# so you like to shop at Walmart eh!



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/business/02walmart.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Wal-Mart to Add Wage Caps and Part-Timers

couple nice quotes from the article:
"some Wal-Mart workers say the changes are further reducing their already modest incomes and putting a serious strain on their child-rearing and personal lives. Current and former Wal-Mart workers say some managers have insisted that they make themselves available around the clock, and assert that the company is making changes with an eye to forcing out longtime higher-wage workers to make way for lower-wage part-time employees."

"These moves have been unfolding in the year since Wal-Mart’s top human resources official sent the company’s board a confidential memo stating, with evident concern, that experienced employees were paid considerably more than workers with just one year on the job, while being no more productive"

and

"At several stores in Florida, employees said, managers have suddenly barred older employees with back or leg problems from sitting on stools after using them for years while working as cashiers, store greeters or fitting-room attendants. "


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

See the parallel at Loblaws


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

I dont LIKE to shop at walmart, but they are one stop shopping for me. 

I'm going to get out of the habit of going there.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

profits before people


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

I'm sorry, but this is pretty common practice in the business world. It sucks, but that is business. People just like to vilify WalMart in whatever way possible, even when it's practices are used elsewhere in the corporate world without anyone batting an eyelash.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Coming from an Independent store manager, I have to totally disagree with Modsuperstar.
We value out employees, so much that we pay them more money to keep them around, they are knowledgable and hard working, if they weren't they'd be let go.
We rely on morale. Wal-Mart does not. If we had employees like Wal-Mart and paid them as such we would NOT be more profitable. If even in business anymore.
I assume you mean all major chains think as Wal Mart. Not businesses in general.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

modsuperstar said:


> I'm sorry, but this is pretty common practice in the business world. It sucks, but that is business. People just like to vilify WalMart in whatever way possible, even when it's practices are used elsewhere in the corporate world without anyone batting an eyelash.


Wally World gives every opportunity to be vilified.

Wally World is in first place in the race to the bottom. :greedy: The vacuum left in its wake draws down others. Not to mention that wally world not only draws the retail sector down but encourages suppliers to engage in the race to the bottom in order to roll back prices. DON'T SHOP WalMartXX)


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

modsuperstar said:


> I'm sorry, but this is pretty common practice in the business world. It sucks, but that is business. People just like to vilify WalMart in whatever way possible, even when it's practices are used elsewhere in the corporate world without anyone batting an eyelash.


Why are you sorry? And you think it's just because people like to vilify Walmart? No substance behind it?

You really think people dismiss it when other companies do it, but not when Walmart does? Because we all love to hate Walmart.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

BigDL said:


> DON'T SHOP WalMartXX)


I wish I could afford to shop there less. Although it is not at the top of my frequency list by any means. Still, every event like this puts one more nail in the coffin. I guess it would help a lot more if other chains were noticeably better. I know that smaller stores tend to be better almost always, but I can rarely afford their prices, sadly. Still, I've given up coffee for wont of a moral, affordable source. (Will I do the same for tea? I should. And yet, no caffeine would be, among other things, exceedingly unsafe what with all my driving.) We'll see what else can be trimmed so that I don't have to give Walmart any more money.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

Obviously my statement needs some clarification. The practice of squeezing out high payed, older employees happens in the corporate world more often then in small business. Elric, as you run a music shop it makes perfect sense to have people who know music working in your shop. That kind of experience is valuable in that type of setting. In WalMart, what really seperates an employee that's learned the ropes for a year and one that's been there for 10? It's a joe job, so I doubt there are that many intricacies that require experienced, highly paid staff.

And Darkscot, my point about WalMart being vilified stems from the fact that this was even posted. I doubt if Zellers did the same thing you would have posted it.

Now with all that said, I'm not a WalMart supporter, but I do think they get painted with the evil brush a bit too often. I read an article last week about their practices of employing more people for less instead of less people for more, which does make sense. It's all checks and balances. If WalMart pays more to their employees then they'll have to employ less people to compensate for this fact.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> I wish I could afford to shop there less.


As my wife is fond of saying, "there are two ways to be rich, having more or wanting less." I'm hardly wealthy, but I manage to *never* shop at walmart on principle (my mother, who is quite wealthy, shops there all the time "because it's so cheap!"... sigh).



> Still, I've given up coffee for wont of a moral, affordable source.


I've been buying my coffee beans from Just Us coffee roasters co-op (http://www.justuscoffee.com/). They'll ship you organically grown, Fair-trade coffee and tea at very reasonable prices. I haven't tried all their roasts, but I'm working my way through a bag of Italian Dark Roast which is very nice.



> We'll see what else can be trimmed so that I don't have to give Walmart any more money.


Gotta do what you can, and then not stress about what you can't do today. As your sig says "it's not too late to build a better world."

Cheers


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> I read an article last week about their practices of employing more people for less instead of less people for more, which does make sense. It's all checks and balances. If WalMart pays more to their employees then they'll have to employ less people to compensate for this fact.


This makes sense? 

Create an army of wage slaves as opposed to compensating a minority fairly? Is this practice a good precedent to set? It's ok to pay low wages because we employ lots and lots of people?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I had a friend who worked at Costco while going to university. He said they treated and paid their employees well.

My sister worked at Walmart when she went to university and she didn't have too many complaints. Wouldn't want a career their though.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I try not to shop at places that I've seen treat their employees in a way I don't consider appropriate. I don't make the assumption that because it's small, it's better for the employees. This primarily applies to restaurants because I don't spend much time in stores -- I rarely 'browse' for more than a couple minutes.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> This makes sense?
> 
> Create an army of wage slaves as opposed to compensating a minority fairly? Is this practice a good precedent to set? It's ok to pay low wages because we employ lots and lots of people?


I just too a look for this article I mentioned but can't track it down, I may have seen it on my home computer. The jist of the article was essentially if WalMart did opt to spend more money and paid their employees more they would have to layoff a large percentage of workers. WalMart employs 1.7 million people . The article compared Home Depot to WalMart and the size of their workforces. Both are large companies, but Home Depot employs 1/4 of the amount of people. If per say WalMart decided to raise wages and chop 3/4 of their workforce and move their workforce to be more inline with Home Depot, that would be a loss of 1.275 million jobs. While this is unrealistic, it would definitely, single-handedly put the economy into a recession.

About the "army of wage slaves" as you put it, I see it as better to be putting money in more people's pockets then to have loads of unskilled workers collecting welfare on my dime.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

So let me get this straight, is Wal Mart doing we, the taxpayers, a service by employing all these potential welfare collectors at sub standard wages?


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

Walmart offers a large amount of employment opportunities to entry level employees, students, people with disabilities, working seniors and many other walks of life. Walmart is doing the economy a favour by offering employment to people.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> As my wife is fond of saying, "there are two ways to be rich, having more or wanting less." I'm hardly wealthy, but I manage to *never* shop at walmart on principle (my mother, who is quite wealthy, shops there all the time "because it's so cheap!"... sigh).


Yeah. Cheap quality, too. We've got it down to a very few things there. Milk is a lot cheaper, and we drink a lot of that. The occasional sale item. But in terms of the source of their inventory, I don't think Zellers or Food Basics are particularly better. I was thinking about it last night, and really, we do buy very little there these days. Hard to argue with being able to get children's shoes for $1 because it is the end of the season, though. With a three year old, shoes don't last very long, and if you go to an actual shoe store, they want $30-40 and more.



bryanc said:


> I've been buying my coffee beans from Just Us coffee roasters co-op (http://www.justuscoffee.com/). They'll ship you organically grown, Fair-trade coffee and tea at very reasonable prices. I haven't tried all their roasts, but I'm working my way through a bag of Italian Dark Roast which is very nice.


Thanks for the link. Their prices do appear to be a little better than Bridghead and Thousand Villages, whom I am familiar with. Still, I bought 500g of loose tea for $7 last week, and their's is $40 for 1kg. Given that 500g is about 1 month's worth, that's a fair chunk more money. Their coffee isn't bad, though. Maybe I'll have to switch back to coffee 



bryanc said:


> Gotta do what you can, and then not stress about what you can't do today. As your sig says "it's not too late to build a better world."
> 
> Cheers


Indeed, although it feels like it some days.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

modsuperstar said:


> I just too a look for this article I mentioned but can't track it down, I may have seen it on my home computer. The jist of the article was essentially if WalMart did opt to spend more money and paid their employees more they would* have* to layoff a large percentage of workers. WalMart employs 1.7 million people .


The only *have* to in order to preserve current profit rates. That is closer to the crux of the issue, really. Is proper care of your employees more important, or is profit? I know what the stock market's answer would be.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> The only *have* to in order to preserve current profit rates. That is closer to the crux of the issue, really. Is proper care of your employees more important, or is profit? I know what the stock market's answer would be.


And therein lies the rub of capitalistic society. Shareholders dictate how the world should spin. I always found it ironic that a company can't be just profitable, it's got to be more profitable and grow. A company like Dell has hit that wall where they've cut and scrimped at their infrastructure costs that there really isn't much more to cut to be able to create more revenue for shareholders. They're still profitable, but not profitable enough to satisfy the never ending cycle of shareholder driven growth.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

modsuperstar said:


> And therein lies the rub of capitalistic society. Shareholders dictate how the world should spin. I always found it ironic that a company can't be just profitable, it's got to be more profitable and grow. A company like Dell has hit that wall where they've cut and scrimped at their infrastructure costs that there really isn't much more to cut to be able to create more revenue for shareholders. They're still profitable, but not profitable enough to satisfy the never ending cycle of shareholder driven growth.


Welcome to the light. We shall overcome the evil beejacon overlords one day 

Seriously, the system is significantly, and, I would argue, fatally, flawed. This is but one example.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

modsuperstar said:


> They're still profitable, but not profitable enough to satisfy the never ending cycle of shareholder driven growth.


And their market capitalization is how many billions? They may not be meeting everyone's expectations, but there seems to be some satisfaction there.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Seriously, the system is significantly, and, I would argue, fatally, flawed. This is but one example.


Like democratic-based governance, flawed (in personal subjective terms of an ideal) but the best there is. The other ones imposed over the years failed quite badly. It's not surprising that allowing a 'system' to operate very closely to its automatic state based on the choices of the participants works best, with social goals accomplished by taxing the system; not replacing it with a bureaucratic construct that would truly be deeply flawed. Not a hard and fast rule, but more often than not.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Like democratic-based governance, flawed (in personal subjective terms of an ideal) but the best there is. The other ones imposed over the years failed quite badly. It's not surprising that allowing a 'system' to operate very closely to its automatic state based on the choices of the participants works best


I agree with your analysis, and really like your synopsis of why capitalism works here. However, I would add that this only really works 'best' when the participants are both aware of the consequences of their activities in the economy, and when their actions are not artificially shifted.

So in an ideal capitalistic society, citizens would be both educated regarding the corporate behaviour of businesses active in the economy, and aware that their purchases were political as well as economic statements.



> with social goals accomplished by taxing the system; not replacing it with a bureaucratic construct that would truly be deeply flawed. Not a hard and fast rule, but more often than not.


Would you agree that government can still play a valuable role in policing corporate behaviour, and providing easy and accurate information to citizens regarding corporate relationships and behaviour? This is something I can't see being done well by the private sector (not that it's done by current governments in any effective way, but I see it as an essential change in the way society operates in the next century).

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There are many companies other than Wal*Mart in this country who put profits far ahead of people. I should know, I worked for one and in some cases had to carry out deep staffing cuts that hurt so many. Former co-workers tell me not much has changed in today's corporate culture.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> So in an ideal capitalistic society, citizens would be both educated regarding the corporate behaviour of businesses active in the economy, and aware that their purchases were political as well as economic statements.
> ........................
> Would you agree that government can still play a valuable role in policing corporate behaviour, and providing easy and accurate information to citizens regarding corporate relationships and behaviour? This is something I can't see being done well by the private sector (not that it's done by current governments in any effective way, but I see it as an essential change in the way society operates in the next century).


Interesting post. Thanks.

As with democracy, education (information and analytical capabilities) are very important for improving its functioning. 

It's one of those things governments should push, although delivery options (private vs public) are grounds for much debate. I prefer a public voucher-type system that still allows for private schools (primary and secondary schools). Some may prefer something that looks more like our health care system.
........................
I've always agreed with a strong rules-based approach (clear, consistent, enforced). Private sector wouldn't do it (an alternative is using the legal system and class action suits galore) but if the three conditions (clear, consistent, enforced) aren't there, things could be worse than without rules.

Edit: What would social society be like without clear, consistent and enforced rules? Of course, they also need to be reasonable and err on the side freedom.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

So how can we keep such a large, seemingly economy crushing employer from exploiting it's massive workforce. A heavily publicised boycott? Perhaps. A union? Absolutely!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> So how can we keep such a large, seemingly economy crushing employer from exploiting it's massive workforce. A heavily publicised boycott? Perhaps. A union? Absolutely!


An open-shop union, sure, otherwise your just crushing anyone who didn't want to join. Taking away Paul's freedom in an attempt to help Peter. Peter is empowered because he also gets to speak for Paul. You can also use minimum wage laws and other labour laws (vacation time, etc.) which are a better mechanism because they don't let small businesses get away with "exploiting" as their competitive advantage (this would result in a weaker economy and, as a result, smaller tax base). There are dangers in this (job loss, costs rise -- middle-lower and lower-middle income squeeze). 

A completely wacky option is to provide life's basics to everyone (some income, health care, secondary education and some post-secondary etc.) for free and to let them decide on the rest without being told what's in their own interests and when they're being exploited. Family businesses often employ child labour after all.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> A completely wacky option is to provide life's basics to everyone (some income, health care, secondary education and some post-secondary etc.) for free and to let them decide on the rest without being told what's in their own interests and when they're being exploited. Family businesses often employ child labour after all.


He's a communist! Lynch him!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Beej said:


> Interesting post. Thanks.
> 
> As with democracy, education (information and analytical capabilities) are very important for improving its functioning.
> 
> ...


 Systems and values are subject to change as  seen here,  corporate avarice doesn't have to be the rule. Fair return could be the rule. People just have to make a value judgment.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Beej said:


> An open-shop union, sure, otherwise your just crushing anyone who didn't want to join. Taking away Paul's freedom in an attempt to help Peter. Peter is empowered because he also gets to speak for Paul. You can also use minimum wage laws and other labour laws (vacation time, etc.) which are a better mechanism because they don't let small businesses get away with "exploiting" as their competitive advantage (this would result in a weaker economy and, as a result, smaller tax base). There are dangers in this (job loss, costs rise -- middle-lower and lower-middle income squeeze).


 Democracy by majority rule as long as the majority are in lock step with your views is it?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Fair return could be the rule. People just have to make a value judgment.


There are many industries regulated in such a manner (natural monopolies) but it is, for good reason, only resorted to in specific cases instead of government presuming it should exercise that power.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Democracy by majority rule as long as the majority are in lock step with your views is it?


The tyranny of the majority is a dangerous thing. Using it, under the guise of "empowering" is too common. Let people choose within a clear, consistent and enforced legal framework. Let companies operate within a clear, consistent and enforced legal framework. Forcing the issue should always be a last resort.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No union should have forced memberships. Democracy allows freedom of choice, but unions choose to ignore that right when it comes to their own. That is largely why unions have outlived their useful life span.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

SINC said:


> No union should have forced memberships. Democracy allows freedom of choice, but unions choose to ignore that right when it comes to their own. That is largely why unions have outlived their useful life span.


Agreed. I lump unions and copyright into the same grouping anymore. They've both served a purpose, but far exceeded their mandate of protecting who they were originally intended to defend.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Democracy allows freedom of choice


You can choose to work or not work in a closed shop, no?

What ever makes you think that the member's don't have the final say in their union. It's called voting. A collective agreement is a 'collective agreement' after all.

Edit: Union's will have 'outlived their useful lifespan' when the Wal-Marts of the world discontinue exploitative hiring practices.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> You can choose to work or not work in a closed shop, no?
> 
> What ever makes you think that the member's don't have the final say in their union. It's called voting.


The choice of employment is between you and the employer; other people forcing their way in between as a requirement controls your freedom unnecessarily -- of course they say it's for your own good, sort of like a parent-child relationship. 

If people want to join together for power, let them. When they extend that power over other's person (as opposed to property) they have overextended themselves. A union should be able to justify its own existence for each (voluntary) member, not force membership/funding. Right to associate (we have) and disassociate (we don't have). Just because government exists does not mean that we need more ways in which local, regional etc. voting blocks should control your life. Leave that up to government.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> The choice of employment is between you and the employer; other people forcing their way in between as a requirement controls your freedom unnecessarily -- of course they say it's for your own good, sort of like a parent-child relationship.
> 
> If people want to join together for power, let them. When they extend that power over other's person (as opposed to property) they have overextended themselves. A union should be able to justify its own existence for each (voluntary) member, not force membership/funding. Right to associate (we have) and disassociate (we don't have). Just because government exists does not mean that we need more ways in which local, regional etc. voting blocks should control your life. Leave that up to government.


I've never totally been convinced by this argument. Is not the presence or absence of a union simply another part of the terms of employment? We all feel comfortable saying that an employer can simply decree what they will pay when you are applying for the job, and if you don't like it, go somewhere else. How is membership in a union substantially different?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> I've never totally been convinced by this argument. Is not the presence or absence of a union simply another part of the terms of employment? We all feel comfortable saying that an employer can simply decree what they will pay when you are applying for the job, and if you don't like it, go somewhere else. How is membership in a union substantially different?


In 99% of the cases the employer did not choose to have the union. If it happens to be a closed shop, then you as an employee cannot choose to opt out, a fundamental loss of your right to choose who you will or will not associate with, and you are then forced to pay dues, like it or not. The employer cannot be blamed or make it a term of employment, rather the union does that for them.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> How is membership in a union substantially different?


It's your labour (your time) and the employer's money. What role does a union have in that unless voluntarily called into it (by either side)? None. Therefore it is substantially different.

Your neighbour can give you advice on taking a new job, but has no right to impose his terms on your employment (unless it involves playing music really loud in your home  ). A union is more like a wife from a mandatory marriage forced on you by strangers that you may or may not agree with. 

[Edit: Sinc beat me to it, but my post is funnier. tptptptp to Sinc.  ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> [Edit: Sinc beat me to it, but my post is funnier. tptptptp to Sinc.  ]


I admit that. Guess we westerners are "quicker on the draw" so to speak.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I wonder how many union members begrudge their union.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> I wonder how many union members begrudge their union.


The one's that talked about it are swimming with the fishes. beejacon


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Apparently people in Germany didn't like shopping at Wal-mart because after 8 years of loosing money they sold their stores to a german chain.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

All this anti union talk of loss of choice for the worker. Consider the unfortunate Wal Mart employee being made redudant the minute they become skilled at their job. Or older workers having their seats taken away. Wal Mart has created a disposable workforce. Don't like it? Tough! Sounds like some people's opinions regarding unions on this board.

Should Wal Mart being such a large employer be a better corporate citizen? What will make them so? An epiphany by upper management? Perhaps the ghost of Christmas past might pay them a visit. Perhaps a collective agreement.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> All this anti union talk of loss of choice for the worker. Consider the unfortunate Wal Mart employee being made redudant the minute they become skilled at their job. Or older workers having their seats taken away. Wal Mart has created a disposable workforce. Don't like it? Tough! Sounds like some people's opinions regarding unions on this board.


I have no problems with unions based on voluntary membership and am happy the right to associate is in the Charter. And, if unions are actually helping, they'll have no problems attracting members. I have problems with the mandatory nature (no right to disassociate). Sort of like all sorts of social issues. I have no problems with people restricting their own options. It's when they want to restrict someone else's that I have a problem.

What problem do you have with people getting a choice in the matter?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sinc,

While you claim that 99% of employers don't want a union, I counter that 99% of workers want a union. Both are for obvious reasons. Face it, profits over people isn't an empty catch phrase. And as far as unions squeezing themselves between the employer/ employee relationship. Unions have existed for quite some time. Generations of workers in the same company have belonged to them. It is a condition of employment. 

Also, open or closed shop, members VOTE on ALL union activity. It is not the frightening dictatorship you make it out to be. It is a collective.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> What problem do you have with people getting a choice in the matter?


Beej,

I have no problem with choice. If a worker wants to work in a union shop it is a condition of employment. It's what makes the union strong. I have witnessed many examples of union members undercutting others to get a contract. They have not lasted. That is defiant of the spirit of the collective agreement.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Sinc,
> 
> 
> Also, open or closed shop, members VOTE on ALL union activity. It is not the frightening dictatorship you make it out to be. It is a collective.


The closed shop union is a thinly veiled form of dictatorship.

Like Beej, I have no problems supporting a union that allows choice via an open shop. If they choose to force membership and dues on employees, they do not get any support or respect from me and many others.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Also, open or closed shop, members VOTE on ALL union activity. It is not the frightening dictatorship you make it out to be. It is a collective.


I repeat:
What problem do you have with people getting a choice in the matter?

I don't mean having a say in the union, I mean having a say in the matter before that happens. Voluntary membership and funding. What problem do you have with that?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Beej,
> 
> I have no problem with choice. If a worker wants to work in a union shop it is a condition of employment. It's what makes the union strong. I have witnessed many examples of union members undercutting others to get a contract. They have not lasted. That is defiant of the spirit of the collective agreement.


What made it the union's shop (I know it's lingo, just making a point)? It isn't theirs -- it has owners and employees, all other parties should be there by invite only. If unions are so great, they'll have no problem flourishing in an open and honest environment where they earn their members; not exercise power by speaking for willing and unwilling members.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> I don't mean having a say in the union, I mean having a say in the matter before that happens. Voluntary membership and funding. What problem do you have with that?


What's the point in a union if individuals can opt out in order to serve their own needs? The strength is the collective, the _union_.

What ills do you think unions has inflicted on society? Do you have any idea of the good they've done versus your inconveniences?

Ultimately, Unions are entitled to whatever power their members are willing to give them.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> What's the point in a union if individuals can opt out in order to serve their own needs? The strength is the collective, the _union_.
> 
> What ills do you think unions has inflicted on society? Do you have any idea of the good they've done versus your inconveniences?


People can (and often do) unite voluntarily, you know. Getting strength by people who didn't want to offer it is, at least, an honest way to look at unions. 

Unions have done good or bad, depending on the time, the union, the issue and the perspective. That in no way should mean they get that strength from anyone unwilling. Many many things could be 'strengthened' simply by forcing people. 

The starting point in a liberal democracy should be personal freedom and choice. From there, removing freedoms and choices needs to be justified. The union case is not justified once people's freedom to associate and form them is a right (like it is in Canada). The next step (closed shop) is unnecessary for unions to operate. Because it inherently makes them stronger (is stronger assumed to be better? not a good assumption) is a bad reason to give legal support to infringing on people's freedom choices.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Majority rules as far as unions. 

Of course employers want an open shop. It's the perfect divide and conquer enviroment. The 'union' has no power. What is a collective agreement to individual hashing out their own deal?

In a closed shop, one can safely assume the majority of the workers want the union and are happy with it as the third party representing them. If some individuals are in disagreement they can find employment elsewhere. That is their choice and their right.

Unions are invited into all workplaces by the workers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Majority rules as far as unions.
> 
> Of course employers want an open shop. It's the perfect divide and conquer enviroment. The 'union' has no power. What is a collective agreement to individual hashing out their own deal?
> 
> ...


I saw one union that had 48% of its members vote to get out. The union stood firm and continued to deduct dues. The employees then appealed to the provincial labour board who sided with them and granted them a decertification vote from the union. The union collapsed shortly thereafter. People simply got tired of having dues deducted and sent to the union's US head office.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Majority rules as far as unions.
> 
> Of course employers want an open shop. It's the perfect divide and conquer enviroment. The 'union' has no power. What is a collective agreement to individual hashing out their own deal?
> 
> ...


Obviously we're not going to agree; this is one of those more fundamental things that gets down to notions of the individual and the collective and drawing different lines for issues where the two notions collide. Still, I wanted to thank you, Sinc and RevMatt (did I forget anyone? If so, sorry) for a good discussion. 

This is an example of how we develop a better political system: not by converting others (although that would be swell beejacon ) but by increasing understanding and political discussion so we go forward with a better understanding of what we want as well as what others want. :clap:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> I wanted to thank you, Sinc and RevMatt (did I forget anyone? If so, sorry) for a good discussion.


I just got back from a walk to the store and I was going to do the same thing.

Agreeing to disagree! Thanks guys and gals.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

An excellent way to wrap this one up. Good discussion, good people. My thanks to all as well.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I know this has little to do with wally world as my question deals with the issue of benefits. Not an issue that arises for most Wally world employees.

What about being forced to join benefit plan. Most plans are forced on employees as a condition of employment and usually the worker haven't any say in the plan except if the are unfortunate enough to belong to a bargaining group.

What about me if I am young and healthy who has no need of medical or dental benefits subsidizing the sicko's of the workplace. Is it Ok if I am "forced" into this kind of association. Where are my individual rights in this instance?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

The starting point in a liberal democracy should be personal freedom and choice.


you mean like free votes in the house of commons?
if so, i absolutely agree


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> The starting point in a liberal democracy should be personal freedom and choice.
> 
> 
> you mean like free votes in the house of commons?
> if so, i absolutely agree


At the risk of opening the usually "style" of "discussion":

Every MP has complete freedom to vote in any way they wish. Their choices will impact their career (cabinet, committee, etc.) and the party association (easy votes). There is a lot of grey in here but, at the very root of free choice, an MP has it. If they want the exposure, experience and party support, that doesn't come for free. Nor should it, except in the case of an 'Independents' party, which I would like to see. I can't say I'd prefer it (it would depend on the local candidate and competing party options) but it would be an excellent addition to our system. No platform (except independence) and they'd need to figure out some process/policy for leadership.


----------



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

This is why I refuse to shop at Walmart.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> At the risk of opening the usually "style" of "discussion":
> 
> Every MP has complete freedom to vote in any way they wish. Their choices will impact their career (cabinet, committee, etc.) and the party association (easy votes). There is a lot of grey in here but, at the very root of free choice, an MP has it. If they want the exposure, experience and party support, that doesn't come for free. Nor should it, except in the case of an 'Independents' party, which I would like to see. I can't say I'd prefer it (it would depend on the local candidate and competing party options) but it would be an excellent addition to our system. No platform (except independence) and they'd need to figure out some process/policy for leadership.


Every employee has the complete freedom to work in an open or closed shop. Their choices will impact their career and employer association. If they want control over their wages, a collective association and good benefits, that doesn't come for free. Nor should it.

OK, it's not a direct parallel, but there are many similarities. I still don't get your argument, and I know you declared it resolved, but I've been away from the computer  If a union comes in, and an employee doesn't want it, they can leave. If an employee is looking to be hired, they accept that as a condition. If an employer doesn't like it, they are free to move operations.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

RevMatt said:



> Every employee has the complete freedom to work in an open or closed shop. Their choices will impact their career and employer association. If they want control over their wages, a collective association and good benefits, that doesn't come for free. Nor should it.
> 
> OK, it's not a direct parallel, but there are many similarities. I still don't get your argument, and I know you declared it resolved, but I've been away from the computer  If a union comes in, and an employee doesn't want it, they can leave. If an employee is looking to be hired, they accept that as a condition. If an employer doesn't like it, they are free to move operations.


RevMatt your points are spot on. The issue I raised regarding benefit plans are a collective issue as well. The mutual desire for economic protection provides a few with a great relief and the vast majority with some relief and a few with a burden and no benefit. Overall it is viewed as a positive.

Employees are free to associate and join into a group. The employer has no say what so ever and rightly so on an individual's right to associate in Canada.
. 
A union is really the employees of a workplace using their collective voice to bargain shared goals. Government certifies that a majority of the employees in the workplace want to be recognised as the sole bargaining agent for that group of employees. The group authorised to bargain is given that franchise by government. 

Individual employee's voice to bargain with the employer is diminished. 

Employers are informed who the certified bargaining agent is. Employers now have to bargain with the majority of employees at once. Not something that regressive employers want to engage in. 

Wally world has provided evidence, of the tactics this company will employ, to impose their will and not bargain.   

As you point out bargaining of a collective agreement doesn't come free of charge. Employees under the current system of collective bargaining in all jurisdictions in Canada have an obligation to pay for the bargaining services provided by the union of employees. This is similar to employees having to pay collectively for a benefit plan whether or not the individual uses the services of the plan.

Roughly one third of workplaces are Unionised in Canada. 

If Unionised workplaces violated individual rights, with regard to paying dues to the majority of employees choice of Bargaining Agent, you can be rest assured that employer groups led by the likes of wally world would have a case taking a union before the Supreme Court as not only being unfair but illegal. This has not happened not even once. 

As you point people are free to not work at a unionised workplace. The majority of workplaces are not unionised. So there is no undue hardship finding another workplace. 

The usual rub is finding another non-unionised workplace that is as "good" as the unionised workplace.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Every employee has the complete freedom to work in an open or closed shop. Their choices will impact their career and employer association. If they want control over their wages, a collective association and good benefits, that doesn't come for free. Nor should it.
> 
> OK, it's not a direct parallel, but there are many similarities. I still don't get your argument, and I know you declared it resolved, but I've been away from the computer  If a union comes in, and an employee doesn't want it, they can leave. If an employee is looking to be hired, they accept that as a condition. If an employer doesn't like it, they are free to move operations.


To be an MP you have freedom of choice and it is between the voters and you. You can try to gain advantages with a party, but it isn't required. That doesn't apply to jobs so, yes, it is not a direct parallel and, furthermore, acutally an example showing what is wrong with mandatory union membership/fees.

An example: If you have a certain skill-set and want to work for government, you don't have any choice. The 'shop' is completely controlled across the board for many jobs. There still is no reason why a union has right to get between an employer and employee. It isn't their business unless either party asks. It is, as has been discussed, about power.

"If an employer doesn't like it, they are free to move operations"
That really gets to the heart of the difference. To me, if an employee doesn't like it then they should be able to not join or contribute to the union. Their job is between them and the employer.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

BigDL said:


> If Unionised workplaces violated individual rights, with regard to paying dues to the majority of employees choice of Bargaining Agent, you can be rest assured that employer groups led by the likes of wally world would have a case taking a union before the Supreme Court as not only being unfair but illegal. This has not happened not even once.
> .....................
> The usual rub is finding another non-unionised workplace that is as "good" as the unionised workplace.


There was a QC case and it was made clear that the Charter defends the right to associate, no disassociate (although some of the judges did infer that right, I think).
.....................
Too easy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I tend to shop at stores that offer lower prices. Coincidentally, these are often places that are not unionized. 

Frankly, the skill set required to scan a bar code or to push the "tally" button on a cash register require six minutes training. I have no problem with these people wanting "job security" through unions--I would too if I had no marketable skills.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> I tend to shop at stores that offer lower prices. Coincidentally, these are often places that are not unionized.
> 
> Frankly, the skill set required to scan a bar code or to push the "tally" button on a cash register require six minutes training. I have no problem with these people wanting "job security" through unions--I would too if I had no marketable skills.


People are free to pursue the career (or job) they want. If they don't like making minimum wages, they should consider going to a college/university.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I'm sorry, but this is pretty common practice in the business world. It sucks, but that is business. People just like to vilify WalMart in whatever way possible, even when it's practices are used elsewhere in the corporate world without anyone batting an eyelash.


I suspect the main point is that Walmart has formal policies which regard employees simply as cost centres, and no more. While all businesses have to be aware of and manage carefully their people costs, most treat people differently than other cost items.

In many years of managing and consulting I have rarely found deliberate, carefully managed de-humanizing policies that seem common at Walmart.

What I have found is, sadly, simply poor management with regard to employees. It's all too common and is horribly damaging to the business, individuals and thw wider economy. But it rarely smells of the inhuman vindictive Walmart style.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Pelao said:


> I suspect the main point is that Walmart has formal policies which regard employees simply as cost centres, and no more. While all businesses have to be aware of and manage carefully their people costs, most treat people differently than other cost items.
> 
> In many years of managing and consulting I have rarely found deliberate, carefully managed de-humanizing policies that seem common at Walmart.
> 
> What I have found is, sadly, simply poor management with regard to employees. It's all too common and is horribly damaging to the business, individuals and thw wider economy. But it rarely smells of the inhuman vindictive Walmart style.



well said...
:clap:


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I'm in a union, but my personal belief is that an employee should chose to be in a union or not in a union (even if the shop is unionized). I also believe that an employee should have a choice of which union to join that would best represent them.

I also believe that an employee shoul also be free to negiotiate with their employer directly even when they represented by a union.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

that will lead to employers hiring people that would not join the union
it's a very tough tight rope to walk, but unions are hardly the big problem with corporations


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I'm in a union, but my personal belief is that an employee should chose to be in a union or not in a union (even if the shop is unionized). I also believe that an employee should have a choice of which union to join that would best represent them.
> 
> I also believe that an employee shoul also be free to negiotiate with their employer directly even when they represented by a union.


Thanks for all the thoughtful comments, all of you. Still thinking my way through this one.

In the above scenario, presumably the non-union employees would have to negotiate their own terms, but would they not be able to hold the union contract up for comparison, and would an employer not be suable if they treated the non-union employees to lesser terms for no good reason? I think I am right on the front, which means that those that don't pay the dues, still get the benefit.
Also, could not an employer offer BETTER terms than those with the union as a way of encouraging people to leave the union and squeeze it out? (Cutting those terms later, of course...)


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Yes absolutely, look to Toyota's Employee benefits for NOT Unionizing.
And thats basically, do your job and you can have all this. Don't do your job and get it taken away.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

I totally agree with Toyota's practices. They hold their workers to a high standard and reward them with great pay and benefits. It basically keeps all the screw-ups from getting unwarranted job security through the union. The couple people I've known that have been fired by Toyota got fired for perfectly justifiable reasons.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Workers stage walkout at 2 Walmarts. 



> The protest wasn't led by any union group. Rather, it was instigated by two department managers, Guillermo Vasquez and Rosie Larosa. The department managers were not affected directly by the changes, but they felt that the company had gone too far with certain new policies. *Among them were moves to cut the hours of full-time employees from 40 hours a week to 32 hours, along with a corresponding cut in wages, and to compel workers to be available for shifts around the clock.*
> 
> In addition, *the shifts would be decided not by managers, but by a computer at company headquarters*. Employees could find themselves working 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. one week and noon to 9 p.m. the next. "So workers cannot pick up their children after school everyday, and part-timers cannot keep another job because they can be called to work anytime," says Vasquez.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

sounds like walmart mgmt. is making it difficult for the employees with families to work there and as such we might see walmart become fully staffed with students who don't ask for pesky and costly things like healthcare and a working wage


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From CBC.ca:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2007/04/19/walmart-supreme.html



> Wal-Mart has been fighting efforts to certify unions at a number of its Canadian stores.


But apparently it's losing. Say goodbye to Wal Mart Saskatchewan...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Wouldn't hurt my feelings if Wally-World packed up and left Canada altogether.

I can get Chinese made goods practically everywhere....:lmao: 

The funny thing is, the won't leave.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Workers stage walkout at 2 Walmarts.


Ok, thanks for pointing this out ehMax. However, just like every single post and example in this thread like the above link, is geared to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAL MART and not here in Canada!

What goes for Wal Mart in the U.S. does not go for Wal Mart employees here in Canada, sorry to burst everyone's bubble on that issue. We have different laws here in Canada then in the U.S. when it comes to wages, holiday's and taxes etc.... we are much tougher on controlling those issues here in Canada then in the U.S. through all Wal Mart stores across Canada.

First of all, here in Ontario, Full Time employees at Wal Mart make 40 hours a week period, manager or not, it doesn't matter. If for some reason you are "scheduled" for 2 hours below that, you can acquire and make up those 2 hours no problem and even go into over time hours if you wish. 

Secondly, tell me one company that doesn't use a computer or has a schedular for hundreds of employees to make up their work week schedule? Also, if that's what happens in the U.S. of A with regards to the computer pumping out schedules and the employees are not aloud to make changes, that is once again a U.S. of A isolated case and not here in Canada. I can tell you right now, that yes Wal Mart uses a computer system to make up employee schedules, pretty damn smart if you ask me with today's technology. If any company the size of Wal Mart wasn't using computers for that purpose they would be stupid not to in today's life style. What most people don't know is, that after the schedule is made up, it is pretty damn close to what the "Employee" gave the company (Wal Mart) as their availability time to work and NOT work (times). That includes times of day where they can go and pick up their children from school etc... or get a certain day off that they need each week, or only work a certain time of the day etc.... their is a ton of flexibility with schedules at Wal Mart and the article above once again reflects on Wal Mart in the U.S.A.!

I want everyone here to go to a major strip mall where a Wal Mart is located, usually Wal Mart is surrounded by big box stores and other smaller stores that depend on Wal Mart for the foot traffic into their stores. Any ways, walk in, ask what their starting wage is with 1-2 years experience of either a basic sales floor or cash, then do the same at Wal Mart and you will see that 9 out of 10 times Wal Mart pays higher to start then the competition surrounding them in that strip mall. I can prove that 100% where I live here in the K-W area of Ontario. It is a proven fact. Once again, wages disputes are from the U.S.A. Wal Marts.

I could go on and on, but the point is, everything you read about Wal Mart is from the U.S.A., at least the majority of what makes it to the media. Most people forget that Canada and the U.S.A. are two different countries with different regulations and laws when it comes to employment. 

In my city, if the Wal Mart were to pull out and leave one day, the other businesses in the area would close shop and leave. Why? Lots of them depend on Wal Mart for their own business. Many of them are now copying how Wal Mart does things. Many of them are taking advantage of staying open longer hours to squeeze more money out of customers when Wal Mart stays open over the holidays until Midnight, remember these other business retailers never stayed open that late before on holidays. Other retailers constantly call Wal Mart to see what their store hours will be when a long weekend comes up, just so they can stay open as well, knowing that Wal Mart will pull in the customers to the shopping centre. Plus there is healthy competition amongst Wal Mart, Home Depot, Canadian Tire and some of the other fancy clothing stores in the shopping centre. We all work together like a small community. Wal Mart has managers from the competition shop on their lunches and ask how things are going, or telling Wal Mart how they sent some of their customers to them because they didn't carry the item, well guess what? Wal Mart does the same in my area and sends you to the competition if they don't carry a certain item, so in the end everyone wins and is happy. 

The next big thing that customers want at the Wal Mart in my city and can't wait for, is for it to add there full grocery store. This says volume of what customers want and are waiting for in Canada's largest booming city of all times right now. Is Wal Mart going away any time soon? Possibly if only Mac heads don't shop there , but that is not the case as the amount of people who shop at Wal Mart Canada each and every day, and the dollars that are made each and every day is incredible. Could things improve? Sure, just like at every single corporation and government company that exists in Canada right down to your local Tim Horton's, which pays less then the average Wal Mart employee by the way in wages and treats their employees worse, and Zellers who pays their employees even less then the average employee at Wal Mart, or how about Canadian Tire that starts you off at a lower wage then an average employee at Wal Mart and even gives you less hours. 

There was also comments on how Wal Mart employes a lot of teenagers, yes that is true since most of you won't hire the millions of teens who need jobs these days to work for your companies and give them benefits as well eh?
Baby boomers are on their way out of the work force, the age of 35 and up are either in their prime career stages, or all over the board or out of work. Then there is the huge problem of trying to find work for the millions of teens across Canada who just want a summer job, or a job for after school to make some more money. We are at a time now where there are more teens around and wanting to work than when I was a teenager. Teens are everywhere in the work force, and why not allow the biggest retailer in the world to employe them and let some of them learn the ins and outs of retail (if they so wish) as they are there at Wal Mart. I'm not saying they will, but some will and could take that experience to their careers later in life. Each Wal Mart is different, each operates a little different, each depends on their own surroundings of the community as well. You will not walk into one Wal Mart and then go to another and have the same experience within the same city, with regards to employees. Where I live for example, we have 2 Wal Marts within a 10-15 minute drive of each other. One is bad and one is good. One has a bad moral of employees, and the other has a much better and greater outlook of employees. One location you will get good customer service, the other they could care less of who you were as a customer. But, one store makes more in profit than the other as well, due to the above outcomes. 

As for supporting China and buying cheap crap at Wal Mart, check the labels the next time you walk into a Gap, Old Navy, just about any Retail store that sells clothes, shoes etc... majority of the stuff comes from China or that part of the world. You're hard pressed to find anything made right here in Ontario or Canada for that matter. Heck, even you're Mac is made in China, too bad it wasn't on Roll Back eh?  (sarcasm) Also, ask yourself how many of those companies share the transportation costs when shipping overseas in those containers? That's right, when you support the other retailers and not shop at Wal Mart, you're still supporting the entire retail industry as a whole. Makes no difference, except Wal Mart being the biggest and having a stronger stance is able to save you costs as well, you just don't see it as the competition marks up like Apple does on their items. 

I don't see enough people talking with their money, too many people shop at Wal Mart period. Too many people always talk about buying things made from China, like I said, you just end up buying that made in China item at some other store and for much more. 

I would rather have a retailer employee for example 10,000 employees, pay them above minimum wage and higher, then employ 1,000 employees and only pay them minimum wage and not more like the small retailers do in the shopping centre where I live. So who is the bad guy here? The biggest retailer in the country? Or the smaller ones who employ less but pay less then the biggest retailer in the country to their employees? Remember I'm talking about Wal Mart Canada and could careless about Wal Mart in the U.S.A. as things are done so differently down there.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

that's all cute about Walmart canada vs Walmart US, but why did Walmart AGREE upon entering Canada to NOT use the star in Walmart, but now feel they can go back on their agreement?

and you don;t think Walmart Canaada's profits don't filter back to Walmart US?

Walmart is a bad company and I would gladly be rid of them in Canadaa


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The Wal*Mart in our community supports all kinds of local sports groups. It's employees also hold fund raisers for various charities during the year. They are a huge part of the Christmas toys for underprivileged children as well. They are a welcome addition to our city. Not to mention the busiest shopping centre in town.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's a pretty funny headline. In essence, the court is just forcing the people of Saskatchewan to accept slightly higher prices and slower service, and making the consumers of Saskatchewan foot the bill. Such a victory!!


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

The Wally Mart Canada seed has not fallen far from the Wally Mart U.S. tree, and that's only speaking on an operational basis. Corporately speaking, Wally Mart Canada is just a branch of that tree.

Some of the worst behaviour of the U.S. parent may not have happened here yet, but I suspect that may be only a matter of time. The Canadian division has fought against its workers unionizing ever since it came here. When it purchased the old Woolworths and Woolco company to get its start here, it closed any stores that had unions. Refused to accept them. Then within a year or so, those communities had Wally Marts, but those workers didn't have their jobs. What was it? A year or two ago, when a Quebec store unionized, Wally Mart picked up it toys and left. 

Does Wally Mart give to my community? Yes, but so did the stores, it replaced or put out of business. And those stores (all locally owned, except for Woolco) tended to pay their workers more than Wally Mart does.

I buy as little as possible from Wally Mart. I couldn't care less if their Canadian operations get tarred with the same brush as the U.S. operations. It's one and the same.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Yah, it's resurrection of the dead thread. I guess the "New Thread" button is broken for some people.

Is Wal-Mart pure evil? Possibly. Is every retail job pure evil? Probably. Who makes the retail environment miserable and cut-throat? Consumers, not corporations.

We have only ourselves to blame.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Those damned "union avoiders!" 

Who in their right mind would choose to hire non-union staff when a fully unionized workforce is ready and willing to do the same work?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Yah, it's resurrection of the dead thread. I guess the "New Thread" button is broken for some people.


Hey everybody it's Friday and our resident thread critic guytoronto is here to add his usual insightful and useful commentary!

Let's give him a round of applause!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Those damned "union avoiders!"
> 
> Who in their right mind would choose to hire non-union staff when a fully unionized workforce is ready and willing to do the same work?


Are you truly that full of contempt or are your responses a result of the relative safety of an internet forum?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Brainstrained said:


> The Canadian division has fought against its workers unionizing ever since it came here. When it purchased the old Woolworths and Woolco company to get its start here, it closed any stores that had unions. Refused to accept them.


And good on them for rejecting the last place bad employees can get protection for doing a mediocre job. I spent a career keeping out unions too. Good on them. :clap:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> And good on them for rejecting the last place bad employees can get protection for doing a mediocre job. I spent a career keeping out unions too. Good on them. :clap:


Yes, good on them for taking employees making a living wage and offering them their same job back at minimum wage. Oh you don't like it? Tough. 

That's a healthy approach. It is incredible how one can so confidently paint so many with such a wide brush based on _their_ experiences.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> It is incredible how one can so confidently paint so many with such a wide brush based on _their_ experiences.


Oh, not to worry. There are plenty of us out there who have had nothing but bad experiences with unions. Millions even.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Oh, not to worry. There are plenty of us out there who have had nothing but bad experiences with unions. Millions even.


'Millions even' huh... If I've told you once, I've told you a million times...

So let me get this straight, you think it's better to put all those people out of work or reduce their wages than give them the opportunity to be represented. Perhaps profits may drop for Wal Mart. I know they are struggling. Or perhaps profits would rise because people have a bit more money to spend rather than on the most basic necessities. 

Wow.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> So let me get this straight, you think it's better to put all those people out of work or reduce their wages than give them the opportunity to be represented.


Nope, not at all. I simply believe that unions themselves are a bad thing and are no longer needed.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Yes, damn those ingrateful people for attempting to work together to improve their situation. Who do they think they are, the chamber of commerce, a business or industrial association? They should just shut up and take what employers decide to give them. Next thing they'll want is labour laws!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nope, not at all. I simply believe that unions themselves are a bad thing and are no longer needed.


Well obviously they are when this kind of thing happens. 

You go on about unrealistic Utopian ideals. If this isn't one I don't know what is.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Every newspaper I ever worked for had staff associations and we worked together to improve things in the workplace. They came up with many innovative ideas we incorporated and we appreciated them, as they did us. The one paper we purchased that happened to be a union shop recognized we were fair and dropped paying exorbitant dues to an American parent union by applying for and receiving decertification.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I have worked at newspapers with staff associations and they have never been anything more than glorified social committees that offer publishers and media owners the guise of being "progressive" with their employees. 

If these are or have been anything more than camouflage, why have so many newspapers, including many in the Sun chain, unionized?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Brainstrained said:


> If these are or have been anything more than camouflage, why have so many newspapers, including many in the Sun chain, unionized?


There are over 100 in the Bowes group, owned by Sun Media, but I've been retired for six years now and may not be aware of one. Care to name one in that group with a union?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

The Stratford Beacon-Herald in Ontario.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I bet it was purchased with the union in place. So one out of 150 or so makes Sun Media a unionized environment? That's well under a single percentage point.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Even a cursory, simplistic, grade-school overview of unions will show their benefits over the last 100+ years.


Exactly. And no longer required.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Exactly. And no longer required.


What ever would make you possibly believe this? 

I would say that increased 'competition' due to globalization makes the need for unions even greater. Or would you like to see sweatshops reemerge (not that they have totally disappeared)? There is so much more going on than your personal experiences in your career. 

Expand your thinking a little.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

modsuperstar said:


> About the "army of wage slaves" as you put it, I see it as better to be putting money in more people's pockets then to have loads of unskilled workers collecting welfare on my dime.


Personally I find this argument lame, but in the American context it is just plain not true.


> Subsidizing Low Wages
> Wal-Mart's low-road labor policies give the corporation access to a less obvious taxpayer subsidy: government benefits to its employees. The company's policies by now are notorious: wages at or close to poverty level, managers discouraged from awarding overtime, employees forced to work off the clock without pay and repeatedly denied their right to organize. The result is that many Wal-Mart employees are eligible for myriad forms of public assistance. In other words, by providing financial assistance in various forms to Wal-Mart employees, the federal and state governments are essentially subsidizing the corporation for its substandard wages and benefits.
> Health care benefits represent one such subsidy. Wal-Mart's employee health coverage is minimal and expensive; little of the company's vast low-wage workforce is covered. Nationally, two-thirds of workers at large firms get health insurance from their employer. But at WalMart, only 41% to 46% of employees use the company's health insurance, in large part because many of Wal-Mart's low-wage workers simply cannot afford to pay the high premium the company
> charges. In 2001, Wal-Mart workers paid 42% of the total cost of the company's health plan. In contrast, the typical large business expects employees to pay only 16% of the total cost for individual coverage, or 25% for family coverage. At discount retailer Costco, which competes directly with Wal-Mart's Sam's Club stores, employees pay less than 10%; as a result, 82% of them are covered through the company.
> ...


Wal-Mart Welfare How taxpayers subsidize the world's largest retailer. by Jenna Wright

If it wasn't for our universal health care system they'd be doing the same thing here but they are by default.
So your argument here is not based in fact.
Walmart gets signaled out because it is the worst transgressor in this regard. Many corporations have bad policies but none stack up to Walmarts rip off of North American society. 
Walmart is the modern equivalent of "the company store" and if you buy into it you are not only hurting yourself but society at large.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

SINC said:


> I bet it was purchased with the union in place. So one out of 150 or so makes Sun Media a unionized environment? That's well under a single percentage point.


You asked about a Bowes paper, one Bowes paper, and you got a Bowes paper. Bowes is just a small part of Sun Media, so your suggestion about the parent company is pure distortion. People should also be aware that Bowes papers tend to be, at best, comparable in size and operation to Black papers in B.C. or many of the non-GTA Metroland papers in Ontario. Small and, hence, difficult to unionize.

As for the larger Sun Media newspapers that are unionized, we can start with the granddaddy of them all – The Toronto Sun, and add the Ottawa Sun, the Winnipeg Sun, and the London Free Press.

And finally, just because a union doesn't exist at a newspaper doesn't mean employees are treated fairly.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I can't wait until small business employees (low-paid, often minimum wage, low benefits) unionise across the nation so that we're all better off when that magic source of higher wages ("the company") is released into the public.

Management needs to unionise too. After all, "the company" is the problem, so managers need more power against their employer.

If only there were a way to force the employees to join across the board, because it's really hard to get a majority vote for small biz and managers do not seem to want to unionise (with exceptions, maybe). After all, it's for everyone's betterment.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> I can't wait until small business employees (low-paid, often minimum wage, low benefits) unionise across the nation so that we're all better off when that magic source of higher wages ("the company") is released into the public.
> 
> Management needs to unionise too. After all, "the company" is the problem, so managers need more power against their employer.
> 
> If only there were a way to force the employees to join across the board, because it's really hard to get a majority vote for small biz and managers do not seem to want to unionise (with exceptions, maybe). After all, it's for everyone's betterment.


Now that I think of it, who would want to unionize? What a terrible thing. Higher (fair) wages, benefits, recourse against abusive employers and practices, workplace health and safety, the strength a group rather than being singled out. It really does sound awful.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Now that I think of it, who would want to unionize? What a terrible thing. Higher (fair) wages, benefits, recourse against abusive employers and practices, workplace health and safety, the strength a group rather than being singled out. It really does sound awful.


Who would want to? The choice would be nice to have. Given a mediocre or below-average ability or desire to do a job, one would certainly want to capture all sorts of gains, such as you've described, from the top performers. Our tax system does not quite transfer enough, so just force them under a union umbrella. Of course, for those unfortunates, the "strength of the group" is really just taking from them and, if the union is somewhat dimwitted, working to jeopardise the whole company through rigid job descriptions and inflated wages that are not related to their skills, abilities and work ethic. Luckily, most unions are not that dimwitted.

So, obviously with all those fantastic benefits, management and small business employees must be unionised for everyone's betterment, huh?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> So, obviously with all those fantastic benefits, management and small business employees must be unionised for everyone's betterment, huh?


Only if they need to be.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Are you truly that full of contempt or are your responses a result of the relative safety of an internet forum?


As the few on EhMac who have met me will attest, I speak like this in person as well. Does my honesty offend you?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> As the few on EhMac who have met me will attest, I speak like this in person as well. Does my honesty offend you?


Not at all.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Only if they need to be.


Need? But they get all those benefits, why isn't it an obvious want?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

We have agreed to disagree on this point for many many threads.

My point remains, unions are as necessary today as they were a hundred years ago. It is naive to think otherwise.

I am not at all saying union for union's sake. Rather, union when needed. And unfortunately, that is often.

Also, open shops are not unions. But I've said that many times before.

Good times!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> We have agreed to disagree on this point for many many threads.
> 
> My point remains, unions are as necessary today as they were a hundred years ago. It is naive to think otherwise.
> 
> ...


We have agreed to disagree on this point for many many threads.

My point remains, unions are as unnecessary today as they were a hundred years ago. It is naive to think otherwise.

I am not at all saying non union for non union's sake. Rather, non union when needed. And unfortunately, that is often.

Also, open shops ARE unions. 

Works just as well from the other side, don't you think?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sinc: Unions if necessary, but not necessarily unions. 

I never have problems with the formation of unions. What I don't like is that the unions are given special power beyond other co-operatives by government. 

To me, the best analogy of a modern-day union is a group of people sinking simultaneously in quicksand. Instead of doing something about the situation they hold a meeting on the way down, then engage in a group hug to show solidarity.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> We have agreed to disagree on this point for many many threads.
> 
> My point remains, unions are as unnecessary today as they were a hundred years ago. It is naive to think otherwise.
> 
> ...


Other than the fact that I was responding to Beej.

Open shops ARE NOT unions. Full stop.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Open shops ARE NOT unions. Full stop.


Is this a fact or just an opinion? Because you are mixing terminology.

Closed shops are, however, an abuse of rights (not in Canada) for the obvious reason: right to associate (in our Charter) but not disassociate (not in our Charter). Full stop?


Trade union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The right to join a trade union is mentioned in article 23, subsection 4 of the UDHR, which also states in article 20, subsection 2. that "No one may be compelled to belong to an association". Prohibiting a person from joining or forming a union, as well as forcing a person to do the same (e.g. "closed shops" or "union shops", see below), whether by a government or by a business, is generally considered a human rights abuse. Similar allegations can be levelled if an employer discriminates based on trade union membership. Attempts by an employer, often with the help of outside agencies, to prevent union membership amongst their staff is known as union busting."


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> We have agreed to disagree on this point for many many threads.


No WE haven't actually.



> My point remains, unions are as unnecessary today as they were a hundred years ago. It is naive to think otherwise.


What an absurd thing to say. Even you don't believe this.



> I am not at all saying non union for non union's sake. Rather, non union when needed. And unfortunately, that is often.


I agree that unions are not needed in many situations. Although I would not say often. Not at all in fact.



> Also, open shops ARE unions.


When you allow individuals to negotiate outside the collective agreement it undermines the value of the document for the workers covered by it. Not a union, perhaps an association, but not a union.



> Works just as well from the other side, don't you think?


No I don't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> What an absurd thing to say. Even you don't believe this.


Hard to believe that a lot of people disagree with mrjimmy?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Hard to believe that a lot of people disagree with mrjimmy?


Not at all. I'm just calling a contradiction when I see one.

And might I say, is that not the pot calling the kettle black...?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Not at all. I'm just calling a contradiction when I see one.


Your opinions are facts but opposing opinions falsehoods?

Perhaps some form of mandatory one-party rule can make sense of that.


----------



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

"so you like to shop at Walmart eh!" No!!!

"The business of America is business." Calvin Coolidge


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> Is this a fact or just an opinion? Because you are mixing terminology.
> 
> Closed shops are, however, an abuse of rights (not in Canada) for the obvious reason: right to associate (in our Charter) but not disassociate (not in our Charter). Full stop?


So a closed shop is not an abuse of rights in Canada. Nor is it in the US if I'm not mistaken. 

You have the choice to not join a union. Just look elsewhere for employment. No loss of freedom there. A 'closed shop' is what is feared because of it's power. That power is greatly diminished with an 'open shop' that's why it's so favourable. No?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> Your opinions are facts but opposing opinions falsehoods?
> 
> Perhaps some form of mandatory one-party rule can make sense of that.


*sigh*

SINC has clearly and not so clearly in the past written that he believed in the usefulness of trade unions in the past but he believes they have are no longer needed. That is what I was responding to.

end sigh


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The "power of the union" is self-limiting, thank goodness. The market is correcting the union aberration by running those companies out of business.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> *sigh*
> 
> SINC has clearly and not so clearly in the past written that he believed in the usefulness of trade unions in the past but he believes they have are no longer needed.


And that is still my opinion.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The "power of the union" is self-limiting, thank goodness. The market is correcting the union aberration by running those companies out of business.


Only to unionize once again in the companies that will replace them. And on and on and on.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> So a closed shop is not an abuse of rights in Canada. Nor is it in the US if I'm not mistaken.
> ..
> Just look elsewhere for employment. No loss of freedom there.


Good, so we're beyond the mistaken claim of "open shop" not being a union.
..
Exactly.

*"Just look elsewhere for employment. No loss of freedom there."*

That's my attitude but some people think they're entitled to setup a closed shop because they don't think that. 

Now, if someone does not want to, "Just look elsewhere for employment" and feels the need to form a union, fine. But when they close the shop so that everybody who wants to work there must join their one-party rule, then that's a problem. 

Why didn't they, "Just look elsewhere for employment" in the first place? It really is none of their business if me and the employer agree on terms, but they force their way into it. They should, as you say, "Just look elsewhere for employment", and it is even something they may say to me, but they don't do that themselves. Never mind the large unions that take over whole industries and fields of work, thus taking away that choice (always to "the workers" benefit, of course).

As I've suggested before, allowing multiple unions, but closed to non-union is a worthy compromise that, I think, crazy Buzz once suggested. Monopolies are not particularly cuddly and pleasant just because they claim to be serving your interests.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Only to unionize once again in the companies that will replace them. And on and on and on.



...as overall union membership continues to spiral downward.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> Good, so we're beyond the mistaken claim of "open shop" not being a union.
> ..
> Exactly.
> 
> ...


Ahh it works both ways doesn't it Beej?

A union by definition is the state of being united. An open shop contradicts this. What of the Collective Agreement when you go and negotiate a lower wage in order to create some favour (or whatever) within the organization. What happens when management decides to bring in a whole pile of workers who act outside of the best interest of the contract/ colective agreement? There is no strength in that. No state of being united. That is the fallacy of the open shop. It is not a 'union' by definition.

You can however, in a closed shop earn more than what is laid out in the contract. Just not less. 

As far as dues? The union is representing you not unlike an agent. They shouldn't be compensated?

BTW, I have no problem with being open to multiple unions. Just as long as everyone is covered by a collective agreement.

It seems to me that proponents of an 'open shop' despise unions but just don't want to appear that way.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> ...there is no strength in that.


I see, so the definition of a union is whatever makes them "Strong." Nice.

I always liked the idea of a union of extremely capable people who are so good at what they do that withdrawing their services creates fear in the hearts of their employer.

Under the current situation, the only thing the employer is afraid of when the union withdraws its "skill set" is obstruction of business, broken windows and harassment of people who want to work for what the job is really worth.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"Ahh it works both ways doesn't it Beej?" 
You seem to demand the middle man. The transaction is with an employee and employer, take it or leave. Your response is to forceably insert a middle-man and say the same thing but now you must deal with a middle man. 

Funny, but you're making my point, not yours when you support the "Just look elsewhere for employment. No loss of freedom there." argument. Thanks.


"A union by definition is the state of being united. An open shop contradicts this. " 
No, the people in the union are united. Your personal definition is fine for you, but "unions" exist in open shops. Your personal definition seems to include a certain assumption about the magnitude of power. 


"As far as dues? The union is representing you not unlike an agent. They shouldn't be compensated?" 
Just like the real estate agent that demands that he be my representative. Sorry, my choice, not his. The seller's agent (or lack thereof) is their choice. Five guys I've never met and who don't own the place can recommend anything they want, but not demand. Except under one-party rule.


"BTW, I have no problem with being open to multiple unions. Just as long as everyone is covered by a collective agreement." 
If you mean different collective agreements (for each little happy collective), that's a start. After all, you do get to pick your agent right? Unions should be like agents, instead, here, they are like governments unto themselves. Thus your power argument. 


"It seems to me that proponents of an 'open shop' despise unions but just don't want to appear that way. " 
Could be, and supporters of closed shop like to control other people's lives, but want to act like it's "for the good". Me, I don't like them but can see why other people might. More power to you but not at the expense of my power. You gain power by, "uniting" like-minded people, but should not be allowed to take away from others by demanding submission to your union. 

That's when your accumulation of power is unjustified.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> More power to you but not at the expense of my power. You gain power by, "uniting" like-minded people, but should not be allowed to take away from others by demanding submission to your union.


_You're_ power is being a voting member of _our_ union. Don't take away our power by operating outside of this.

Thus the true meaning of my statement, if you don't like the closed shop, you should just look for employment elsewhere. There will be plenty of opportunities for you with like minded individuals.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I see, so the definition of a union is whatever makes them "Strong." Nice.
> 
> I always liked the idea of a union of extremely capable people who are so good at what they do that withdrawing their services creates fear in the hearts of their employer.
> 
> Under the current situation, the only thing the employer is afraid of when the union withdraws its "skill set" is obstruction of business, broken windows and harassment of people who want to work for what the job is really worth.


Of course a union by definition creates strength. This is the very reason they were formed. They needed to be strong. They still do. Or do you believe employers no longer take advantage of thier employees and if they do they get what they deserve?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> _You're_ power is being a voting member of _our_ union. Don't take away our power by operating outside of this.


Standard mistake: it was not your power to begin with, you had to take it from an individual. You seem to assume the collective exists and then individuals take its power away. 

That's the reverse logic that allows you to think that, "Just look elsewhere for employment. No loss of freedom there." is actually a defence of closed shops. You're exposing the power-hungry side of unions, instead of the positive side of uniting people and, at least to me, that's not a very good way to promote something, unless it's just to other powermongers.

My power is being a voting member in your shopping club and that I take away your power by not shopping with you (for bulk buying benefits)...nope.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Of course a union by definition creates strength. This is the very reason they were formed. They needed to be strong. They still do. Or do you believe employers no longer take advantage of thier employees and if they do they get what they deserve?


Of course employers take advantage of employees.

Probably just as much as employees take advantage of employers.

50% of all store theft is internal by employees.

Employees often call in "sick" to just get days off, screwing their employer (and fellow employees who could have used the shift).

Why is it that it's mostly blue-collar jobs that are unionized? Maybe it's because people with high-education, white collar jobs don't need a union to provide them with a decent job. Don't like your job? Get an education, and become worth a lot more.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> Standard mistake: it was not your power to begin with, you had to take it from an individual. You seem to assume the collective exists and then individuals take its power away.


People do actually join/ create unions of their own free will. Happily in fact...



> That's the reverse logic that allows you to think that, "Just look elsewhere for employment. No loss of freedom there." is actually a defence of closed shops. You're exposing the power-hungry side of unions, instead of the positive side of uniting people and, at least to me, that's not a very good way to promote something, unless it's just to other powermongers.


It seems to me you want to limit or eliminate closed shops, no? Is that powermongering?



> My power is being a voting member in your shopping club and that I take away your power by not shopping with you (for bulk buying benefits)...nope.


We approach this debate from two very different angles. I assume that you believe unions are an evil that is forced upon poor hapless workers. Either that or they are huge power mad organizations full of incompetents limiting personal freedoms and promoting mediocrity (or worse).

I on the other hand don't believe this.

Enjoy your Friday!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Why is it that it's mostly blue-collar jobs that are unionized?


Hmmm...teachers, public service employees - but those are such tiny unions with a limited membership, your right...



guytoronto said:


> Don't like your job? Get an education, and become worth a lot more.


Is this directed specifically to me?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Is this directed specifically to me?


Yes, 'cause I know who you are, and what your education is.

No, it's directed at the whiney snots at Wal-Mart and McDonalds that complain about their crappy jobs, and think forming a union is going to make things better.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> It seems to me you want to limit or eliminate closed shops, no? Is that powermongering?
> ..
> I assume that you believe unions are an evil that is forced upon poor hapless workers. Either that or they are huge power mad organizations full of incompetents limiting personal freedoms and promoting mediocrity (or worse).
> 
> I on the other hand don't believe this.


Wanting to let individuals choose seems like powermongering to you? Sorry, that's just too weak an argument. I recommend a reconsideration.
.. 
Bad assumption, but probably just based on the above grasping argument. No problem. 

I don't like them and they are not for me (have I been unclear on this?); based on what I've seen and studied I do see productivity problems with the structure and closed shops do, by definition, limit personal freedom. All sorts of things limit personal freedom and you'd be better off putting that limit in context rather than trying to argue that it is not a limit (I hope you were not thinking of going down that route). Maybe some argument about it being a reasonable limit, given factors A, B and C that we will likely disagree on.

I strongly support people's right to form unions (associate) and not to be a part of them (disassociate; not a right in Canada), but your logic-reversal on where power starts (entitlement to an individual's power) was, hopefully, just wording that came out wrong. 

And yes, happy Friday!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm also completely OK with the idea of like minded, individuals huddling together in a collective and calling it a union. What I don't like is the government conferring upon this little band any special powers or recognition. I appreciate the fact that unions are slowly losing these party favours.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Why is it that it's mostly blue-collar jobs that are unionized? Maybe it's because people with high-education, white collar jobs don't need a union to provide them with a decent job. Don't like your job? Get an education, and become worth a lot more.


Physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador are unionized. They even went on strike. 
Perpetuating stereotypes of unions GT?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ErnstNL said:


> Physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador are unionized. They even went on strike.
> Perpetuating stereotypes of unions GT?


I guess there is no more debate on the intelligence of NL physicians then, is there?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ErnstNL said:


> Physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador are unionized. They even went on strike.
> Perpetuating stereotypes of unions GT?


That's why I used the word "mostly". I am well aware of unions like the teachers and others.

If you look at the history of unions, they were set up to protect people in dangerous jobs. Manufacturing with dangerous equipment. Coal miners. Etc.

Nowadays, unions seem to be setup to protect people who can be replaced at the drop of a hat. Who here would like to work on an automotive assembly line for $27/hour?


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

SINC said:


> I guess there is no more debate on the intelligence of NL physicians then, is there?


I can't disagree with you there, SINC:lmao:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Oh irony....

Union convention shut down by strikers



> The annual convention of one of Saskatchewan's largest labour unions was shut down Friday by its own striking staff, represented by a different union.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> Wanting to let individuals choose seems like powermongering to you? Sorry, that's just too weak an argument. I recommend a reconsideration.
> ..


Are you confusing personal freedom and liberty with union busting again? I consider the Libertarian approach to be a weak argument. I feel it is merely camouflaging the desire to lessen the collective bargaining power of a union. Effectively union busting. I would consider that powermongering, yes. 




> Bad assumption, but probably just based on the above *grasping argument*.* No problem.


All we can do is assume Beej (even if it does make an a** out of you and me  ). It's hard enough to know for certain face to face let alone in an internet forum.

* See response above.



> I don't like them and they are not for me (have I been unclear on this?); based on what I've seen and studied I do see productivity problems with the structure and closed shops do, by definition, limit personal freedom. All sorts of things limit personal freedom and you'd be better off putting that limit in context rather than trying to argue that it is not a limit (I hope you were not thinking of going down that route). Maybe some argument about it being a reasonable limit, given factors A, B and C that we will likely disagree on.


I do like them (have I been unclear on this?). The last time I checked, the right to associate included closed shop unions. If you are coming from strictly a Libertarian approach, your desire to have the freedom to disassociate within them (open vs. closed) limits the member's freedom to belong to a closed shop union. Think of the members of a closed shop union as one (horrifying isn't it?). That is their strength. Believe it or not, people do choose to belong to these unions. Not always of course, but they do. 



> I strongly support people's right to form unions (associate) and not to be a part of them (disassociate; not a right in Canada), but your logic-reversal on where power starts (entitlement to an individual's power) was, hopefully, just wording that came out wrong.


Hopefully... 



> And yes, happy Friday!


First BBQ of the season. Happy Friday indeed!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> your desire to have the freedom to disassociate within them (open vs. closed) limits the member's freedom to belong to a closed shop union


Okay, so you are using that route. You seem to be representing the power-hungry end of the union spectrum. 

"Are you confusing personal freedom and liberty with union busting again?"
That's your confusion. And also quite telling.

"I feel it is merely camouflaging the desire to lessen the collective bargaining power of a union. " 
Very telling. The collective Is (It Exists), the individual is a nuisance of theory.

Odd choice, but telling and honest. Thanks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: I know these arguments well. Same logic as:

* Your freedom to vote for a certain political party infringes on my rights to have the government I want.
* Your freedom to eat meat infringes on my freedom to live in a world of vegetarians.
* Your freedom to watch the television programs you choose, infringes on my freedom to leave my three-year-old in front of the TV with a converter control in his chubby little hand.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: I know these arguments well. Same logic as:
> 
> * Your freedom to vote for a certain political party infringes on my rights to have the government I want.
> * Your freedom to eat meat infringes on my freedom to live in a world of vegetarians.
> * Your freedom to watch the television programs you choose, infringes on my freedom to leave my three-year-old in front of the TV with a converter control in his chubby little hand.


Your freedom to make that post took away my freedom to have post 152.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> quite telling/ Very telling/ but telling.


My goodness, me and my loose lips. You have found me out! To quote every episode of Scooby Doo: "Ooh you meddling kids!"



> You seem to be representing the power-hungry end of the union spectrum.


If the believe of the representation of _*members*_ under a collective agreement is power-hungry, then so be it.

Here are some tasty tidbits courtesy of Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_shop



> *The open shop was the slogan adopted by United States employers in the first decade of the twentieth century in their attempt to drive unions out of the construction industry*. Construction craft unions, then and now, rely on controlling the supply of labor in particular trades and geographical areas as a means of maintaining union standards and establishing collective bargaining relations with the employers in that field. In order to do that, construction unions—and to a lesser extent unions representing musicians, longshore workers, restaurant employees and others who work on a transitory and relatively brief basis—must require that employers hire only their members. By refusing to hire exclusively union members, construction employers effectively undercut many of the conditions, such as the eight hour day, that unions had achieved over the past several decades.
> *The open shop was also a key component of the American Plan introduced in the 1920s, when employers attempted to reverse the gains made by unions during World War I.* In that era the open shop was not only directed at construction unions, but also unions in mass production industries; *the open shop represented not only the right to discriminate against union members in employment but also a steadfast opposition to collective bargaining of any sort.*


Also, many studies done regarding the disparity in not only wages, but industrial accidents between States with Right To Work laws and those without. Those with (essentially open shops) suffered higher numbers of accidents and lower wages versus those without. Interesting.

It seems any defense of closed shop unionism will be unacceptable to you. Que sera sera.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> It seems any defense of closed shop unionism will be unacceptable to you. Que sera sera.


Count me in that opinion too, please.

A closed shop constitutes a loss of the right to choose and should be outlawed just like other discriminatory acts under the Charter.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Count me in that opinion too, please.
> 
> A closed shop constitutes a loss of the right to choose and should be outlawed just like other discriminatory acts under the Charter.


So why isn't it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> So why isn't it?


Likely because there are so many misguided union types promoting it, and they are voters too. One day it will be outlawed. Watch and see.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> It seems any defense of closed shop unionism will be unacceptable to you. Que sera sera.


You could use...
"Maybe some argument about it being a reasonable limit, given factors A, B and C that we will likely disagree on."

Your defense was based on the warped logic of:
....................
Your freedom to vote for a certain political party infringes on my rights to have the government I want.

Your freedom to eat meat infringes on my freedom to live in a world of vegetarians.

Your freedom to watch the television programs you choose, infringes on my freedom to leave my three-year-old in front of the TV with a converter control in his chubby little hand.

Your freedom to make that post took away my freedom to have post 152.

Your desire to have the freedom to disassociate within them (open vs. closed) limits the member's freedom to belong to a closed shop union.
....................


And now you are trying to discredit a concept based on others that have supported it. Well, if that's your next argument, then your concept of the collective's rights over the individual was used by much worse.  Gee, I guess that means I "win" that exchange, Scooby, if we were to consider that line of reasoning productive.

So maybe you should get back to your previous point -- it was strong relative to your new one.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> Your defense was based on the warped logic of


Attempting to dress down those with opposing views isn't very gentlemanly is it?

If I have failed so to defend the open shop please then enlighten me with your defense of it! 

Also, you have not commented on this:

Open shop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *The open shop was the slogan adopted by United States employers in the first decade of the twentieth century in their attempt to drive unions out of the construction industry.* Construction craft unions, then and now, rely on controlling the supply of labor in particular trades and geographical areas as a means of maintaining union standards and establishing collective bargaining relations with the employers in that field. In order to do that, construction unions—and to a lesser extent unions representing musicians, longshore workers, restaurant employees and others who work on a transitory and relatively brief basis—must require that employers hire only their members. *By refusing to hire exclusively union members, construction employers effectively undercut many of the conditions, such as the eight hour day, that unions had achieved over the past several decades.
> *
> *The open shop was also a key component of the American Plan introduced in the 1920s, when employers attempted to reverse the gains made by unions during World War I.* In that era the open shop was not only directed at construction unions, but also unions in mass production industries; *the open shop represented not only the right to discriminate against union members in employment but also a steadfast opposition to collective bargaining of any sort.*


*Also, many studies done regarding the disparity in not only wages, but industrial accidents between States with Right To Work laws and those without. Those with (essentially open shops) suffered higher numbers of accidents and lower wages versus those without. Interesting.
*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Those with (essentially open shops) suffered higher numbers of accidents and lower wages versus those without. Interesting.


Lower wages is understandable. Union wages rarely represent the value of the labour involved.

I attribute the lower accident rate to the likelihood that no real work was done in the closed shop. You don't expose yourself to a lot of injury washing your hands for an hour a day, taking hour-long **** breaks, and writing reports to the shop steward.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Attempting to dress down those with opposing views isn't very gentlemanly is it?
> ........
> Also, you have not commented on this:


Maybe deal with the logical implications of your claim before demanding explanation from others? 

Then you might see why personal rights and freedoms are the starting point, onto which reasonable limits are applied; at least that's the general framework. You're starting to argue reasons for limiting personal freedom (good), but you still never dealt with the problem of the warped logic you seem to believe in.

Once you have dealt with the "warped logic" implications, my comments on what look like "reasonable" justifications:
1) Wages are not a good indicator: assume higher is always better and play that logic through.
2) Regarding safety, it would depend a great deal on the details. Not just how injuries are reported but, different states have very different industries which inherently have different safety aspects. You'd also have to look at total economics (fewer jobs, but safer? safer jobs but unhealthy industries?). But, with good research, this could be a consideration towards limiting personal freedom. That does not mean it trumps it (subjective judgement). 

I'll look over the studies at some point if you send them to me.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Lower wages is understandable. Union wages rarely represent the value of the labour involved.
> 
> I attribute the lower accident rate to the likelihood that no real work was done in the closed shop. You don't expose yourself to a lot of injury washing your hands for an hour a day, taking hour-long **** breaks, and writing reports to the shop steward.


You kill me! :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> You kill me! :lmao:



It nearly killed me to work with UAW employees. To paraphrase an old joke: 

"They were the world's steadiest workers. If they were any steadier, they would have been motionless."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> You kill me! :lmao:


Well, as long as you're ok with simple arguments based on who else supports ideas, this should be "evidence" to you. MF was only partially joking?

Montreal Mayor Takes on City Union

When I get lots of power, I promise to be nice and productive. Now stop infringing on my freedom and give me power!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was partiallly joking. In the past unions were able to insist on safety training that was not supported by the government and industry. Today, government and industry are ahead of the unions. Union workers are far less productive workers, however.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Here's an idea J (once you're done expecting others to respond):

Why not have closed shops but no unions for multiple shops (each closed shop gets to defend their "freedom")? Seems like unions of unions do not even fit into the warped logic framework. What about when a little union wants to separate from a big one, or switch to another: who's the bad guy hurting "the shop"?

I'd be a lot more ok with closed shops as a reasonable violation of personal freedom if whole industries and profession could not be locked away from anyone who did not want to join the club, and because monopolies hurt in general...even labour ones. 300,000 people being forced to "bulk buy" together: how freeing.

It would also lessen the current situation where unions have a huge variety of workers in them instead of more common ground (and less coercion). So, if you're going to forcefully unite like-minded people, at least do it in a way that they are likely to be somewhat like-minded in the first place. The power-corrupts problem would be less if unions didn't just have incentive to fill their numbers with any and all and no competition.

Why should one set of employees (e.g. accountants) not get their own if the union extends beyond one "shop"? Civil service for the people...

Middle-ground suggestions by Beej the Intransigent:
2

Jimmy, how about some notion of what you see as reasonable adjustments to acknowledge the "other" point of view?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beejy,

Excluding (not excusing) all other comments, mine and otherwise, my point remains.

I believe in closed shop unionism. I believe they have absolutely not outlived their usefulness.

I believe, as illustrated in the Wiki quote, that open shop unionism destabilizes the collective agreement and is in essence, anti-union or non union. This has always and will always be my believe. I do not accept that a individual's freedom of choice should trump the collective will of the membership of a closed shop union, nor has our Government.

_in addition..._

I don't believe in unions for unions sake. Only when required (majority vote).

I don't believe that some unions and their membership are not corrupt and/ or ineffecient etc. Some need a lot of work, some don't.

Can I be anymore clear? 

Do you wish to continue misunderstanding me to serve your purposes or does this response suffice?

ps.


> Here's an idea J (once you're done expecting others to respond):


You're assumptions and barely cloaked adversarial responses have made this discussion rather tedious.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Do you wish to continue misunderstanding me to serve your purposes or does this response suffice?


That seems to be what you were doing with the "union busting" and other stuff. But hey, just point the finger at me if it makes you feel better. That's okay, nobody likes it when their sacred cows are considered for dinner. 

If you don't want to deal with the implications of your previous logic, sure. Maybe you just poorly worded it or don't like where it leads. Seems harmless to admit the former or explore the latter.

As for the rest of your exasperation to be "clear", I understood those points already, but thanks for the summary. If you can't keep up with the difference between what doors your logic opens and that stuff, then slow down.

"You're assumptions and barely cloaked adversarial responses have made this discussion rather tedious."
You just noticed that it was tedious? Gee, take a look at your responses, non-responses and assumptions. You made quite the contribution to tedium, as did I. Congrats.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy}I believe said:


> Why is the "collective agreement" more sacred than a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> If you don't want to deal with the implications of your previous logic, sure. Maybe you just poorly worded it or don't like where it leads. Seems harmless to admit the former or explore the latter.


Beej, it seems to me that tripping me up because of hastily worded posts seems more important than the issue at hand. This is precisely why I summarized. Those are my points. Is winning an argument more important to you than discussion?



> As for the rest of your exasperation to be "clear", I understood those points already, but thanks for the summary. If you can't keep up with the difference between what doors your logic opens and that stuff, then slow down.


Thanks for the advice! Once I filter out ego and unwarranted assumptions I'll consider what remains.



> "You're assumptions and barely cloaked adversarial responses have made this discussion rather tedious."
> You just noticed that it was tedious? Gee, take a look at your responses, non-responses and assumptions. You made quite the contribution to tedium, as did I. Congrats.


At least we agree on something.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Beej, it seems to me that tripping me up because of hastily worded posts seems more important than the issue at hand.


I specifically hesitated on the warped logic, then you repeated it. That's a really slow trip. Seems more about finger pointing at the guy pouring barbecue sauce on the sacred cow.

Ignore the "trip" if you want; other items have been brought up to discuss (see 166). Feel free to keep pointing the finger or tackle them or bring up other ideas for accommodating different views or whatever.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Like the lobster, slowly being boiled, apparently you don't see the erosion of this sacred cow.


Of course I see the erosion. This doesn't change my opinion. Erosion doesn't mean extinction. Unions need repair just as we all do. But outliving their usefulness? Never. Being legislated away? Perhaps.

Unions certainly do have their enemies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting



> Union busting is a practice, considered by some to be unethical,[1] which is undertaken by an employer or their agents to prevent employees from joining a labor union, or to disempower, subvert, or destroy unions that already exist.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> What nonsense.
> 
> Don't you feel silly writing tripe like this?


Not at all. The best humour contains an element of truth. 

On the other hand I'd feel silly responding to it in such a sanctimonious fashion, St. However.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

And to add a bit more levity:

What was the last thing Jimmy Hoffa said to the Teamsters?

Don't do anything until I get back...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> And to add a bit more levity:
> 
> What was the last thing Jimmy Hoffa said to the Teamsters?
> 
> Don't do anything until I get back...


:lmao:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> And to add a bit more levity:
> 
> What was the last thing Jimmy Hoffa said to the Teamsters?
> 
> Don't do anything until I get back...


THAT is a good one!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Some people like to aim higher than having "an element of truth." Like a smidgen.


Are you commenting on your posts or MF's or someone else's? 

Some recent posts of yours in the "wild west" forum suggest something else is going on. I don't think that you're acting like a moderator, although it may look like that, but something seems to have changed recently. Is this about you aiming higher, or others or something else?

Care to share where "Saint However" emerged from?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> But I don't really understand the rest of your post.


What parts confuse you? Let's skip the coy intentional ignorance game (you are faking it, right?).

Latest contributions from a pot:
............
What nonsense.

Don't you feel silly writing tripe like this?

Nevermind, what am I saying?
............
Okay.

Some people like to aim higher than having "an element of truth." Like a smidgen. 
............


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> The only places I know where there are labour/management committees who seek out and obtain balanced, fair third party assessments of the value of work, and then attempt to compensate the work at the level assessed, are places of employment that have unions.


The Saint argument is another piece (not unique to this thread, don't get too defensive lest a reasonable claim is just dismissed by the Sainthood) but, going with the other topics...

Why do you separate labour/management? They're all just employees.

The only places that you know where, "committees who seek out and obtain balanced, fair third party assessments of the value of work, and then attempt to compensate the work at the level assessed, are places of employment that have unions"? 

Sounds like limited knowledge and presumptions. What happens when the "committee" results give lower compensation results for some and higher for others? Then there's the other problems raised, but you just jumped in with "tripe", so I don't want to rush you through the process.

Pompous and arrogant, yes. But, setting aside defensiveness, are you still going to play the intentional ignorance game? Fun game.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> The only places I know where there are labour/management committees who seek out and obtain balanced, fair third party assessments of the value of work, and then attempt to compensate the work at the level assessed, are places of employment that have unions.


What does a "fair, third party assessment" have to do with the value of labour? That only sets the amount an employer is forced to pay in a union shop. Outside of that rarefied atmosphere, the actual value of labour is based on the supply and demand of different workers with marketable skills.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> What nonsense.
> 
> Don't you feel silly writing tripe like this?
> 
> Nevermind, what am I saying?


Forget your training so soon?

The real nonsense is commenting first and posting what you are commenting on after.

It really does get tiresome to read backwards. Not only that there is no continuity. Must you?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> There is normally more to the process than a single assessment. If it's fair, there are checks and balances on the system.
> 
> Are you really saying that "outside" of that environment, people are paid fairly based on market value? Do employers automatically raise your wages when the market demands it, or it's simply drawn to their attention


Who knows? Once again I had to read your response to something, then I had to read what you were responding to. That is backwards. Seems to me a "partial mod" should know how to use the system, but I guess not.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Do employers automatically raise your wages when the market demands it, or it's simply drawn to their attention


Yes. Of course, that depends on one's skills and job performance, as well as the general market. For example, pay for all sorts of jobs has skyrocketed in Alberta. And, across Canada, some jobs have seen increases, while others have not. 

When the price of something (labour, goods, services) is artificially stabilised or constrained, the market pressures do not go away, they are exerted elsewhere. Stability feels nice, but there is a (usually hidden) cost. 

If a whole industry is under the same framework, it just charges customers more, thus operating more like a tax in the case where wages are artificially boosted. Higher wages do not necessarily equal a good thing: they need a basis. 

If that basis is a social equity argument, then a union is trying to force a business to do government's job. That's back to not getting the government you want (people don't vote how you want them to), so you form your own and make someone else pay for it.

Back to the industry: If that industry has import competition it may be in deep poop. It would have a limited ability to just raise prices (tax consumers). The next step can be to ask for import tariffs or go through massive layoffs and restructuring, maybe even pay cuts. 

Unions may also stay keenly aware of and on top of competitive pressures, ensuring flexibility in job descriptions and wages. Unions may also operate in an environment that is quite slow to change and naturally stable...probably not much friction there. Unions may also reinforce a "brotherhood" approach towards protecting one's own: this can get dangerous.


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

Zzzzzzzzz...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I was looking around for this and here it was in this very thread.

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/45218-so-you-like-shop-walmart-eh-6.html#post461159


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I was looking around for this and here it was in this very thread.


?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> ?


Is there no link there?


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

I have only ever stepped inside a WalMart ONCE in my life - just to look around and see what was inside. I found it a cheap and tawdry shopping experience. 

Knowing Wal Mart's business practices I walked the aisles and examined the enemy from top to bottom. Having seen with my own eyes, I left without buying a thing and have no plan of returning. Luckily, in Vancouver, I have a full array of shopping options that do not require me to ever take my custom to this cut throat, cut rate retailer.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

There's an open-air flea market just a hop-skip from my local Wal-Mart, and they're way cheaper than even Wally's World. I give my business to the local independent sellers.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> I was looking around for this and here it was in this very thread.
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/45218-so-you-like-shop-walmart-eh-6.html#post461159


Yes this: 
"your desire to have the freedom to disassociate within them (open vs. closed) limits the member's freedom to belong to a closed shop union"

which was possibly just the result of "tripping" you up after this:
"You're power is being a voting member of our union. Don't take away our power by operating outside of this."

was quite the addition to your argument. "Our" power is taken away? It was working better before, but you could always deal with the previously posted implications of such thinking.

Similarly, arguing that only closed shops have unions versus open shops: 
"It is not a 'union' by definition." 
was done better before:
"Also, open or closed shop, members VOTE on ALL union activity. " 

where they seem to be unions (technically I guess a shop is not a union  ), just not the ones you prefer. 

So any thoughts on the structures in 166?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> Yes this:
> "your desire to have the freedom to disassociate within them (open vs. closed) limits the member's freedom to belong to a closed shop union"
> 
> which was possibly just the result of "tripping" you up after this:
> ...


Beej,

I feel no reason to further explain myself. I have had some hastily worded posts but don't feel the need to have to correct them. As far as the big picture, I have clarified myself in more carefully worded posts. I included the link to October in order to show the futility of a discussion that never ends. It's too bad that in this round more didn't chime in. That's what makes it fun and enlightening. After all, I know where you, SINC and Macfury stand.

As you so aptly put:



> Obviously we're not going to agree; this is one of those more fundamental things that gets down to notions of the individual and the collective and drawing different lines for issues where the two notions collide. Still, I wanted to thank you, Sinc and RevMatt (did I forget anyone? If so, sorry) for a good discussion.
> 
> This is an example of how we develop a better political system: not by converting others (although that would be swell ) but by increasing understanding and political discussion so we go forward with a better understanding of what we want as well as what others want.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

> This is an example of how we develop a better political system: not by converting others (although that would be swell ) but by increasing understanding and political discussion so we go forward with a better understanding of what we want as well as what others want.


Good, so you see the value in discussing the structures in 166? Or maybe delving into reasons for/against unionising small biz (or just how such a thing could be done)? How about some other ideas put forward to discuss? Anything? Bueller?

It does not have to be just about defending the "shop" but if that's all you do, weaknesses and ineffective defences will be pointed out. So let's skip that part if you see no reason. Try new stuff. 

"I know where you, SINC and Macfury stand" : possibly not, just going by past assumptions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> There's an open-air flea market just a hop-skip from my local Wal-Mart, and they're way cheaper than even Wally's World. I give my business to the local independent sellers.


You can buy your cheap Chinese goods from local non-unionized sellers, without paying the Wal-Mart overhead. Good for you!


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You can buy your cheap Chinese goods from local non-unionized sellers, without paying the Wal-Mart overhead. Good for you!


Independent businessmen selling brand-name merchandise 95% off, thank you very much.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> Good, so you see the value in discussing the structures in 166? Or maybe delving into reasons for/against unionising small biz (or just how such a thing could be done)? How about some other ideas put forward to discuss? Anything? Bueller?
> 
> It does not have to be just about defending the "shop" but if that's all you do, weaknesses and ineffective defences will be pointed out. So let's skip that part if you see no reason. Try new stuff.
> 
> "I know where you, SINC and Macfury stand" : possibly not, just going by past assumptions.


Firstly, I must say I am flattered that you've taken such an active interest in me continuing this debate. Thank you for that.

I'm not sure why though. Have I not made my opinion clear? You seem to not want to let go. In fact, you are becoming rather insulting. I'm not sure why, as I have not been. Perhaps your disdain of trade unionism gets the better of you at times. I of course don't wish to speculate as that would be unfair of me and I would be resorting to the same tactic. Have I insulted you in some way?

As far as answering your post. I didn't know that that was a prerequisite for me commenting, or stating my opinions in this thread, (which, BTW, we have completely derailed). I find your tone condesending which doesn't interest me in the least. When it leaves the realm of discussion and becomes a p***ing contest, I become disinterested. 

Thank you though.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> Independent businessmen selling brand-name merchandise 95% off, thank you very much.



Sorry, I thought Wal-Mart also sold brand-name goods. 

And these independent businessmen sell made in America-goods at 95% off retail? That's quite a specialized market. Excellent! They will surely put Wal-Mart straight out of business!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Have I not made my opinion clear?
> ............
> In fact, you are becoming rather insulting.
> ............
> ...


On the undiscussed issues? No.
............
By asking for your thoughts? Or maybe it was just pointing out weak defences. Okay, then skip that stuff and try new stuff. You seem to be dwelling on what you do not like. 
............
It isn't a prerequisite. You seemed to expect a response earlier. Change of heart? Either way, I just put some ideas out there, maybe you've got some others. 
............
That's intentional when faced with stubbornly bad logic. It's not polite, sure, but I have little sympathy for stubbornly bad logic. 

Discussing all sorts of new stuff is much more fun, but that's just me. In case you cared, your recent posts seem to be much about whining and intentionally not trying out new stuff. But that's just me. 
............
Many times now I've fished for discussing new stuff. Ideas I've posted, new ones from you, whatever. Strange notion of what a peeing contest is. Seems more like sulking. But that's just me being insulting and condescending.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Beej said:


> But that's just me being insulting and condescending.


The first step is admitting it. Good for you! :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> The first step is admitting it. Good for you! :clap:


I don't have trouble admitting such things, unlike you. Just finger pointing and complaining. So to answer: 
"Is winning an argument more important to you than discussion?"

No (it's a nice frill), but you do seem to be a sore loser. Pity.

Sorry about your sacred cow, though. It was delicious. I tried to share.

So are we done with the "airing of grievances" yet, or do you want to keep it up?

If we are done: any ideas to discuss yet that can get us thinking about different frameworks? I've offered a couple but there must be many more.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Whatch gonna win?*

mrjimmy congratulations! You have managed to maintain a rational conversation while dealing with spewers of hate. They know nothing of Unions only of hate.

The spewers of hate confuse terms to confuse their point of view so as to repeat hateful things to say.

The haters of Unions say things that are impossible to prove as if these things were well known facts.

Repeat the BIG LIE often enough and long enough it will become fact. "Union Denyers"?

I wonder if the hatred of Social Democratic Collectivity extends to Co-operatives, Credit Unions and Co-operative Insurance groups as well as to Union of workers?

Good job anyway mrjimmy.

Also to comment on the post that started off all of this hate mongering. WallyWorld challenged the bias of the Labour board to buy time to win the vote. Delay the vote and work on driving out the Union supporters or hire employees that won't support the Union.

If nothing else delay the vote and the beginning of negotiations. WallyWorld has already achieved its goal.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What's with all the talk of hate? No one spoke of it. Obviously you are a brainwashed, dyed in the wool union supporter. Good on you.

I, and many others believe that closed shops infringe on freedom of choice and if you can't get your mind around that, perhaps you should go back to lurking instead of spewing hate.

Try coming back when you are rational.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> They know nothing of Unions only of hate.


I don't hate unions at all. I think of them primarily as sort of a club to protect people who don't have the skills or confidence to make it on their own. I do my best to ensure that these clubs don't exist--I don't want to financially subsidize that sort of behaviour--but I don't hate them.


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> I, and many others believe that closed shops infringe on freedom of choice and if you can't get your mind around that, perhaps you should go back to lurking instead of spewing hate.
> 
> Try coming back when you are rational.


I'm butting in here mid-debate so please excuse my footprints but this comment is not constructive and just too much... too much by far.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

SINC said:


> What's with all the talk of hate? No one spoke of it. Obviously you are a brainwashed, dyed in the wool union supporter. Good on you.
> 
> I, and many others believe that closed shops infringe on freedom of choice and if you can't get your mind around that, perhaps you should go back to lurking instead of spewing hate.
> 
> Try coming back when you are rational.


Freedom of choice has been a luxury for some. Do you think child labourers in the early factory days had a real choice as to where they worked? 

Sure, it's not applicable today in our society...because of organized resistance to those in charge. 

Some information on the eight hour day: Eight-hour day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try googling five day work work as well. Enjoy your Saturdays


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Darkscot: The unions of that time period are something I find much more admirable in that they really were just the negotiating tools of a large group of people in agreement. I am very uncomfortable with the notions of a unin as a group of people more special than any other--that is, that their club gets special recognition by the government. Before you protest, I've also gone on record here against financial subsidies of business by government and special recognition of any particualar type of company: Enbridge, Bell Telephone, etc.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Macfury: They get special recognition because they demand it. And because of their efforts, working conditions have improved around the board for the other group (the non-unionized). 

What do you think would happen if unions were to disappear? Do you think working conditions would remain on par or improve or degrade? There are laws now protecting worker's rights but we all know that big businesses are in bed with government.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Darkscot: both unions and business are in bed with government. I agree with none of it. 

Regarding your question about whether working conditions would remain on par if unions disappeared. I imagine wages of unionized employees would fall. Certain people formerly guaranteed a job would be fired. But remember, I don't have any problems with unions--just special favours and recognition of unions by government which give them power beyond the right to withdraw their services. I see no reason to create special legislation around unions.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Also to comment on the post that started off all of this hate mongering.


The only hate-mongering seems to be regarding Walmart and your apparent hate of questioning your assumptions. Although, by some logic, not loving unions denies their right to someone's love and could be argued, in a warped manner, as equivalent to hate.

Doubting and arguing against a cow being sacred is not hating the cow or the beliefs of those that think the cow is sacred. Or maybe you hate open shops and individual freedoms? How about replacement workers? I assume not, but I'm not certain given the vitriol. Mooooving right along...

Within a framework where a close shop is accepted as justifiable, how are "unions of unions" viewed? The act of diluting the collective's common interests for the pursuit of power (becomes an end, not a means) does not seem like a good idea from more than one perspective.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

I'm not in a union so I do my job, and I do it to the best of my ability. I know that if I'm a jerkoff slacker, I would get fired. No Union to stand up for me.

And I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Elric said:


> I'm not in a union so I do my job, and I do it to the best of my ability. I know that if I'm a jerkoff slacker, I would get fired. No Union to stand up for me.
> 
> And I wouldn't have it any other way.


Elric: My union experience involved nothing but requests for me to slow down, do less and extend breaks. 

* Wash your hands thoroughly _before_ your break (10 minutes of hand washing) the boss shouldn't expect you to was your hands on break time. 
* Doing the second task on the list involves taking a vehicle for a 12 minute drive. If we extend the first job to take until 23 minutes before lunch there would be no time to get to the second job and back, therefore this is _free_ time.
* If you finish this job any faster, they will hire fewer people next year.

Pure agony.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I was in a civil service union. They took my money, did nothing for me (except limiting possible raises) and, in return, I did not request the "official" services as defined by rule ABC when I or anyone I worked with wanted to move furniture. A gross safety violation I guess, but we all coped. There was high turnover amongst people with similar work to mine. Go figure. All opinion and personal experience. Hate-mongering, arguably.

Moooving along...

Within a "shop" what happens with a variety of jobs? The union has an interest in including all of them (power, $$$...as with many things), but what are the mechanisms for one job-group to try and separate? After all, with some workplaces, the jobs are so different that it does not make sense to expect or foster one agreement but, even aside from a set of rules, would there be concerns of intimidation and/or one of its quieter cousins? Is the situation materially different before or after a closed shop is formed?


----------



## Ravenclaw (Feb 18, 2007)

An aside from the discussion on unions, will I shop at Walmart? It's of particular interest to me now since workers are just turning the soil for the soon to be Walmart in our small rural town. Who will they attract to work there? Almost every restaurant, grocery store, gas station --all services-- are chronically needing employees. This is Alberta. High school kids regularly cross the street to get a diffferent job when they become disenchanted for good or ill reasons at their current job. I'll know these future employees of Walmart and I will learn about the working conditions at the store, just as I know the others in other businessess around town. 

It should be interesting.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Ravenclaw said:


> I'll know these future employees of Walmart and I will learn about the working conditions at the store, just as I know the others in other businessess around town.


Interesting. An important consideration is the work environment, pay etc. versus the alternative for the people that chose Walmart.


----------



## ZipperZap (Sep 24, 2006)

*Computer Stores & Walmart*

Heard this morning on a couple of local news broadcasts that Walmart is 
pretty much responsible for driving some rather large 'puter stores out 
of business ... when they brought their 42" TVs down to under $1000 (US).

... haven't got the links yet but I'm pretty secure with what I heard to be true.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Elric: My union experience involved nothing but requests for me to slow down, do less and extend breaks.
> 
> * Wash your hands thoroughly _before_ your break (10 minutes of hand washing) the boss shouldn't expect you to was your hands on break time.
> * Doing the second task on the list involves taking a vehicle for a 12 minute drive. If we extend the first job to take until 23 minutes before lunch there would be no time to get to the second job and back, therefore this is _free_ time.
> ...


Thats exactly my point. I haven't seen a union yet that lets a person do something more than they are expected of them. The rewards I've seen given out are for ideas, that should have been implemented anyways, but they wait a month, review the idea for a month, then give you a pen.

In my job now, sure I do more, a lot more, but the constant pats on the back are worth a million dollars compared to that pen (which usually ran out of irreplaceable ink a few short weeks later, or stolen by a lazy ass that never gets pens.)



HowEver said:


> Yup, you got it, that's exactly what unions are, what they do, and who they protect.
> 
> Information about your award will follow.


They say they protect workers like me, but we are the ones getting "written up" for going above and beyond what's expected. It really made me think where the company would be if they actually let their employees improve service and productivity.
They protect the mindless lazy ass instead... there's power in numbers you know.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

While building a new plant in the late 80's the contractor had a small skid shed set up at one end of the press room which served as a mini office to review blueprints out of the wind and cold temperatures. (The main construction office was a large trailer near the front of the complex.)

The shed was an 8 x 10 plywood shack on skids that was moved along the building as work progressed. It was rough wired with one outlet and a single centre light, the outlet for powering a portable electric heater. The walls were insulated and covered with a vapour barrier and the wiring could be plainly seen behind the plastic. The shed had a single outside plug that was attached to a generator, similar to the type on an electric stove or dryer.

When the job was done, the contractor asked his crew of carpenters to dismantle the shed, rather than to load it up and transport it away, a much cheaper solution for such a small shack.

The carpenters union took one look in the shed and when they saw the ceiling light and outlet, they refused to dismantle the building. They insisted a union electrician be called to remove the wiring before they dismantled it. As it turned out, no electricians were available and would not be for a few days as they had gone on to another job.

I happened to be there as the representative of the building's owner as well as head of the project and had asked for the shed to be removed to allow better access to our parking area.

I was so PO'd at this stupidity that I went home, grabbed my tool box and returned to the site at which time I cut the wires, pried off the two electrical boxes and tossed the whole thing in the garbage bin. Took me about 10 minutes.

The contractor laughed like hell when I told him what I had done. But a member of the carpenters union had seen me do the deed, reported it to the union, and the result was the carpenters refused to tear down the shack since it was tainted by a non-union worker.

I went back to the old shop, got three pressmen to give me a hand and we returned and demolished the shack in less than an hour. We loaded the whole thing onto the back of a truck supplied by the contractor and we had our parking space available.

And people wonder why I have issues with unions?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sinc: Ya cost dose boys dere jobs, eh?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> I'm sure you're a very nice person, but I've never seen anyone except perhaps a 6 year old write " 'puter " seriously.


It has been used a number of times on ehmac but I'm sure this comment has nothing to do with the other problems you have with the poster.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Moi... ?


C'est incroyable.

^ French of a six year old anglophone?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Holy thread resurrection!

Yet another victory for the worker:

Landmark Wal-Mart ruling released by Quebec arbitrator

Complete with a brilliant quote from management:



> A spokesman for Wal-Mart said the company is unhappy with the decision and it is "incompatible" with the company's way of doing business.


I wonder when they'll close this store....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I wonder when they'll close this store....


Right after they shake the fleas off their back and save money by opening across the river. Another victory for labour!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Right after they shake the fleas off their back and save money by opening across the river. Another victory for labour!


I think it's more likely it will send a message out to other Wal Mart employees that it is indeed possible to unionize without the risk of losing your job. Soon Wal Marts everywhere will have collective agreements in place. What will they do then? Close all unionized outlets? Doubtful. Raise prices? Even more doubtful. That would make them less competitive. Suck it up and compensate their workers reasonably? Hopefully. Although there will be much kicking and screaming. The big greedy corporation will not be happy.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Perhaps they don't need to go any further than to close the tire and lube shop. The way I read it, is that only those 8 employees are unionized.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I think it's more likely it will send a message out to other Wal Mart employees that it is indeed possible to unionize without the risk of losing your job. Soon Wal Marts everywhere will have collective agreements in place. What will they do then? Close all unionized outlets? Doubtful. Raise prices? Even more doubtful. That would make them less competitive. Suck it up and compensate their workers reasonably? Hopefully.


No, they will close the outlets and cut their losses. Perhaps open under another name and use only part-time help. If they followed the path of raising prices they would have to close anyway. Why drag things out? Also, there are many places around the world where Wal-Mart has no problems operating. It would just be a matter of shifting to other markets.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Well, they didn't make it here:

Wal-Mart's German Retreat

which I have admit made me giggle just a little... 

Anyway they don't need to worry about ALL of Canada, here in Alberta it is illegal to force a first collective agreement on anyone no matter how many employees might vote in favour of having a union. They'll do fine in Asia as well, methinks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Wal-Mart will just suck up the info and count the research cost as a drop in the bucket.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I'd welcome a Canadian retreat.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I'd welcome a Canadian retreat.


Canucks like to shop there too much for a retreat.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Perhaps the drive to unionize will push them out. One can only hope. Successive closings and re-openings hurt the bottom line as well.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Successive closings and re-openings hurt the bottom line as well.


Short term pain for long term gain...

They are the 800lbs....nay, the 8000lbs gorilla of retail.

Aside from some grocery chains, what other Canadian retailers are unionized? Very few, if any. This isn't going to get far.


----------



## johnb1 (Aug 6, 2006)

*nope, no thanks*

actually-true story, I applied to be a Janitor at my local wally world (part time), having had 9 years being a janitor at a local hotel. I got turned down. And in 
Arizona, where I was visiting friends of a family, I ate too much mexican food, went into Walmart, and crop-dusted* the whole darn store. I never went back there, or back to Arizona again (family's friends were jerks, still are)


JB

*crop-dust, verb, to expel quantities of gas while walking around a large area, thus leaving a trail of gas in your wake


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What happened to "crap locally?" Why'd the Arizonans deserve that treatment for what happened at home?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

A unionized workplace would ensure all workers had gas masks to protect them from this type of biological attack.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I have pretty much abandoned shopping in the US Wally World super stores. Round trip from parking stall to store is usually about half a mile. Another mile or so inside trying to save a few pennies over the Target price just isn't worth it. Unfortunately Canada has no real alternatives.

Besides I can always find much pleasanter places to put in those long walks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You can find me at Wal-Mart to buy my wife perfume--about half price. occasionally a quick sweep for kiddy stuff at Christmas. I really avoid the experience whenever possible.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Putting aside for the moment the more evil of their corporate practices (which I understand are considerably watered-down compared to US s.o.p.), I was recently at the Payless Shoes at Town & Country in Victoria and decided to take a look inside the Wal-Mart next door.

Again, ignoring any attitudes about Wal-Mart and "The High Cost of Low Prices" (excellent documentary btw) -- what a horrible experience, from bad layout to narrow aisles to indifferent staff and just a general atmosphere of cattle-pen. The 10,000-watt fluorescent lighting (my main beef with Costco as well) didn't help the experience, but the "mental institution gray" decor and "tired of life" demoralised staff were truly depressing, not to mention that most parents seem to see the store as a free-range playground for their rugrats ...

The icing on the cake was a in-store (in the back of the store, naturally) McDonald's with no restrooms and (clearly) an exemption from health inspection. I cannot imagine myself ever buying anything from there or even setting foot in there again ...

What a horrible showcase for their "values." I'm not a fan of big-box stores in general, but if some (most?) of you have been in a Target store, THAT'S how you do big box IMHO.

It's a pity Canada (or at least this part of Canada) can't get them.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

chas_m, your description also applies quite well to the Squalor-Marts here on the mainland. I avoid them, and find Zellers to be a bit more palatable.
Remember the good ol' days when Woolworth's, Kresge's, and Army & Navy where the stores to go for bargains? They seemed to have some character at least. But I digress, I was just a kid back then.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I will mostly agree with chas_m about Target. Not great but much better than Wall Mart. OTH From here it's a 25 mile drive to the nearest Walmart, 50+ miles to Crappy Tire and at least 100 miles to any one else. So Walmart it is, if Fields or the local Hardware store doesn't carry it. Once I cross the border though I also cross Walmart off my list.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree that I've never heard more brats squalling and screaming without any intervention by parents than my last trip to Wal-Mart. Also, there seems to be a mentality that suggests that opening packages is a consumers' right. I can stand a quick run in to grab one or two items but the idea of staying there for more than five minutes is nightmarish. Give me Tar-jay any day.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gwillikers said:


> Remember the good ol' days when Woolworth's, Kresge's, and Army & Navy where the stores to go for bargains? They seemed to have some character at least. But I digress, I was just a kid back then.


When you could find some interesting items of reasonable quality that you were surprised to find? When you could buy an ice cream cone or some in-store bakery goods that tasted home-made? When you'd still see a MacGregor Happy Foot grinning in the middle of the sock table?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Macfury said:


> When you could find some interesting items of reasonable quality that you were surprised to find? When you could buy an ice cream cone or some in-store bakery goods that tasted home-made? When you'd still see a MacGregor Happy Foot grinning in the middle of the sock table?


Exactly.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Wally World is in first place in the race to the bottom. :greedy: The vacuum left in its wake draws down others. Not to mention that wally world not only draws the retail sector down but encourages suppliers to engage in the race to the bottom in order to roll back prices. DON'T SHOP WalMartXX)


They have managed to drag down places like Loblaws and Canadian Tire. As far as treatment of employees, Wal-Mart is pretty bad but not the worst. One has to go south of the border to find worst places, like United Stationers. Even here, Sobey's is pretty close competition when it comes to abusing employees, and people do leave Sobey's in order to get better treatment at Wal-Mart.

However, it is pretty hard to avoid Wal-Mart, at least in The Hammer, when they are the only place in town that sells half decent paper for Laser Printers. I hate the cheap toilet paper that Business Despot pawns off as "copy paper", with all of the voids and it is practically see through.

We used to have some real stores in town, but that was so 1960's. It's pretty much the only place left that sells things like CD's and DVD's, especially since Sam's has been deceased for a number of years, and even Music World (which was not great but at least passable) is long gone.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

gwillikers said:


> Remember the good ol' days when Woolworth's, Kresge's, and Army & Navy where the stores to go for bargains?


Woolworth's always had heaps of junk spread willy-nilly everywhere, kind of like Wal-Mart. In fact, next to the sign out front, it's hard to tell the difference between the old Woolco and Wal-Mart. Come to think about it, the staff at Woolworth's was just as motivated as the Wal-Mart people these days.

Kresge's always smelled weird, and was always full of creepy old women with the troweled on make-up.

We also have Hart, which sells to the bottom end, but I have not seen any real bargains, well, unless I wanted something that was both Made In China and incredibly ugly at the same time...


----------



## johnb1 (Aug 6, 2006)

*okay, Macfury*

just a little clarification: I was staying with some "friends" of my mom's in green valley, az, and they were being jerks. I had to be on their diet for the week that was there, which was lots and lots of roasted vegetables, every night. I couldn't use their computer (I might break it) and I couldn't really go anywhere, the nearest quicky mart was 5 blocks away, so basically I could swim in the pool, read and watch tv, or go with my mom and her friend to-the used bookstore. Wal-mart
just happened to be there, and I wanted to show my appreciation.

Mmmm...can't you smell the love in here (heh heh)

JB


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think I'd have blitzed the people who fed you roasted vegetables day after day.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I think I'd have blitzed the people who fed you roasted vegetables day after day.


Consider this to be your official invitation to the next Donner party reunion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Consider this to be your official invitation to the next Donner party reunion.


Did you ever see the movie _The Big Bus_?


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> Woolworth's always had heaps of junk spread willy-nilly everywhere, kind of like Wal-Mart. In fact, next to the sign out front, it's hard to tell the difference between the old Woolco and Wal-Mart. Come to think about it, the staff at Woolworth's was just as motivated as the Wal-Mart people these days.
> 
> Kresge's always smelled weird, and was always full of creepy old women with the troweled on make-up.


I haven't been in those stores in over 30 years, but I'll take your word for it.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> We used to have some real stores in town, but that was so 1960's. It's pretty much the only place left that sells things like CD's and DVD's, especially since Sam's has been deceased for a number of years, and even Music World (which was not great but at least passable) is long gone.


Here in Victoria we have a surprisingly strong collection of indie music retailers, who cater to people with more taste and depth in their musical desires than the vacuous radio-spoonfed youth of today could even imagine.

If you haven't already, check out and support your local cool indie record shop -- the internet is killing these places off, and to lose them would be tragic.


----------



## johnb1 (Aug 6, 2006)

*thanks*

thanks Macfury for the Invite-anyone see Cannibal the musical-funny in its own way

Oh, y'hear that-it's the call of the Canada goose

JB


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

BTW the invite was intended to include the flakey roasted veggie types as the guests of honour at the banquet.beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Here in Victoria we have a surprisingly strong collection of indie music retailers, who cater to people with more taste and depth in their musical desires than the vacuous radio-spoonfed youth of today could even imagine.
> 
> If you haven't already, check out and support your local cool indie record shop -- the internet is killing these places off, and to lose them would be tragic.


They are already deceased here in The Hammer, but then again, the entire downtown is pretty much deceased, and it seems that a building a week just collapses from the lack of care. One collapsed just the other day, while I was parked across the street (lucky the car didn't get damaged). We have had apartment buildings go as well, there is one that is still sliding down the side of the mountain, and the one a few years ago where all the bricks fell off the wall and onto the street below...

There used to be some excellent record stores in town, but they have disappeared over the years. Sams was a big loss, and I end up travelling to Hogtown in the years since. There used to be some independents, but they mostly carried used discs, which becomes quite a hunt. They either have all of the pop junk I don't want, or some very eclectic stuff (that I already have). We did have Doctor Disc, but they are now long gone. We even lost MusicWorld, which wasn't great mind you, but at least they had discs. Now, I have to make a big list and trek to Hogtown - but even there, the record stores have disappeared.

My cousin was horrified that a city the size of The Hammer had even less selection than his home town, which is saying something because more people live on my block than live in his town...


----------

