quote:

---

A handful of workers in the automotive department of a Wal-Mart Canada store have become the only North American employees of the giant retailer to be covered by a union contract.

The contract was imposed by a Quebec government arbitrator on Thursday but not announced until Friday. The three-year agreement provided eight employees with an improved wage scale, annual raises and a grievance process for settling disputes. ...

During hearings, Paul Ratslaf, the vice president for human resources at Wal-Mart Canada, told the government-appointed arbitrator, Alain Corriveau, that if changes to the store’s wage structure were imposed, the retailer would be forced to close the automotive department “with regret.” ...

According to the union, starting salaries for the workers covered by the contract will rise to 11.54 Canadian dollars an hour from 8.50 Canadian dollars. The maximum hourly rate goes to 15.17 Canadian dollars, an increase of 2 Canadian dollars. Mr. Bolduc estimates that most employees will reach the maximum wage rate in about a third the current time.

---

And, last week, the Supreme Court granted the union leave to appeal the closure of a Wal-Mart store in Jonquière. That one made the NY Times as well.

¡La lucha continua!

[ 15 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
Wanna bet that the auto shop will close down?

---

quote:

---

During hearings, Paul Ratslaf, the vice president for human resources at Wal-Mart Canada, told the government-appointed arbitrator, Alain Corriveau, that if changes to the store’s wage structure were imposed, the retailer would be forced to close the automotive department “with regret.” ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

And then we will, "with regret," be "forced" to tell you to take your corporation and get the fuck out of our country. Or at least the province. Wouldn't that be fabulous?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce_the_vii:
Some legislated fences might sell to the public. Major corporations, and their franchisers, have a seperate minimum wage. This is not so far fetched, minimum wage in Australia is by sector. Maybe there's other ideas.

---

You mean like legislating paying liveable wages to working people for their efforts.

If Wal-Mart goes to put their usual stunt of shuting down, working people need to scream loudly for the government to tell them to, as Michelle says, Cease and Desist in Canada. The sooner we are rid of these scumbag corporations in Canada the better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NorthReport:
Not too shabby - that's a 36% increase in the starting wages. I just don't understand why workers in these minimum wage jobs don't affiliate themselves with organized labour.

---

I've worked in a few minimum wage jobs.

A few reasons:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce_the_vii:
Loblaws is unionized as well and they start their workers a minimum wage. Loblaws workers tell me their company doesn't actually pay better than WalMart although I read in the newspaper the unized work force adds 1% (only) to their prices.

---

quote:

---

When are working people ever going to realize that they need labour governments, municipally, provincially, and nationally in power to protect their interests.

---

When are non-working people who like to sip coffee (poured by working people) and discuss what working people need to realize going to shut the fuck up?

As a working person I realize that I have a political analysis that does not depend on so-called labour governments and their middle-class know-it-all anti-revolutionaries (see everyone who has ever led an NDP party).

Just because someone used to be a wage slave and then came into better luck stealing a living as an MP, MLA, MPP or city politician doesn't mean that they will ever represent the interests of working people any better than an adult, who was once a child, can represent the interests of a child.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

When are non-working people who like to sip coffee (poured by working people) and discuss what working people need to realize going to shut the fuck up?

As a working person I realize that I have a political analysis that does not depend on so-called labour governments and their middle-class know-it-all anti-revolutionaries (see everyone who has ever led an NDP party).

Just because someone used to be a wage slave and then came into better luck stealing a living as an MP, MLA, MPP or city politician doesn't mean that they will ever represent the interests of working people any better than an adult, who was once a child, can represent the interests of a child.

A state that was designed to keep us working for you will never serve our interests - even if the leader of that state wears an orange tie.

---

So I agree with your first sentence as I too thought that remark you quoted came off as condescending, but,

quote:

---

There are basically two systems - totalitarian and democratic. Those of us who live in the democratic systems need to get actively involved in the political process to ensure that we get the governments we deserve.

---

quote:

---

I'm wondering why you're tying in your frustrations with the NDP?

---

And the sooner we rid Canada of this corporate menace the better.

quote:

---

The labor organizations based their complaint on a report earlier this month from The Wall Street Journal. The report said Wal-Mart held mandatory meetings with store managers and department supervisors to warn that if Democrats prevail this fall, they would likely push through a bill that the company says would hurt workers.

The legislation, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. It was co-sponsored by Obama and opposed by John McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, employs 1.4 million workers. It has rigorously resisted being unionized and opposes the bill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No one needs these jobs,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Martin:

Except for the people who do...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Martin:
You said "No one needs these jobs". I dare you to say that to the single mom working at Walmart to make the rent payment.

---

That's a good summation of the terror that Wal-Mart tries to instil in workers, so that they will never come together as one voice to better their working and living conditions.

With maudlin "dares" like yours, workers would never have won any rights.

Workers who are terrified to open their mouths for fear that the store will close and their "rent cheque" will disappear, will always live as slaves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

With maudlin "dares" like yours, workers would never have won any rights.

---

Why don't you go down to Walmart and tell the employees that they "don't need their jobs" and hear what they have to say, instead of telling them what they need.

But I think we both know what would happen and you would not come out of the discussion unscathed (metaphorically of course).

I see this all time. Self-satisfied people who think they have all the answers and are prepared to appropriate the VOCM in order to further their own agenda.

Instead of making uninformed statements like "no one needs these jobs" you should try to understand why people do the jobs they do. Inform them that forming unions is a right. Inform them that even if Walmart closes due to a union forming they will still be able to find other jobs in the community because another retailer will probably fill the gap.

But please don't treat them like non-persons by glibly spouting off one-liners like "no one needs these jobs". That's ignorant.

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: Kelly Martin ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Martin:

Why don't you go down to Walmart and tell the employees that they "don't need their jobs" and hear what they have to say, instead of telling them what they need.

---

I'm going to say this once only, because you're new here.

When I said "no one needs these jobs", I meant that Canada doesn't need jobs that come with "keep your mouth shut and don't unionize" labels attached. I meant that no one needs a job where you have to sacrifice your basic legal rights as a Canadian, or else see the place shut down.

When I (and my sisters and brothers in the union movement) spend time and effort and resources to encourage such workers to form unions, we don't tell them "you don't need your job". We tell them they need dignity and a collective voice. We tell them that without a union, their job could disappear at any moment whatsoever, even if the store or plant doesn't close, and they have no recourse.

Of course, it is the union which is fighting against the Wal-Mart closure in Jonquière before the Supreme Court, because without a union, those workers would be at the mercy of the richest bloodsuckers in the world. At least now, they have a fighting chance, not only to keep their jobs (maybe) but to be compensated if that can't happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

When I said "no one needs these jobs", I meant that Canada doesn't need jobs that come with "keep your mouth shut and don't unionize" labels attached. I meant that no one needs a job where you have to sacrifice your basic legal rights as a Canadian, or else see the place shut down.

---

Nice backpedal. A for effort. But I wonder if you truly understand what life is like for people who live on minimum wage, regardless of employer. If you did I doubt you would have ever used those words.

"It's a no-loss proposition for the workers. No one needs these jobs, which have mostly replaced better ones. If Wal-Mart pulls up stake and leaves Canada - boo hoo hoo. "

Please explain the no-loss proposition for the workers while you're at it. Because if any employer shuts down it's the workers who always suffer the most.

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: Kelly Martin ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Martin:
Please explain the no-loss proposition for the workers while you're at it.

---

Figure it out yourself. You're very good at parachuting in and hitting the ground running. Be sure to share your conclusions with us.

quote:

---

Because if any employer shuts down it's the workers who always suffer the most.

---

Nonsense. Workers find other jobs - always. If you were a worker, you'd know that. It's the small businesses that get wiped out when Wal-Mart moves in that suffer the most.

There are some who preach to workers that they must stop short in their fight at the point where they will "put their company out of business". In my experience, these are the workers' worst enemies.

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Martin:

Nice backpedal. A for effort. But I wonder if you truly understand what life is like for people who live on minimum wage, regardless of employer. If you did I doubt you would have ever used those words.

"It's a no-loss proposition for the workers. No one needs these jobs, which have mostly replaced better ones. If Wal-Mart pulls up stake and leaves Canada - boo hoo hoo. "

Please explain the no-loss proposition for the workers while you're at it. Because if any employer shuts down it's the workers who always suffer the most.

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: Kelly Martin ]

---

Any large economic action has both winners and losers. If you veto any action which may have an unfortunate loser you'll be stuck in paralysis and things will end up much worse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Nonsense. Workers find other jobs - always.

---

quote:

---

unsafe, degrading and possibly illegal ones

---

Unsafe, like when Walmart locks the fire exits on night staff

Illegal,(see above) and forcing people to work off the clock then lying about it.

Degrading, (see both above)like the glass ceiling for women that's so close to the floor they must be stooped over.

Unionist seems to want to tear down the entire low-wage job structure first, without having its replacement all set to absorb the workers who will be thrown into unemployment. This is his statement:

If Wal-Mart pulls up stake and leaves Canada - boo hoo hoo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Martin:
Fine, force the company to change but don't force them to shut down without an alternative for the workers.

---

"Don't force them to shut down"... Who exactly forced Wal-Mart to shut down every time we organized a union there?

Capitalists give work to poor workers, and unions glibly throw the workers on the street.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I'll bet on your meagre means, you take advantage of those everyday low low prices at Wal-Mart?

---

There's your smugness again, condescendingly looking down your long nose at people without the means to shop at Holt Renfrew.

Do you think they deserve a collective voice, better pay, and the security that their job won't disappear on an employers' whim? Or are they lucky to just have a job and really shouldn't make a fuss in the hopes they'll get to keep it?

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: sandpiper ]