it's dues-paying membership.
J


----------



## enaj (Aug 26, 2004)

If you are a distributor:

The second worst thing is to turn down a chance to sell your product at Walmart
The worst thing is to actually sell it at Walmart.

_Wal-Mart has the muscle to squeeze the absolute lowest costs from its suppliers. The company's renowned for not paying a cent more than it wants to, possessing unprecedented pricing power. Suppliers have to concede to Wal-Mart's wishes, as huge chunks of their revenues are increasingly tied to the retailer._ 

Walmart = slave labour overseas and her right at home. Lovely


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> There is some evidence to show, though, that members of a union are not always convinced of their union's goodness:


Of course this is true. But like any other democratic institution you can vote away your problems. An effective union requires an involved membership. Apathy and indifference will destroy any organization.



> members of a union aren't always happy being unionized


Until they have their rights stripped from them. Their wages dropped. Their conditions worsen. I have personally seen it happen. 

But this is after all Wal Mart we are talking about.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

there is no doubt in my mind- the sentiment that drives unionization in any org. is one that expresses the best interest of the worker. The reality of the situation is different. Unions, in practice, become bloated and rigid with their inibility to take into account shifts in the methods of capitalism. This is why a company like wal-mart ( would Candadian tire?) won't tolerate them. the squeeze on profiteering by workers (through benefits, wage increases) acts in opposition to the average capitalist's version of 'progress'. The person who puts up the cash to start the enterpris just shrugs and moves on to the next thing....(the wal-mart method) for the worker, at this point, all is moot... there still is no living to be made- needs are still not met::::conditions worsen.
either way, there is no winning


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Unions, in practice, become bloated and rigid with their inibility to take into account shifts in the methods of capitalism.


Do you mean the reaping of huge profits on the backs of the workers? Unions don't want the work to go away. They want to be treated fairly.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Unions don't want the work to go away. They want to be treated fairly.


does that explain why unions work best in environments where there is always work? ie: essential services: Canada Post, Airlines, Utilities?
and seldom work well in other environments? CAW, Retail, NHLPA


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Unions are for people who believe they need a Union. A Union is certified at a workplace only after a democratic decision, by the workers involved.
> 
> In my experience employers are the party in the workplace that generally drive the workers to want a union in the first place.
> 
> Unions are people organization and as such are operated to the level that the people in that Union truly desire or tolerate.


Sorry but in my experience, unions protect the unproductive and the lazy.

They were useful many years ago and forced government to make changes to protect all workers.

Union dues now only support "fat cats", usually American based, who rape workers for their dues.

Matter of fact, there are many unions right here in Canada who do the same.

Too bad.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I've seen two different unions in finding out how business' treat their employees. Their are those unions who only feed fat cats, are overly bureaucratic and in general useless at doing anything except take office politics to a new level. The other kind of union is usually much smaller but is actually made to represent the workers so they have one voice, usually just to bring any employee concerns to the employer.

When a union goes from acting as an in-between and intermediary for the employers and employees to being a barrier is when a problem occurs. It's because of this reason I feel that most unions today are flawed and think that getting rid of them in favour of a rebuild would be a better idea.

It's like political correctness, there only can be so much before it gets out of hand and we lose all sense of what is being said or being done.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You all need to ask yourselves if Unions are actualy the "answer"...

Or are they just a manifestation of the greater problem...

Nice time to step back and have a look from the back benches...don't you think?

Just a thought here...


----------



## avalonian (Jun 26, 2003)

Chealion said:


> I feel that most unions today are flawed and think that getting rid of them in favour of a rebuild would be a better idea


I'd wager that the fattest union cat still makes less money than the most meagerly remunerated CEO.

Even a corrupt Union is better than no union at all. It is much easier to reform a union by changing its leaders (they have mandated elections, you know) than to install one from scratch.

While we're getting rid of unions, we might as well burn the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms and the legislature and start all over, since everyone knows government is corrupt. 

Citizens and workers tend to take their rights for granted once acquired, expecting that they will always be there, so naturally accepted do they become. Without institutions to recognize and protect our rights, there is no hope for advancing them.

Unions are generally formed to conterbalance the power of an even more potentially (and practically) corrupt organizations called corporations. Now there's the place to start reforming!


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

> Sorry but in my experience, unions protect the unproductive and the lazy.

Gee Sinc, why so cranky lately?  
Look guys, if you honestly believe that all employers will treat employees fairly, pay a fair wage, never wrongfully dismiss someone, never favor one worker over another, never take advantage of workers, never put workers in dangerous situations, and on, and on... then you're just plain silly.

Yes, unions are susceptible to all the same human failings as corporations... corruption, abuse of power, dishonesty, etc.. But to actually believe that unions are completely unnecessary is insane.

I've seen examples of both good and bad unionism, but to not have unionism at all would create a gap between rich and poor that frightens the hell out of me. It's bad now, but without unions, we're screwed as a society. If you think that government, or government agencies, will provide the checks and balances, or that employers will police themselves, then it's time to give one's head a shake.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sorry if I came across as "cranky", but union shops with problem employees throw down the gauntlet and prevent employers from dismissing an employee who in any other circumstance would be let go immediately.

Been there, dealt with that and it is not pleasant for either management or fellow employees who bring complaints against the "problem" employee.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Even a corrupt Union is better than no union at all.


Unions are democratic organizations that hold elections. If the President and Executive board are corrupt, vote them out! The idea of eliminating unions to rely on the goodwill of corporations is an astonishing bit of faith, optimism and ultimately, naivety.

Unions and unionized workers have a long and bloody history of fighting for and accomplishing great things for the modern worker. It would be short sighted of us to assume that they are no longer effective and needed in the workplace. Show me some corporate track records that illustrate this new benevolence toward the worker (even the shareholder for that matter).

There will always be bad apples on both sides. But to say one needs to be eliminated is to not understand what unions as a whole accomplish on behalf of their membership. 

Without them, who would look out for the worker? Government? How much is the minimum wage again? I'd say the Government is looking out for Wal Mart.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Honestly, in my personal opinion, Unions have nothing of value to offer other than increasing the costs of services and/or goods above normal market value. They do nothing to help the community, and most often resort to scare tactics or physical threats to get what they want. There are times when my Dad had to go on strike where he would come home at the end of the day and tell me of stories where other members would threaten people with baseball bats. WTF?

My dad has been a pipe-fitter for the last 30 years and has yet to see any real value in being part of a union. It's just a political game of whomever can get the most people behind them for their own personal gain. I won't go into detail, but my dad had to go on stress leave because several of his coworkers felt it was their duty to give him (their boss) a hard time because they believed their "buddy" deserved his job more than my dad did. Honestly, the situation nearly drove him over the edge, and I can honestly say that if I ever cross paths with these "people," chances are they will be eating food through a straw.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I haven't been able to figure out how to post a link so here is a quote from today's Globe. The article refers to the topic of this thread:



> In an unrelated development, Ontario's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board reported yesterday that the company (Wal Mart) has been fined $500,000 after pleading guilty to 25 charges of failing to notify the WSIB within three days of learning of injuries to its employees.
> 
> The agreed statement of facts submitted to the Ontario Court of Justice does not disclose the severity of the injuries, but cites 25 occasions in the past four years where Wal-Mart failed to report injuries "which necessitated health care or resulted in the worker not being able to earn full wages."
> 
> With files from reporters Bertrand Marotte and Virginia Galt


Profits over people.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

didn't read this thread, so i don't know what is about.
And i don't shop at walmart, but do go there every 3 months or so to buy whatever litlle thing i might need when i'm in the mall anyways.
And what i' ve always notice, is that a lot of it's employees have "special needs", i don't know how to put it, people with dissabilities. So i always thought that was nice of the company, to employ a large number of people that couldn't get a job anywhere else. 
I still don't shead a tear nor support the store( i dislike walmarts) but that's kind of nice. Don't know how much they get paid though, if at all.
just commenting.


----------



## Bosco (Apr 29, 2004)

I live in a small town that just got a Wal Mart. While I probably agree with all the negative comments I have to tell you about our situation.

This is a resort town. There's a lot of minimum wage and seasonal/part time jobs here. WM fits right in. 

In TO you have many shopping alternatives. Boycotting WM is easy and no inconvenience whatsoever. Until we got WM, we had to drive an hour just to find a decent pair of kids underwear and socks. Gas ain't cheap! And I now have a cheaper source of blank CD's/DVD's. Paying a buck each for a CD is a little steep these days. There's also a better chance I'll find what I need there instead of driving to another town.

While I rarely go to WM, I am glad we have it here. You guys are spoiled for shopping in TO.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> And I now have a cheaper source of blank CD's/DVD's. Paying a buck each for a CD is a little steep these days. There's also a better chance I'll find what I need there instead of driving to another town.



That is the secret of their success. Their purchasing power enables them to sell items for fractions of what the smaller 'local' merchants would be able to sell them for = no more smaller local merchants.

I have spent a considerable amount of time in the US driving between many small towns and cities. It's shocking to see all of abadoned town centres. Stores boarded up. Just the occasional bank, sundry item store remains. Yet on the edge of town the behemoth awaits with ample parking, a TGI Fridays and $2 off electric kettles.


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

I think by comparing the US and Canada WalMart stores is like comparing apple and oranges.

When you look at Southern Ontario and where the WalMart stores are located, name me one of them that has caused a ghost town effect? Square One Mall? Edges of Etobicoke? Where in fact the other outlet malls down the street are thriving. How about Cambridge or Kitchener which I think has two now? Have any of those put all the other stores within the malls out of business? I don't know about you, but the one at Square One is always packed. So, who is boycotting these WalMart stores, 0.01% of the population or just Mac users 

Canadians do have a choice where they want to shop, they're not forced to shop at WalMart. I also believe we have such a different ethnic culture in Canada versus the US, that requires alternatives like high end shops.

Look at Toronto alone, man there are thousands of awesome high end shops to shop at. You have Eaton Centre area, Bloor and Yorkville area, Yonge Street, and so many many more places where exotic and expensive shops of all sorts exist. There is not a day that goes by where Merylin Dennis? on City TV doesn't have a host or information on some expensive store to find this and that at.

Aren't we a bunch of hypocrites here? How come people here always are looking to buy RAM else where instead of from their Local Apple Retailer? Are the local Apple Retailers not a mom and pop start up? Hell ya they are. Oh but we are always directed to Crucial or out of province to buy RAM to save on $$. How come you all go to Best Buy or Futureshop when it comes to buying blank media? You could easily spend higher costs and buy them from your local mom and pop shop Apple Retailer at a much higher cost. So why are you supporting the other guy? Answer is to SAVE $$$. 

I suppose most of you support your local corner food market instead of going to the big grocery stores, when buying food? How many of you shop at Loblaws versus No Frills or something like that? Remember you do have a choice, but when it comes to $$, money always talks.

Where I come from, I have seen the opposite happen. The No Frills and cheap stores were pushed out buy the big and expensive guys. So it does work both ways. There is no such thing as cheap around here when it comes to buying groceries. Now it comes down to who has what when and what is the customer service like?


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Urban_Legend said:


> Canadians do have a choice where they want to shop, they're not forced to shop at WalMart. I also believe we have such a different ethnic culture in Canada versus the US, that requires alternatives like high end shops.


Could you elaborate on this, please?
thanks, 
James


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

This seems like a fitting thread to reiterate my opinions vis-a-vis large retailers, especially foreign-owned ones, gobbling up marketshare. I have mentioned many times in various threads here the issues relating to smaller retailers as the occasion presents itself. Walmart is a grand example of this phenomenon. Apple is also an example as it's been actively killing off it's independent dealers in the States and looks poised to do the same thing here and elsewhere. Unfair trade practises abound. It's why for more than 25 years I've made, and encouraged others to do the same thing, choices with my wallet.

I NEVER shop at Walmart. I always choose a local supplier wherever possible over a national or international option where price and/or quality is similar. I always buy gasoline from a Canadian-owned retailer. I can't guarantee where the gasoline comes from but at least I know the profits from the retail sale stays in my community or my country. I shop at the communally-owned and locally operated Calgary Co-Op or the Canadian-owned Real Canadian Superstore (Loblaws out east) rather than Safeway. I look at labels so, when I see nachos made in the US and in Canada, I buy the Canadian ones which are, coincidentally, made in Calgary. I prefer to buy clothing made in Canada and sold by a Canadian firm. I buy locally produced beer wherever possible whether it's Granville Island in Vancouver, Upper Canada in Ontario or Big Rock here, to name but a few options. I wish I could buy more local produce but, in Alberta, that's rather difficult to do. However, it's easy to get Alberta beef - the best in the world I might add ;-). I choose BC apples over Washington State apples and so on and so forth.

After a while, it becomes a state of mind and awareness. The lowest possible price is not always the best deal. These actions benefit our communities and our country more than you can imagine. Moreover, local governments, that are often beat up for major tax concessions not offered to smaller businesses, would also benefit. If more of us followed these simple guidelines and steps, you may be surprised at the impact on our economy.


----------



## avalonian (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> union shops with problem employees throw down the gauntlet and prevent employers from dismissing an employee who in any other circumstance would be let go immediately.


While this agree this is a flaw in the system, let's put this into perspective. What is better, unions making an example out management by preventing firings or management making an example out of an employee by firing them? This kind of entrenchment is usually a sign that employees were not initially subject to accurate enough review during their probationary period and should have been legitimately fired a long time ago.


----------



## Bosco (Apr 29, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> That is the secret of their success. Their purchasing power enables them to sell items for fractions of what the smaller 'local' merchants would be able to sell them for = no more smaller local merchants.
> 
> I have spent a considerable amount of time in the US driving between many small towns and cities. It's shocking to see all of abadoned town centres. Stores boarded up. Just the occasional bank, sundry item store remains. Yet on the edge of town the behemoth awaits with ample parking, a TGI Fridays and $2 off electric kettles.


If you look around in TO you'll probably find cheaper prices in other stores. WM's not the cheapest source for CD's or anything else. It is in my area. In TO you can shop around and find better deals.

The WM hasn't had much affect here. Our downtown has always catered to the tourists and our Canadian Tire and Zellers are still thriving. In fact, they both expanded when WM announced their store. I'm sure there have been negative effects in other areas but here it's been a good thing.

The chain that I see as the bad guy is Blockbuster. We had a whack of video rental shops before they came to town and they're ALL gone. Our only option is this high priced, gouge you with late fees operation. I hate non-essential stores that stay open on Christmas.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

This is getting slightly off topic.

The thriving Zellers and Can Tires of which you speak are not Mom and Pop type businesses. They expanded when WM came in because they had to just to survive. The battle of the big box, filling them up with more and more crap. It's all the little hardware stores etc. Another implication is that what few little retailers remain are forced to move in these malls and we have to commute in order to do our shopping. Neighbourhoods are quickly becoming rows of house with cars buzzing in and out. No local shops, no walking, no community. This can't be healthy.

Man, I've railroaded my own thread.

Here's an interesting fact: There is a privately owned and operated building centre in Riverdale in Toronto. It has done very well for years. They keep the prices as low as possible and service is relaiable and second to none. A somewhat aging and decrepit mall complex a few blocks over suddenly has a huge vacant space and who is coming in? Home Depot. Well competition is healthy right? If people want to continue supporting the Building Centre they will, right? Well in fact, the owner has informed me that The Home Depot has made it quite clear to many of their common suppliers that they don't want them supplying goods to the Building Centre. n their (Home Depot's) words, they want certain products exclusively. They can have all the customer loyalty in the world but without products (at reasonable) prices they are dead in the water.

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

avalonian - Unions should be a good thing, but when the union begins to act like what they are supposed to protect against nothing gets done. I find the extra bureaucracy tedious. The best kind of unions facilitate getting stuff done instead of hampering it. They may have perfectly good reasons for doing it, but the side effects still hurt everyone in the long run.


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

Building Centre is a division of Rona. That is a healthy competition as one is Canadian and the other is American owned and operated. Unless there is another Building Centre company?

In my city we have both within a few blocks and both are thriving well together. The Rona and Home Depot in Cambridge which are practically within the same Mall complex, they both are thriving well.

Home Depot can try what they want, but if this is the same Building Centre division of Rona, then I wouldn't worry about anything. The suppliers are going to have to look at who they want to support, American or Canadian or both?

I have yet to see any Rona division run from Home Depot because of competition.

I have actually switched a lot of people who used to shop at Home Depot over to Rona. They had no idea that Rona was Canadian. Now they are happy to support a Canadian owned company and have thanked me later for switching them over.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

avalonian said:


> While this agree this is a flaw in the system, let's put this into perspective. What is better, unions making an example out management by preventing firings or management making an example out of an employee by firing them? This kind of entrenchment is usually a sign that employees were not initially subject to accurate enough review during their probationary period and should have been legitimately fired a long time ago.


The example I refer to was a long term sales employee who developed an addiction problem and refused to seek help or admit to the problem. Since the person was in a position which allowed them to be away from the building for hours at a time, much of it was spent in bars.

The share of the workload then had to be picked up by fellow sales reps who in turn complained to management. Our reputation for service to clients was being harmed in the process. A letter of discipline was issued demanding the person seek help or face dismissal. The union grieved the letter of warning and spent months derailing our attempts to solve the issue.

The union stewart was a friend and worked in another area, but defended the person to the very end. At the end the person was locked out of the building and terminated. The person sued with union support and a union lawyer.

Like I said, sometimes unions protect the wrong people and cause great stress to other union members and management who try to better their circumstances.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Urban_Legend said:


> I have actually switched a lot of people who used to shop at Home Depot over to Rona. They had no idea that Rona was Canadian. Now they are happy to support a Canadian owned company and have thanked me later for switching them over.


Exactly my point. That you for reiterating it. Vote with your wallet.


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

thejst,

I see Canada as the largest multicultural country in all of North America. This has caused many cities to adapt to certain cultures. Lets look at Toronto as an example. There are some parts of the GTA where you will find within 2 blocks of each other over 6-10 different cultural stores, restaurants, of all kinds sharing the same neighbourhood. Then you have your China town, Little Italy, Korea town, India etc... where you can buy things that are imported from countries like Italy for example. There is so much opportunity to experience a different culture by shopping in these places. A place like WalMart is not going to stop people from going to these shops now or ever. They will always thrive within those communities. Plus those people might even venture outside and shop at Walmart at some point.

Lets look at Vancouver, one would argue that IKEA cleared out every single mom and pop furniture store within a 100, 000 km of the IKEA in Richmond. Quite the opposite actually, not only is IKEA in Richmond, but right across from it are some high end European furniture stores. You want to go to WalMart in Vancouver? Last time I was there the only one was on the far side of North Vancouver shore. Only the serious WalMart shoppers venture out to that location. Funny how Robson Street still thrives today with all the mom and pop shops even with a WalMart across the bridge. 

I hope that answered your question, if not I will see if I can elaborate even further


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Building Centre is a division of Rona. That is a healthy competition as one is Canadian and the other is American owned and operated. Unless there is another Building Centre company?


Yes. I didn't want to refer directly to them. I use the term 'Building Centre' as the generic. I should have eliminated the caps. These guys are one of the last of the inner city building centre/ lumber yards, privately owned and operated. AKA Mom and Pop.


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

daBoss said:


> Exactly my point. That you for reiterating it. Vote with your wallet.


No problem,

The expressions they have on their faces is priceless. Plus Rona is a lot cheaper then Home Depot. The best example I can come up with is buying lumber. Why support Home Depot who is American owned and operated when buying lumber? Anyone forget the lumber issue that is still not resolved between Canada and the US? Why support the US? By going to Rona, you are supporting the Canadian lumber issue on this side of the border. That's just one example


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Yes. I didn't want to refer directly to them. I use the term 'Building Centre' as the generic. I should have eliminated the caps. These guys are one of the last of the inner city building centre/ lumber yards, privately owned and operated. AKA Mom and Pop.


I hope that they survive against Home Depot in that area then. It would be a shame to see them go.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Quite the opposite actually, not only is IKEA in Richmond, but right across from it are some high end European furniture stores.


They exist together because they are selling quite a different product.



> Last time I was there the only one was on the far side of North Vancouver shore. Only the serious WalMart shoppers venture out to that location. Funny how Robson Street still thrives today with all the mom and pop shops even with a WalMart across the bridge.


Because that is a unique to Vancouver or perhaps large urban centres. My observation of the retail abandonment in the states wasn't in big urban centres. It was smaller towns and communities. But I am sure the BBB's of towns and cities have the statistics regarding the emergence of Wal Marts and other big box type stores.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> I hope that they survive against Home Depot in that area then. It would be a shame to see them go.


I totally agree. People in my industry and many private contractors make a point of paying more for the service at this independant retailer, because of exactly that, service. You can call them and they will have it waiting by the door. You can pay them later if needed. You just need 1 screw, they give it to you. They pay fair wages/ offer good working conditions to their employees and therfore (EEK) have no need for a union. 

But soon the Depot will come.


----------



## mac4evr (Dec 15, 2004)

*Walmart et al...*



daBoss said:


> This seems like a fitting thread to reiterate my opinions vis-a-vis large retailers, especially foreign-owned ones, gobbling up marketshare. I have mentioned many times in various threads here the issues relating to smaller retailers as the occasion presents itself. Walmart is a grand example of this phenomenon. Apple is also an example as it's been actively killing off it's independent dealers in the States and looks poised to do the same thing here and elsewhere. Unfair trade practises abound. It's why for more than 25 years I've made, and encouraged others to do the same thing, choices with my wallet.
> 
> I NEVER shop at Walmart. I always choose a local supplier wherever possible over a national or international option where price and/or quality is similar. I always buy gasoline from a Canadian-owned retailer. I can't guarantee where the gasoline comes from but at least I know the profits from the retail sale stays in my community or my country. I shop at the communally-owned and locally operated Calgary Co-Op or the Canadian-owned Real Canadian Superstore (Loblaws out east) rather than Safeway. I look at labels so, when I see nachos made in the US and in Canada, I buy the Canadian ones which are, coincidentally, made in Calgary. I prefer to buy clothing made in Canada and sold by a Canadian firm. I buy locally produced beer wherever possible whether it's Granville Island in Vancouver, Upper Canada in Ontario or Big Rock here, to name but a few options. I wish I could buy more local produce but, in Alberta, that's rather difficult to do. However, it's easy to get Alberta beef - the best in the world I might add ;-). I choose BC apples over Washington State apples and so on and so forth.
> 
> After a while, it becomes a state of mind and awareness. The lowest possible price is not always the best deal. These actions benefit our communities and our country more than you can imagine. Moreover, local governments, that are often beat up for major tax concessions not offered to smaller businesses, would also benefit. If more of us followed these simple guidelines and steps, you may be surprised at the impact on our economy.


Right On!!!!

daBoss has it exactly.

A little more food for thought:
It just makes me nuts that folks have the temerity to purchase a technically sophisticated product at a big box store and then call or drop by my workplace for free support because they find out we offer the same or similar product.

Believe it; happens more often than you'd imagine. Explaining the value of time to expend/impart knowledge has become an oft used part of my work flow.


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> They exist together because they are selling quite a different product.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is a unique to Vancouver or perhaps large urban centres. My observation of the retail abandonment in the states wasn't in big urban centres. It was smaller towns and communities. But I am sure the BBB's of towns and cities have the statistics regarding the emergence of Wal Marts and other big box type stores.


Ok, so that leaves me a few questions for you.

1. Which mom and pop stores are selling Canadian brand clothing that are the same type like you find at WalMart?

2. What type of TV's or electronics are the same that the local mom and pop are selling from WalMart?

The mom and pop stores can exist together. It is the customer that makes the final choices. Do they buy no name brand TV's versus high end names? Do they buy cheap name brand clothing versus a little better from the other guys as an example?

The point is to your first quote above, is that WalMart and the other guy are selling totally different things as well.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> 1. Which mom and pop stores are selling Canadian brand clothing that are the same type like you find at WalMart?


One that immediately comes to mind is a little place in Toronto's east end called Max Wholsalers (yes they are retailers). Not quite sure how they've managed to survive.



> 2. What type of TV's or electronics are the same that the local mom and pop are selling from WalMart?


I'm not really sure what you mean by this but with electronics, I think it all has to do with proximity. Downtown Toronto (Yonge Street) is rife with little to mid size electronic shops thast seem to be holding their own. There isn't a Wal Mart within a mile of these places. Again, a big city phenomenon. 

It would be interesting to contact the Coburg Ontario (picked at random) BBB and see the stats re. small business closures after the big box (Wal Marts) came to town.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... I can't guarantee where the gasoline comes from but at least I know the profits from the retail sale stays in my community or my country. ..."
-DaBoss, Calgary
quoted by Macs4ever, Calgary

Well, I can guarantee that in Calgary, the crude oil comes from Alberta or Saskatchewan. Oil and natural gas is not imported into Canada west of the Manitoba/Ontario border, except for the lower mainland of BC. Most of it is exported to the US, but all domestic consumption is Canadian in the west.

East of that border, it's mostly Venezuelan crude. Eastern and Atlantic Canada does produce some oil and gas, but nowhere near as much as they consume; the majority is foreign sourced. No oil or gas makes it from the west to the east in Canada.

As for the wholesale profits, they could easily be going to a foreign company, as could the profits from refining. If you stick to Husky Oil and Coop Gas stations in Alberta and Saskatchewan, those profits stay in Canada.

For the other retail brands, if the station is independently owned (many are corporate owned) then the retail profits may stay in Canada.

It is difficult to know whether or how much of your gas money stays in Canada. As of 1994 53.7% of the Oil and Gas industry (based on revenue) was foreign owned. This is down from nearly 80% in 1971 but I think it may be moving up again (eg the Federal Government recently sold it's last shares in Petro-Canada, 18% of total shares, and most of them were bought by foreigners).


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> Chealion said: I've seen two different unions in finding out how business' treat their employees. Their are those unions who only feed fat cats, are overly bureaucratic and in general useless at doing anything except take office politics to a new level. The other kind of union is usually much smaller but is actually made to represent the workers so they have one voice, usually just to bring any employee concerns to the employer.


Bureaucratically run unions in my opinion often reflect the comfort level of the membership of those unions. As an example upon cursory examination I find employees of government (as the employer) seem to have a bureaucracy built into their Union’s constitution. These Constitutions are democratically voted upon before put into effect.

An example of a basic misunderstanding of unions. Unions’ roles have expanded over time. The view that unions exists to “bring any employees concerns to the employer” is not a basic role of the union. The union’s primary role, on behalf of its members in the workplace, is to insure that the employer respects the LAW. That is the law of private contract and/or applicable Federal and/or Provincial and/or Municipal laws.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> MannyP Design said: “Honestly, in my personal opinion, Unions have nothing of value to offer other than increasing the costs of services and/or goods above normal market value. They do nothing to help the community, and most often resort to scare tactics or physical threats to get what they want.”


Western Countries that have high rates of Unionisation tend more towards social safety nets in their societies. Countries that have lower rates of unionism tend to have lower social safety nets in their societies. Look at France, Germany, Italy. Canada has roughly 1/3 of the workforce unionised. In the USA the rates of unionised workers is around 10%. I think unions have contributed positively for many Canadians even those that are not union members.

Western Countries that have high rates of Unionisation tend more towards social safety nets in their societies. Countries that have lower rates of unionism tend to have lower social safety nets in their societies. Look at France, Germany, Italy. Canada has roughly 1/3 of the workforce unionised. In the USA the rates of unionised workers is around 10%. I think unions have contributed positively for many Canadians even those that are not union members.



> MannyP Design said: “My dad has been a pipe-fitter for the last 30 years and has yet to see any real value in being part of a union.”


Your father made minimum wages with no hopes for retirement?



> MannyP Design said: “I won't go into detail, but my dad had to go on stress leave because several of his coworkers felt it was their duty to give him (their boss) a hard time because they believed their "buddy" deserved his job more than my dad did.”


I am sorry to hear about your father and hope he is recovering or has recovered from his ordeal. 

Bullying and harassment are terrible situations to deal with at workplace. It is however the employer's responsibility under law to provide harassment free work environment. 

When I was a Union Representative I have received harassment complaints. Investigated the allegations. By times we were able to successfully remediated the situation amongst the union’s membership.

In one particular case however, the union’s remediation attempt failed. With no hope of having the harasser modify (“just stop”) the offending behaviour the Union’s only recourse was to advise the Employer. The Union provided the Employer with the results of the Union’s investigation. The Union further advised the Employer to complete a thorough investigation of their own.

In the end the “harasser” was fired. The Union advised the harasser that the Union would not entertain any sort of grievance regarding the termination.

Why would the Union act in such a manner? It is because the anti harassment language under the Union’s constitution superior to any anti harassment provisions in Provincial or Federal Law. Remember, in a union, the concept of brother and sister is more than quaint archaic language from some bye-gone-day.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> The example I refer to was a long term sales employee who developed an addiction problem and refused to seek help or admit to the problem. Since the person was in a position which allowed them to be away from the building for hours at a time, much of it was spent in bars.
> 
> The share of the workload then had to be picked up by fellow sales reps who in turn complained to management. Our reputation for service to clients was being harmed in the process. A letter of discipline was issued demanding the person seek help or face dismissal. The union grieved the letter of warning and spent months derailing our attempts to solve the issue.
> 
> ...


What I have read is a person with a disability was fired. 

Alcoholism is a disease. This disease is a disability and is well recognised as such under human rights legislation. Even though I have never reviewed Alberta’s Human Rights legislation I believe it is recoginised as a disease/disability in that jurisdiction. I believe that today it would be a discriminatory act to dismiss a disabled employee.

However the firing might be a “rock bottom” event and act as a catalyst that would cause the “salesperson” to seek help for this disability. Addiction is a disease that has a powerful grip on the afflicted person.

Hopefully the Union will work with this member to assist with addiction counseling and treatment. Along with this type of aid by the union and with a successful outcome of the grievance, the salesperson may be able to turn his life around. 

I believe everyone could support such an out come.

I fear that in the case described the Union would have an obligation under law *not* to discriminate against a disabled person. If the Union failed to live up to its obligations the union would be as guilty of discrimination as the employer.


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

Here is a thought,

Instead of hi-jacking the thread with another 3-6 pages of Union dribble, start a thread on Unions?


----------



## smilecentral (Jan 27, 2005)

I think that unions really don't have a place in our society anymore - or at least they need drastic overhalls.

I'll be the first to admit that unions have made incredible strides over the years. My father and brother work for the CAW in the motor city Canada - Windsor, ON. That city, like no other place I've ever been is uniontown. You don't DARE speak against the union. The union is the church. The union is god.

I've worked in an auto plant myself as a student and seen first hand how the CAW is run. It's a joke. It's disgusting. All the time I saw workers sneak off for some drinks at the bar halfway through their shift, or workers cover for each other while they take naps on their shifts, or leave early. My dad tells me stories all the time to boot. These workers think that so much is owed to them. That they need not work hard to earn their (VERY HIGH) pay. Please! 

The worst however, is witnessing drivers (i.e. jitneys, forklifts, etc) come into work or operate while drunk or high or whatever. They get warning after warning, but the union protects these people. It's horribly disgusting and frankly dangerous. After a while they may get 3 day suspension for an offence, then 7 days, then 2 weeks, then a month, then 3 months....and it continues - it's something like 7-8 offences before you're fired. Why? If caught drinking and driving outside of the plant, these people would be thrown into jail after 7-8 offences, if not earlier! I understand alcoholism is a disease, and they are offered and often receive treatment (though many refuse and just continue their habits). But that doesn't make their actions any less safe. And how can you defend sleeping on the job night after night? Why can't an employer be free to fire people for these things right away? No, they get union protection. It's junk.

And then there is the harassment you take for driving a non-big 3 car. It's been known that people on the street will get harrassed or worse (especially around contract negotionation/strike time) if they drive a Honda, or a VW. What they hell? Is Canada not a free country? There shouldn't be a billboard smear campaign guilting people into buying Ford or GM or Chrysler. It's one thing to advertise your own product, it's another to practically threaten those who choose to purchase something else.


----------



## Howard2k (Feb 9, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Unions are for people who believe they need a Union. A Union is certified at a workplace only after a democratic decision, by the workers involved.
> 
> In my experience employers are the party in the workplace that generally drive the workers to want a union in the first place.
> 
> Unions are people organization and as such are operated to the level that the people in that Union truly desire or tolerate.



There is an example right now of a union trying to acquire workers into their union without even giving those workers the option of a vote.

How is that democratic? If you work in a certain position within the company you belong to the union whether you like it or not. That's not a people oriented organization.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Howard2k said:


> There is an example right now of a union trying to acquire workers into their union without even giving those workers the option of a vote.
> 
> How is that democratic? If you work in a certain position within the company you belong to the union whether you like it or not. That's not a people oriented organization.


Please explain your example. To my knowledge within every jurisdiction in Canada it is required that the majority of workers (simple majority 50% plus one) in a given bargaining unit must signify his/her desire to join the Union. That *is* democracy.

Unions have to have government’s authorization (certification) to represent the workers where a majority of those workers have signified her/his desire to join the union.

If the union and the employer can't agree with regard to who is in or out of the bargaining unit then it is the Government that makes that decision for the parties. 

If you know of a jurisdiction that has some other method for unions to “acquire” workers please provide concrete examples.


----------



## Howard2k (Feb 9, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Please explain your example. To my knowledge within every jurisdiction in Canada it is required that the majority of workers (simple majority 50% plus one) in a given bargaining unit must signify his/her desire to join the Union. That *is* democracy.
> 
> Unions have to have government’s authorization (certification) to represent the workers where a majority of those workers have signified her/his desire to join the union.
> 
> ...



If I can find some public domain information on it, I'll post it. If not then you might have to wait until that particular dispute is over.

But (genuinely) hypothetically - if two companies merge and the WorkerA description in the larger company is bargain then the WorkerA description in the smaller company would then not get the chance to vote right? since the majority (larger company) are bargain. They would just be assimilated.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Was I wrong thinking re. this thread?*



Urban_Legend said:


> Here is a thought,
> 
> Instead of hi-jacking the thread with another 3-6 pages of Union dribble, start a thread on Unions?





> mrjimmy said: “How to get rid of Wal Mart in Canada Unionize! Abolish wage slavery...”


Gee and I thought this thread was based WallyWorld’s (Walmart’s) view of the state of Canadian Industrial Relations and WallyWorlds refusal to respect the democratic rights and freedoms enjoyed by workers in Quebec. Workers who were tired of dealing with a hard nosed boss individually. Workers who thought collectively they may improve her/his conditions of work. Silly me!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*In answer to your question*



Howard2k said:


> If I can find some public domain information on it, I'll post it. If not then you might have to wait until that particular dispute is over.
> 
> But (genuinely) hypothetically - if two companies merge and the WorkerA description in the larger company is bargain then the WorkerA description in the smaller company would then not get the chance to vote right? since the majority (larger company) are bargain. They would just be assimilated.


In answer to the situation you posed I would suggest it would be far more complicated than your example. 

On the balance of probabilities, the employer, would not desire to deal with a Union and would work to that end.

At the very least the employer would wish to have another (certification) vote to see if the majority of the amalgamated work place still wanted a Union to represent the “new” bargaining unit. 

I hope this is helpful.


----------



## avalonian (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> The person sued with union support and a union lawyer. Like I said, sometimes unions protect the wrong people and cause great stress to other union members and management who try to better their circumstances.


I think you've inadvertently made a very important point here.
We must differentiate between unions protecting the wrong people and the wrong people using union bureaucracies to protect themselves (I'm not saying that's what happened here).

A problem with any legislation is that it is often a two way street. It can be used as much for good as for selfish pursuits. The way to curb abuses is to invest in education and culture, to create an ethical populace, not to write more draconian laws.

To bring it back home, Walmart will likely never unionize because their concern is not their workers' well bieng but rather their own bottom line. And - I am generalizing here - Walmart workers have already made a conscious decision to support the corporation with their labour power; the likelihood that the majority of workers there would have a strong ethical backbone seems slim to me. Nevertheless, where time and time again do employees try and unionize the monster corporations like Walmart, McDonald's, Chapters? --Canada. I think it says something about our society. What exactly is hard to say. In the case of Walmart workers, I'd wager their interest in forming a union is more capitalistic than socialist...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> What I have read is a person with a disability was fired.
> 
> Alcoholism is a disease. This disease is a disability and is well recognised as such under human rights legislation. Even though I have never reviewed Alberta’s Human Rights legislation I believe it is recoginised as a disease/disability in that jurisdiction. I believe that today it would be a discriminatory act to dismiss a disabled employee.
> 
> ...


Didn't happen in Alberta. Took place in the early 90's, long before it was classed as a disability.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

gordguide said:


> "As for the wholesale profits, they could easily be going to a foreign company, as could the profits from refining. If you stick to Husky Oil and Coop Gas stations in Alberta and Saskatchewan, those profits stay in Canada.


I guess I wasn't specific enough. As an Albertan, I know where the oil comes from. I MEANT that I couldn't vouch for the ownership of the refinery and the rest of the process before the product hits the pump. Your point is well taken though.


----------



## Howard2k (Feb 9, 2005)

BigDL said:


> In answer to the situation you posed I would suggest it would be far more complicated than your example.
> 
> On the balance of probabilities, the employer, would not desire to deal with a Union and would work to that end.
> 
> ...


source: http://www.telusmobility.com/about/press_room/releases/20040520_cirb.html



TELUS comments on Canada Industrial Relations Board's TELE-MOBILE decision



> Vancouver, B.C., May 21, 2004 - In its Decision 1088 issued today, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) declared that TELE-MOBILE COMPANY, which operates a national wireless business under the TELUS Mobility trade name, and TELUS Communications Inc. (TCI), a wireline business, are a single employer for labour relations purposes.
> 
> The CIRB also determined that TELUS Mobility's non-unionized team members, predominantly located in Ontario and Quebec, performing work similar to their unionized Mobility counterparts in Alberta and British Columbia, *should be included in the Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU) bargaining unit without a representational vote.*


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Howard2k said:


> Aren't the unions only for people who can't hold jobs in a competitive environment?


Funny, I was just thinking about people like you the other day when I was watching the documentary "Westray". Try watching it yourself and think again.


----------



## Howard2k (Feb 9, 2005)

Lol I'm not sure whether to be insulted or not. I would suggest that thinking of 'people like me' fromy mere 40 posts here would be naive 

But I've never seen Westray, so I'd like to be enlightened.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Sorry Howard2k - I meant no insult. By "people like you" I meant people who make negative comments about unions. I hope you do watch (or read) Westray. As a former union member myself I could also take offence at your implication that I am unable to hold a job in a competitive environment.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just read back over this whole long thread.

Guess what? I've got a bulletin for ya....

Wal-Mart is not going away. And the unions, both big and small are in their death throes, right as we speak. Wal-Mart has been growing every single year since 1962. Unions have been dying since about the same time. One entity is rapidly expanding, and one is rapidly vanishing, from the social landscape.

This is reality. Just like the worldwide death of socialism and the worldwide rise of capitalism.

Deal with it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Excuse Me?*



Wolfshead said:


> By "people like you" I meant people who make negative comments about unions.


So let me get this straight. I am not allowed to have an opinion because I believe unions have run their useful purpose?


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

people like them despise people like that, that's why people like me fight people like you, people!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

*Can't believe I'm taking MacNutt's bait...*

The role of the union is to give a voice to those who have none. I would fear for a world without this. , 
There was a very interesting article I read today about how Wal Mart 'Associates' in the U.S. can't afford the health care their employer offers them for a 'fee'. This kind of situation begs to ask the question of how unions have "run their useful purpose". When conditions like this (and a million others from a million different employers) exist, who speaks for the workers? The role of the union is as, if not more important today than ever before. With the ever increasing revealing of our corrupted and corruptable corporate citizens (who by the way will even screw the shareholders) how can any of us say unions are no longer needed? Are we that naive to think that corporations take care of their employees or that mean spirited to think that people should simply look out for themselves?

Now for some responses:



> Wal-Mart is not going away.


 It is in Quebec.




> And the unions, both big and small are in their death throes, right as we speak.


 Not the one I belong to. In fact, it is growing stronger by the day. (CEP)



> This is reality. Just like the worldwide death of socialism and the worldwide rise of capitalism.


 I think that was being chanted in 1930's Germany


Unions exist to help, not harm. To disagree with their politics is one thing. They can become as unwieldy as our bloated government. This is something unions as a whole need to work on. Wouldn't you rather live in a world where people work for their fair share rather than be exploited by the few? Wage slavery does exist. And we all should be ashamed of that.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Wait a minute Sinc - what exactly is your problem? I never said you weren't entitled to an opinion. There was no hidden agenda in what I said. I simply stated MY opinion. I explained honestly to Howard 2k what I meant by "people like you" and can only assume my explanation was accepted by him, since he didn't respond further. At no time did I suggest that you, or anyone else, were not entitled to express an opinion. Please explain your objection to what I said.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Wal-Mart is NOT going away....and certainly NOT in Quebec.

The union in question recently polled the locals...and then decided not to try and stage a boycott. Guess why?

Public support for unions is at an all-time low right now...and is sinking fast.

This whole movement has run it's course. Like SINC has so ably noted..."they had their day". Now it's over.


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

WalMart is successful because people have forsaken supporting their locally owned stores, just because you could get almost everything cheaper at WalMart.

Why do we do this? Don't we all want to pay as little as possible for any item? Is this the only thing we should consider in life? Thus we are all responsible for the success of WalMart. Now we complain how successful WalMart is!!

Don't we also support the ridiculous incomes all these overpaid, steriod consuming athletes make? Don't we make all those talentless, but good looking "singers", rich by supporting them?

We do lots of things wrong, including making WalMart the most succesful retail company ever.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Tell you what...

Stand in the checkout line behind a guy at Canadian Tire or Wal-Mart who has several union buttons on his cap. Ask him why he is buying the cheap Taiwanese shovel for fifteen bucks instead of the Canadian union-made shovel for forty-five bucks.

THEN get right back to me, and let me know what you've discovered about human nature, and the ultimate future of unions. Might be quite illuminating for you.

I'll wait here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Attaboy MacNutt. Tell 'em how it really is! 

(You're right on in regards to the issue!)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I calls em as I sees em. Simple as that.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Wal-Mart is NOT going away....and certainly NOT in Quebec.


So they're not closing the store that was attempting to negotiate a collective agreement? News to me.

Article 

If you think union support in Quebec (where the locals were polled) is at an all time low you are incredibly misinformed. 

This fear of the communist menace thing is getting a bit tired. A system that overlooks the workers in favour of profits is dangerous at best. Close the gap between the rich and poor and see things get better. It's such a simple equation.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I wonder how much WalMart employees make contrasted to those who work at "mom & pop" businesses doing the same job.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sinc.

I am quoting you from the Wal Mart thread at Magic:




> Wal-Mart's closing of that store is pure politics. It is a shameful act, designed to send a message to all other Wal-Mart employees that if they unionize, they will face the same fate. That is a tactic that should be banned in Canada, unless they can prove the store in question is not profitable.


Article 

Yes it is a tactic that should be banned in Canada. Yes it is shameful. So, besides legislating it away...what other recourse than a union to deal with unscrupulous employers? Boycotts? Perhaps. But there is always the need of a $15 dollar shovel.

You can hate unions for unions sake but come up with an alternative. Or do you let our system run itself and watch from your gated community as the gap grows larger between the rich and poor.

Keep a gun under you pillow.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Toronto Star Article 

Yet another benefit of a union.


----------



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

thejst said:


> This is a bit old now, but it sheds some light into the labour (yes, I'm British) practices of Walmart.
> James



"Labour" is not just British. It is Canadian too.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Employees vote down union at Windsor Wal Mart.

Article 

What a sad state of affairs. I know that historically it has been difficult to organize more transient professions like retail but the allegations of scare tactics don't surprise me. Do these workers somehow believe that they are better off without higher wages, benefits and generally better working conditions? 

I'm sure Wal Mart is not like Magna International, a company who legitimately offered compensation to their employees greater than that of the CAW contract. One in a million.

Keep fighting the fight. People over profits.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

could it be that they prefer their lower wages over being unemployed?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> could it be that they prefer their lower wages over being unemployed?


I'm sure that is exactly the position Wal Mart takes when they hire or there is any talk of unionizing. It seems to be the only trump card for management. Personally I don't believe that every company faced with unionization will close. Will Wal Mart move out of urban areas because of unionization? I would bet no. That would spell their demise. That is why they fight unions so hard and use intimidation like your statement to keep their workers in check.


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> That is why they fight unions so hard and use intimidation like your statement to keep their workers in check.


Recently you talked about getting into the video business, don't get into the professional video business because you will have to deal with unions. ACTRA, IATSE, NABET and more. You won't be able to compete with anyone when you start paying union wages.

John


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Recently you talked about getting into the video business, don't get into the professional video business because you will have to deal with unions. ACTRA, IATSE, NABET and more. You won't be able to compete with anyone when you start paying union wages.


I belong to one of the above. I've also done my share of non-union work in this industry. I have witnessed and been part of the exploitation first hand.

Also, it is not the unions that kept production levels low in the last few years, it is the tax incentives and the dollar. Hollywood producers choose to go with IATSE when they shoot in Toronto. They could use NABET (cheaper) or even go non-union. They choose to go with the more expensive, more experience union. Riddle me this.



> You won't be able to compete with anyone when you start paying union wages.


Although if we all have to pay these wages to operate, then exists a level playing field.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

*Take that!*

Chalk one more up for organized labour



> Ex-Wal-Mart workers win battle
> 
> By RHÉAL SÉGUIN
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Don't you feel that WalMart kinda won in the end,the store is closed after all?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Canadian Tire is unionized. Still crappy environment and crappy wages.


----------



## wedgeporter (Aug 17, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> I belong to one of the above. I've also done my share of non-union work in this industry. I have witnessed and been part of the exploitation first hand.
> 
> Also, it is not the unions that kept production levels low in the last few years, it is the tax incentives and the dollar. Hollywood producers choose to go with IATSE when they shoot in Toronto. They could use NABET (cheaper) or even go non-union. They choose to go with the more expensive, more experience union. Riddle me this.
> 
> ...


Being a lowly Yank, the impression down here is that Hollywood moved production north to avoid <US> unions. 

How does NAFTA play in this, if at all?

For Wal-Mart, the more Quebec-type rulings, the sooner things will change for their workers. (for the better).

I've been saying (since post-Soviet/Berlin Wall) "Be careful what you wish for. You feared world-wide communism. Now you've got world-wide capitalism."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vexel said:


> Canadian Tire is unionized. Still crappy environment and crappy wages.


and crappy service


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

Vexel said:


> Canadian Tire is unionized. Still crappy environment and crappy wages.


Where? Not in Ontario.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

mikef said:


> Where? Not in Ontario.


and very crappy service here in shangri-la, ontario
i had to stop shopping at cdn. tire because the service so lousy
the workers actually run away if they see you might have a question


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

Even if they stuck around to answer questions, they are generally useless. Pay nothing to their employees, and get nothing in return. I've long given up on department store "customer service". It doesn't exist.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The reality is is that the market is divided in two. Those who value service, and those who value price. Those who believe they can get the lowest price and the best service are deluding themselves.

Unions can affect this is a positive or negative way. Someplace like Walmart will never give you the level of service you would receive at a boutique shop. It wouldn't matter what the union did for employees.

Giving employees decent wages doesn't necessarily gaurantee a level of service either. It is generally about work conditions. Even if you paid a Walmart employee $20/hour, they would still be miserable because they have to spend 8 hours a day scanning dented cans of Beef-A-Roni.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mikef, you should come to see the Furture Shop, and the new Home Depot and the new Canadian Tire stores here in St.John's. Service is reliable and prompt, and the customer service folks will readily take care of any problems that arise. Now, if I could just get Newtel, our Bell telephone/internet provider, to get its act together, all would be fine by me.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

I would rather go into a store where there is someone working that I can talk to, not talk down to.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Didn't read the whole thread.

But I seriously doubt if anyone could EVER get rid of Wal-Mart. ANYWHERE! 

The only things that could kill it are the following:

-Unionisation across the chain and the massive strikes for huge pay and benefit increases that would come from this. (people would begin to shop elsewhere while they were shut down)

-If the Union members all across Canada...most of whom regularly shop at non-union Wal-Mart...were to be dismayed by the higher prices at a newly unionised Wal-Mart, and decided to go elsewhere to spend their money. 

Yep. That would kill it. Sure as hell. 

But then something else just LIKE Wal-Mart would spring up to take it's place. Non-union, very likely...and with ultra cheap prices. Which would attract all of the union types when they went to spend their paychecks.

And so the cycle goes. It's simple market forces at work. Nothing more, nothing less.

Trust me on this.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> -If the Union members all across Canada...most of whom regularly shop at non-union Wal-Mart...were to be dismayed by the higher prices at a newly unionised Wal-Mart, and decided to go elsewhere to spend their money.


Wal Mart won't raise their prices MacNutt - that would kill business - they would take the increases out of their ballooning profits. That's a boohoohoo if I've ever heard one. Poor old Wal Mart...




> But I seriously doubt if anyone could EVER get rid of Wal-Mart. ANYWHERE!


They have so far in Quebec. 



> -If the Union members all across Canada...most of whom regularly shop at non-union Wal-Mart...


Where do you get your information from? (Ass)umption U? Is it correspondance or did you actually have to attend classes?

Cheap prices equal some form of exploitation or another. Do we justify low wages because these poor unfortunate sods can still shop at Wal Mart? Without the people, there is no product, period.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Mikef, you should come to see the Furture Shop, and the new Home Depot and the new Canadian Tire stores here in St.John's. Service is reliable and prompt, and the customer service folks will readily take care of any problems that arise.


I've always heard that people on the rock are much nicer/friendlier than most other Canadians, so I'm sure that has something to do with it 

Customer service is most retail stores in Ontario is appalling.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Not much to do with Unions, but here's an interesting link on Walmart:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mikef, I am not sure if it has anything to do with being a Newfoundlander or Labradorian, but the only run-ins I have had are with the phone company (Aliant, which is based in Halifax), StarChoice (based in Calgary) and Apple Canada (staffed somewhere with people who think Newfoundland and Labrador is in Europe). Other than that, I have written letters of "kudos" to the folks at CIBC, Dominion (Loblaws), Sobeys, HomeDepot and Can. Tire about the fine service I have received by various people, whom I mention by name. I have received either a letter or a phone call from a VP in Customer Service (or higher) each time. I had to threaten to take Aliant to court and contact the media before I could get them to give me back my DSL connection.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

PenguinBoy said:


> Not much to do with Unions, but here's an interesting link on Walmart:
> 
> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html


PenguinBoy Good Article and fits with the title of the thread. The answer to get rid of wally world was coined by Nancy RayGun ... Just Say No! ... to Wally World. 

I do, why won't you?


----------

