quote:

---

Saguenay, Que. — A Wal-Mart Canada Corp. store in this Quebec city may become the first store of the retail giant to be unionized, after the Quebec Labour Relations Board accredited a union there to represent the workers.

The Quebec Federation of Labour announced the accreditation Monday. The store in Saguenay, 200 kilometres north of Quebec City, has about 180 employees.

“The union represents the large majority of the store's employees,” said Marie-Josee Lemieux, president of the union local with the United Food and Commercial Workers.

“We hope that Wal-Mart will accept this decision and negotiate a labour contract with the union.”

There are no unionized Wal-Mart stores, although a handful of meat workers at a Wal-Mart Supercentre in Texas have joined the United Food And Commercial Workers.

Several efforts to form unions in other provinces have so far been unsuccessful.

---

Globe & Mail Story

EDIT: Changed thread title to reflect continuing developments.

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

(Do you know that the G+M just asked me to register? I mean, moi? Register? At the G+M? Who should be paying moi? )

quote:

---

And standing there as big as life,
And smiling with his eyes
Joe says "What they forgot to kill
Went on to organise."

Chorus: "Went on to organise."

"Joe Hill ain't dead" he says to me,
"Joe Hill ain't never died
Where workingmen are out on strike
Joe Hill is at their side."

Chorus: "Joe Hill is at their side."

---

I've taken part in FURIOUS strikes in Saguenay - Lac-St-Jean. Had a companion up there, involved in the foresters' union. (While reading philosophy books - no, he wasn't a "plant", he was from a farm family up there with 13 kids, needed the intellectual and cosmopolitan stimulation of Montréal, the huge 1972 labour struggle, but finally went back there. An epic tale of country and city mouse. Foresters wielding chainsaws and heavy machinery (many had to buy their own forestry "combines" but were heavily in debt as a result) vs cops and private guards. I have a great photo somewhere of the latter protecting private property in the boreal forest...

quote:

---

Do you know that the G+M just asked me to register? I mean, moi? Register? At the G+M? Who should be paying moi

---

quote:

---

On Monday, the Board accredited the United Food and Commercial Workers Union to represent workers at the store in Jonquiere.

"We are reviewing the decision," Andrew Pelletier, spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada, told the Associated Press. "There was no vote held in the store. This appeared to be an automatic certification, and employees were not given the opportunity to vote on the issue on unionization in a democratically held election, which is of enormous concern."

---

CBC story on Quebec Wal-Mart

Perhaps another Charter Of Rights challenge is in order? Isn't it good to know that Wal-Mart is such a great defender of democracy? I wonder how they will handle their first democratically decided strike vote?

[ 02 August 2004: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

"This is great victory for the workers in Jonquière, and for Wal-Mart workers everywhere," said Michael J. Fraser, UFCW Canada's national director.

"Wal-Mart is on the record stating they support workplace democracy," said Fraser. "The majority of workers in Jonquière have spoken, so we expect Wal-Mart to listen and get down to negotiating a first contract without delay."

Fraser went on to say, "Wal-Mart has also now gone on the record stating that ‘we would not close the store because of a union'."

"So Wal-Mart workers should stop believing the rumours their stores will close if they exercise their right to form a union," said Fraser. "What's happened in Quebec can happen at any Wal-Mart store in North America. Jonquière is only the first of more to come."

---

UFCW Canada

quote:

---

A hearing has been scheduled for August 20th to finalize the makeup of the bargaining unit, following a statement by QLRC adjudicator Jocelyne Houle that no matter the definition of the unit, "the applicant is representative, as required by law."

---

[ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

This is strong union country. Imagine getting up in the morning and having 3 of the first 5 stories in the paper being what the unions are up to!

quote:

---

Wal-Mart employees in Thompson, Man., have rejected union representation, just days after a Quebec board certified the only unionized Wal-Mart in North America. The results of the June 4 vote, released Friday, were 67 to 44 against unionization. A total of 130 employees were eligible to vote.

"This is significant and a major victory for democracy," said Andrew Pelletier, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada, headquartered in Mississauga, Ont.

It's the second time in less than a year that workers in Thompson, about 720 kilometres north of Winnipeg, have turned down a chance to be represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW). Workers also rejected union representation in a vote held in June 2003.

---

from UFCW Pres. Robert Ziegler...

quote:

---

"Democracy has spoken. The results were against forming a union at this point. I would have to say we're disappointed, but there's still 40 per cent of the membership who voted in favour of a union, and that takes a lot of courage," he says.

---

quote:

---

Ziegler notes the Thompson vote was held before a Wal-Mart in Saguenay, Quebec became the first in North America to unionize earlier this week. He says he's optimistic that result will change things for the next vote in Thompson.

---

In that struggle, the workers face the monolithic powers of an employer that isn't in the habit of dishing those items out, and a Union that isn't in the habit of obtaining them.

quote:

---

Tommy_Paine: In that struggle, the workers face the monolithic powers of an employer that isn't in the habit of dishing those items out, and a Union that isn't in the habit of obtaining them.

---

Truth be told, the UFCW has a record of agreeing, a little too easily, to two-tiered wage scales where the incoming workers have much less reason to support the union than the workers who have been there longer. This practice gives the employer motivation to get rid of long-term employees by...the many nefarious methods that bosses use.

Personally, I'd rather see the CAW or even CUPW be the bargaining agent. Isn't it interesting that an "international" union (translation ...U.S. based HQ) may become the first bargaining agent to get a collective agreement at a Wal-Mart in Canada?

[ 07 August 2004: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

And as we know, the CLC is hung up on matters of juristiction. I'd hate to see the CAW boot the CLC out of the CLC again.

quote:

---

Truth be told, the UFCW has a record of agreeing, a little too easily, to two-tiered wage scales where the incoming workers have much less reason to support the union than the workers who have been there longer. This practice gives the employer motivation to get rid of long-term employees by...the many nefarious methods that bosses use.

---

I would assume that what you are referring to is the "Real Canadian Superstore" deal with Loblaws. UFCW said that they got into that kind of deal in Ontario because of the threat from Walmart.

So to give credit where credit is due its good to see the UFCW agressively moving to organize Walmart which will deal with the "source" so to speak that's dragging down working conditions for everyone in the retail sector.

quote:

---

A union certification drive at a second Quebec Wal-Mart store has succeeded, according to the United Food And Commercial Workers (UFCW) union.

The union said Wednesday that workers at a Wal-Mart in Saint-Hyacinthe,Quebec have been certified as a bargaining unit after a majority of its 200 workers signed UFCW membership cards.

. . . .

The Saint-Hyacinthe location joins the Wal-Mart in Jonquiere, Quebec as the only other unionized Wal-Marts, not just in Quebec but in all of North America.

---

quote:

---

Wal-Mart Canada is closing its store in Jonquiere, Quebec, the company announced Wednesday – six months after the store became the first Wal-Mart to be unionized in North America.

Wal-Mart said it was unable to reach a tentative agreement with the union that would "permit it to operate the store in an efficient and profitable matter."

In a news release, Wal-Mart said it had told the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union during negotiations for a first contract that the store's financial situation was "precarious."

---

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

...even if the Board later orders the store reopened...

---

quote:

---

Well...why not just unionize every Wallymart if this is gonna be their response?

---

Other large corporations have not been able to stop this rapacious juggernaut. But a simple organizing drive by underpaid workers have brought this capitalist behemouth to its knees. Apparently, Wal-Mart has lots of money for worthless anti-union propaganda, opening and closing stores at a whim, moving their locations when unable to extract outrageous arrangements with malls, (as was done in Winnipeg's Grant Park Mall) etc., etc. but is terrified by the combined strength of working people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
Amy , I meant to ask why wouldn't there be profits if the store was open as usual and the only difference was the union.
Your comment on the management deliberately sabatoging the store brought another story to mind. One of the women suing Wal-Mart in the class action sexual discimination case told her story in a publication , I just can't remember which one , and the management she was forced to associate with were complete jerks.

---

Ooh, okay. You know how sometimes you just can't get the proper meaning out of a sentence? That was one of those times.

In theory there shouldn't be a significant difference in profitablity, since like someone pointed out before, most of the issues revolved around how management treated "associates", not so much around wages... stuff like health plans, sick days, 15 minute breaks for every four hours' work, etc. I guess if Wal-Mart counts on shorting all their employees just a little on all of the above, though, then they'd be awfully pissed that someone had the audacity to have back that which was theirs to begin with. BAH! (Sorry, just ranting.)

Boom Boom: One can only hope.

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]

I hope no employees unionize on me, I may never get to retire.

The strategy of unionizing all the Wal-Marts is an interesting one. I think that after another closing or two the unions would have trouble winning further certification votes.

quote:

---

1. Barcode: Private enterprise has never been and never will be about democracy

---

quote:

---

2. Barcode: democracy belongs to those who own the company

---

1. Exactly. But what has that got to do with Wal-Mart obeying the law? Why is Wal-Mart interfering with their employees democratic right to choose their own union representation? That's the democracy that's being talked about here. The other kind, "economic democracy", will have to wait until there is a change in social systems.

Here is the link with the info....
Wal-Mart intimidation & ignorance of democracy

2. Same as #1. Who cares? They still have to obey the law in Canada. By the way, let me suggest a new version of #2 for you....

In place of "one person, one vote", you could have the new bourgeois version....
"one dollar, one vote," or "one share, one vote" and forget the human part altogether. It seems that that is exactly what Wal-Mart has done with their employees.

[cool slogans]
I am N.Beltov of BabbleBorg.
Resistance is futile.
Wal-Mart will be unionized.
[/cool slogans]

[ 09 February 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Since I've already declared a lifelong boycott of Wal-Mart (I can honestly say I've never set one foot in any of their stores), I guess I'll have to extend the boycott to my next life as well.

quote:

---

What you put in, is relative to what your say should be. How much capital did the union or their members put into the business prior to their hiring? I bet none or little? How much risk did they take? Probably none or very little. The workers and the union can have their say when they own 50% or more of the company, otherwise, democracy belongs to those who
own the company, namely the majority shareholders.

---

And of course, reading further down, that's exactly what they did and will do.

There is little about Wal-Mart that is "free enterprise." I can't speak for Canada, but time and again in the US, they get sweetheart deals from local governments for their stores: tax breaks out the wazoo, sweetheart rezoning deals and in cities that have prevailing wage laws, they file for exemptions. Because labor laws are so eviscerated in the US, Wal-Mart, with their resources and clout, act as a law unto themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Illegal to close a private business.

I hope no employees unionize on me, I may never get to retire.

The strategy of unionizing all the Wal-Marts is an interesting one. I think that after another closing or two the unions would have trouble winning further certification votes.

Dont like Wal-Mart? Don't shop there. Don't work there.

---

quote:

---

Egalitarian American: I started reading this thread from the top and kept thinking in the back of my mind that Wal-Mart would simply close the Quebec store that unionized.

---

Think of it as a protracted war. Right now there seem to be some employment casualties. Even those may be overturned. We'll see. I never thought I would find myself saying this to an American, but, here goes: Have faith in Canadian "know-how". I do.

As for the date I choose for my retirement, that can be tomorrow at a young age or in many years from now. I would leave the burden of proof on the union to claim as to the motive of my closing shop.

quote:

---

C.Morgan: Beltov after a couple more stores close, how are you going to convince workers in future stores to vote for their own unemployment?

---

Wal-Mart will deal with unionization the same way that any other large corporation deals with it: as a fact of life or as a "cost of doing business". Ideology will come second to Wal-Mart's desire to continue to make profits in Canada. It would be wiser for Wal-Mart to get over their anti-union prejudice...they might find that business might even improve under such circumstances. But that is their decision and Wal-Mart bears the responsibility and the consequences for their ill-advised decisions and actions.

In any case, the ink is barely dry on Wal-Mart's latest atrocity. Perhaps you could consider the following alternative possibility: how will Wal-Mart be able to substantiate the claim that two different stores, with only a unionization drive in common, are closed for "financial" reasons? Lying about such things once is much easier. It will be much more difficult to B.S. about their reasons the second time around.

Supposing, in the worst case scenario, that each Wal-Mart that is unionized is then closed "for financial reasons" shortly after the union is authorized to negotiate a collective agreement. How many times do YOU suppose that that will happen before the province will be forced to take action by an enraged public?

A glorious chapter in labour history will be written by the Canadians that get the first collective agreement at Wal-Mart and then go on strike for better wages and working conditions. Who will be first? I hope the honour will go to some Manitobans.

BTW, arent there still some workers who occasionally go out and picket outside of the abandoned Maple Leaf plant in Edmonton that the union promised them would never close? Whats it been now? 6 years?

More people now feel a Need to shop at lower cost stores, budgets only going so far with general cost of living non-negotiable. Hence the cycle is complete, a negative feedback loop has been established which Oc grows --lower wages, fewer retail choices, even fewer well paying jobs, eventually even the children of low wage employees have little chance of escaping their "economic position" through advanced education etc and classes are reborn. Economics 102.

Unlike the "free market" models, they constantly refer to for public consumption, they tolerate very little competition, constantly undercutting rivals by dumping cheaper goods on the market from even lower wage suppliers (usually Asian) that smaller competitors can't access so readily if at all. Walmart's also notorious for controlling their own suppliers closely with constantly expanding quota and cost requirements, forcing suppliers to take back unsold stock at times (very anti-competitive practice that is now legal thanx to greater lobbying power) and once the wholesale contact is made there is often little allowance for them to supply other stores. Wholesale side isn't examined closely enough even by the left. They also cheat their usually less educated workers regularly but get away with it being a major employer that most politicians don't want to offend. Quit your job, no welfare for you, maybe no apartment either. Round and around we go.

I still believe there's ways to reverse this cycle, but not as long as most people still believe the myth of free (and fair) competition among businesses, or fail to see that the conditions which allow Real competition BETWEEN businesses must be imposed from without, democratically. Not easy to do with globalized capital either, but possible using similar avenues. Until then though most politicians and big developers will just go along for the ride.

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
Why would the store not make money?
Wal-Mart leads the retail industry in profits,does it not?

---

Because of their minimal prices. People would shop elsewhere if the prices were comparable to other stores.

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
- yez boss!
--- and this boys and girls is the reason labour laws were passed for the protection of Canadian working men and women!

---

Protection??? That's a funny use of that word. Well I guess if you mean protect their right to take what doesn't belong to them...

Do you not realize how much it takes to build up a business? A lot of hard work and sacrfice. Why on Earth should a business owner who took out a second mortgage on their house to get the money to start up their own business have to listen to some random person they hired two months ago to put stock on the shelves or wash the dishes?

It's not as simple as that. People are often willing to spend more on expensive items if they have the income. Consumer buying patterns usually reflect their income quite closely.

GD: "Do you not realize how much it takes to build up a business? A lot of hard work and sacrfice. Why on Earth should a business owner who took out a second mortgage on their house to get the money to start up their own business have to listen to some random person they hired two months ago to put stock on the shelves or wash the dishes?"

As long as property can be inherited alot of business owners and shareholders never have to build much of anything, just buy up the competition and throw their weight around. Like the Waltons. Most unionized shops are in larger established businesses and don't involve casual hands.

GD: "But in the case of private business, they are entitled to nothing more than what their employer agrees to pay them."

Private business isn't just a "private" matter of those who happen to own them, as soon as someone starts hiring others to do some of their work other interests become involved. Without adequate government intervention in the "markets" many smaller businesses wouldn't even be able to get off the ground. Without unions the average worker would still be working for bare subsistence wages and we'd still be living in the great depression or worse. Everyone would be a loser.

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

quote:

---

after a couple more stores close, how are you going to convince workers in future stores to vote for their own unemployment?

---

That's prett easy to answer: what do Walmart employees have to lose? They already have shit jobs, earning minimum wage. So Why not try to unionize?

I also don't believe the "Walmart unionization will lead to unprofitability" line... .

Loblaws is the most profitable grocery store chain in the country, with fat profit margins and unionized staff, and cheap, high quality, Canadian made products (President's Choice).

All that would occur if every Walmart store was unionized, would be a slight but significant improvement in the quality of life of thousands of predominantly female employees.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LukeVanc:

That's prett easy to answer: what do Walmart employees have to lose? They already have shit jobs, earning minimum wage. So Why not try to unionize?

---

A lot, actually. On that sort of income, especially if you have children you just won't have the savings to ride out any period of unemployment. If their job goes, their food and housing goes. So if Wal-Mart is sending the loud and clear message that voting for unionization is just asking to be fired, why bother? Which is, of course, the point of Wal-Mart doing this.

quote:

---

I also don't believe the "Walmart unionization will lead to unprofitability" line...

---

A commentator from the Sask. Fed of Labour called Wal-Mart an "economic terrorist". Sounds about right. Perhaps we need more laws against economic terrorism and fewer laws restricting the rights or ordinary citizens.

The question is, "what is unprofitable"? We often hear bafflegab about the rate of increase of profit. For example,

Let's say that Walmart made $1 billion in profits in 2002. In 2003 they made $1.1 billion. That's an increase in profits of 10%. Now lets say they made $1.15 billion in 2004. In actual dollars, they made $50 million more than the 2003. But in terms of profits, they represent growth of only 4% over the previous year. Therefore, the rate of growth of profits declined from 10% to 4%, which represents a 250% DECREASE in the rate of growth of their profits from one year to the next. Woe is me.

So even if they're making money, and even if they're making more money than they made last year, corporations always whine when the rate of growth declines and use it as an excuse to attack their workers or consumers.

Time for some more tax cuts and subsidies anyone?

[Edited to add] There's only one thing worse than a decline in the rate of profit. That's a decline in actual profits - e.g. they made $1 billion last year but only $1/2 billion this year. That's when the layoffs go into full swing.

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: Non-partisan partisan ]

quote:

---

Only in China, with its inimitable blend of Dickensian capitalism and authoritarian communism, has Wal-Mart found a union to its liking.

And small wonder. Unions affiliated with the All-China Federation seldom push for wage increases or safer machinery. Indeed, the locals are often headed by someone from company management. Not that there isn't worker discontent in China: Every week brings accounts of spontaneous strikes, and now and then an occasional riot over such lifestyle impediments as unpaid wages. But the role of the state-sanctioned unions isn't to channel the discontent into achievable gains; it's to contain it to the employer's benefit.

---

quote:

---

Non-partisan partisan:
Their biggest expansion is currently in China. I wonder if those stores are unionized? Remember when the Moscow MacDonalds became the first unionized Mac in the world?

---

Those unions in China are, as best as I can tell, a transmission belt for the dictates of management. They're fake or company unions. So Wal-Mart has no problem with them.

The MacDonalds in Moscow was within the confines of the U.S. Embassy and Soviet labour law required every workplace to have a union to represent the workers there. To go to the MacDonalds you had to enter the Embassy.

At McDonalds, the bastards shut down their outlet on Peel Street between Ste-Catherine and René-Levesque, opposite a central square where dozens of tourist buses stop! The place was always packed with everything from tourists, office workers with no time for a real meal, students from the two universities and several institutes nearby, homeless people who'd managed to beg enough for the daily cheapo special, pensioners and shoppers in for a coffee to rest their feet.

VanLuke, it is a very hard blow in the Saguenay. I suspect there were a lot of wives and children (due to continued sex-role discrimination) who were keeping the family going on those crap wages after the husband had lost his job after the smelter closing last year - Coyote gave us great reports on the solidarity of all the different unions and the populace with that factory occupation in the dead of a bitter Saguenay winter.

I hope babble and rabble can play a part in LA RIPOSTE - the counter-attack needed - not my revenge fantasies of tearing disgusting smarmy managers limb from limb but a concerted drive to organise every Wal-Mart throughout the Canadian state ... and give a boost to their colleagues down in the US and elsewhere.

After all, we've got our friend josh using
Canadian spelling, eh? "unfair labour practice"...

For example they do things like sell 2 light bulbs for a buck. great price, cant be beat, always buy them there right? But what if you need 3 blubs? well a 4pk of bulbs is 3.99. And most people never think about it they just have this image in their mind that the stuff is cheap regardless of the package size and walmart makes a killing

I would think that McDonalds would have an even more difficult time proving any lack of profitability.

Focusing union growth in low skill, high turnover sectors of the workforce is a fools game though I wish you the best of luck.

There is a reason that the trades still remain strong in labor organization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik the Red:

It's not as simple as that. People are often willing to spend more on expensive items if they have the income. Consumer buying patterns usually reflect their income quite closely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik the Red:

As long as property can be inherited alot of business owners and shareholders never have to build much of anything, just buy up the competition and throw their weight around. Like the Waltons. Most unionized shops are in larger established businesses and don't involve casual hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik the Red:
Most unionized shops are in larger established businesses and don't involve casual hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik the Red:
Private business isn't just a "private" matter of those who happen to own them, as soon as someone starts hiring others to do some of their work other interests become involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik the Red:
Without adequate government intervention in the "markets" many smaller businesses wouldn't even be able to get off the ground. Without unions the average worker would still be working for bare subsistence wages and we'd still be living in the great depression or worse. Everyone would be a loser.

---

Unions do have a role as a bulwark against unbridled worker abuse. But allowing them too much power destroys business.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LukeVanc:

Loblaws is the most profitable grocery store chain in the country, with fat profit margins and unionized staff, and cheap, high quality, Canadian made products (President's Choice).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LukeVanc:

All that would occur if every Walmart store was unionized, would be a slight but significant improvement in the quality of life of thousands of predominantly female employees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LukeVanc:

I don't think the right wingers here seem to appreciate what an extra dollar an hour or two can do to improve one's standard of living. These are real people, paying rent and utilities and raising children... To deny these workers the right to unionize to improve their quality of life is downright sickening, and just goes to show that Walmart should never have been allowed to take over Woolco in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
"They just want to walk in and start taking," Gir? Give me a frigging break. They want to be paid fairly for what they do there. That's all. They want decent working conditions and a decent wage. They're not asking to own the fucking company, fergawdsakes.

People who "walk in" to a job at Walmart don't just "take". They give. And they give a hell of a lot more than they take.

---

No they are not asking to own the company. They are just asking to control it.

If somebody wants to control the workings of a company, they are more than welcome to start their own.

If indeed they are giving so much more than they are taking, they should have no trouble finding employment elsewhere. There are countless employers seeking employees who give so much.

You don't believe all that crap about owners just living to sacrifice, do you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Go fuck yourself, you bosses' toady. WalMart workers aren't asking for $30 an hour - all they want is the wages, working conditions, safety standards and basic respect enjoyed by unionised retail staff at Loblaws and Métro. Alas, abetted by enemies of the working class like you, the opposite is happening, and WalMart's presence is undermining labour standards in other retail stores.

Why the hell shouldn't a cashier or clerk earn enough to pay her rent and feed her family? These right-wing interlopers think everyone can go out and find a 6-figure dream job. Those are hard to come by, even for people with university educations.

---

No we don't think that everyone can go out and find a six-figure dream job. We expect that those who seek that kind of job will work to make themselves worth those numbers.

A union persons biggest fear is being paid what they are worth.

Good luck UFCW brothers and sisters!

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

The shit doesn't think the people who bake his bread, clean his toilets and provide the many other services needed for civilised life are worth anything. Screw him.

The simple fact is that unions, for all their faults, are still the best hope for the working-class. Why? Because on their own, a company like Wal-Mart will never pay a living wage; and any civilized society recognizes workers have the right make enough to support themselves. We tried it your way for a long time. It sucked.

I can't remember who said it, but corporate power today is much like the power of the Church in the past, believing itself free from all restraints of law or morality not its own. We've mostly been able to put a stop to the Church's power, thankfully; we'll be coming for the corporations next.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Go back to the Dark Side, you stupid, utterly WORTHLESS little shit. What people on a progressive site such as rabble/rabble must concentrate on is how to fight back and work to organise every frigging WalMart in the land.

The shit doesn't think the people who bake his bread, clean his toilets and provide the many other services needed for civilised life are worth anything. Screw him.

The union will be holding a press conference at 10 am tomorrow. I promise to keep babblers and rabble.ca posted.

---

Well put.

I wouldn't consider people voting themselves out of jobs to be 'progressive' but whatever.

Without a little discussion from the 'dark side', union supporters may never see the shortcomings that caused lost attempts at organization.

quote:

---

If somebody wants to control the workings of a company, they are more than welcome to start their own.

---

quote:

---

Because of their minimal prices. People would shop elsewhere if the prices were comparable to other stores.

---

quote:

---

Protection??? That's a funny use of that word. Well I guess if you mean protect their right to take what doesn't belong to them...

Do you not realize how much it takes to build up a business? A lot of hard work and sacrfice. Why on Earth should a business owner who took out a second mortgage on their house to get the money to start up their own business have to listen to some random person they hired two months ago to put stock on the shelves or wash the dishes?

If YOU want to own the business, try making the sacrifices first instead of demanding a piece of someone else's pie. If you're concerned about the workers, then co-op style ownership is definately the way to go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
These are workers, C. Morgan. Aside from the least educated and most retrograde American states, most jurisdictions in the Western world have all recognized the right to collectively bargain and organize. This is fact. It is funny to me that the "Law and Order" right will bend over backwards to defend any corporate action that could step outside the law.

The simple fact is that unions, for all their faults, are still the best hope for the working-class. Why? Because on their own, a company like Wal-Mart will never pay a living wage; and any civilized society recognizes workers have the right make enough to support themselves. We tried it your way for a long time. It sucked.

I can't remember who said it, but corporate power today is much like the power of the Church in the past, believing itself free from all restraints of law or morality not its own. We've mostly been able to put a stop to the Church's power, thankfully; we'll be coming for the corporations next.

And those of you who sneer at any worker with the temerity to suggest there's something rotten in the state of Wal-Mart, you will be consigned to the dustbin of history where you belong.

---

Not denying the right of workers to organize. Just not denying the right of a business to close shop either. I don't doubt that Wal Mart would have preferred to keep a location there. They would not have built it otherwise. Clearly something happened that made them decide that it was no longer viable. Whos choice was that?

I don't recall making excuses for Enron and such when it was exposed that they had broken laws. It's a pretty broad assumption that I would defend business in any case.

In this case though I will. I don't feel that Wal Mart has broken any laws. They reported losses in October, even before this all came about.

Progressives didn't deprive those workers of their jobs. A high-handed company that wants to treat Québec workers like peons in the postbellum US south (just a TAD better than their parents before the Civil War...) is the villain there. Moreover, TUAC is not even a particularly militant or left-wing union! Imagine what our right-wingers would have said if the CSN or the IWW had launched the drive!

quote:

---

I am a self employed person, I sometimes hire people (usually young people) to work for me. I don't make very much money as an art instructor or as a working artist but if I think someone is worth hiring I pay them far more than minimum wage.
My husband and I had a business and he has also worked union in the building trades and you know what ?- working for someone else is way harder physically than hiring the work done by others. Owning a business takes its tole on your peace of mind but the dirty work is done by the employees, in fact without employees there would be no profits ,as all aspects of the business functions on their labour.
People who work for wages simply want a fair shake, an honest days pay for an honest days work and a respectful work place. Sadly common decency , acknowledgement of the profits an employee generates through fair wages is not possible in most of the business community without unions.

---

There is no law or union compelling me to pay any more than minimum wage when I hire. If I tried that in the business that I am in though, I would have no employees. Simple as that. Thus I have to pay much more than minimum wage. No need for union or legal intervention there.

Few are more in touch with how much an employee is worth to them than a successful business owner. Otherwise they would all be either one-person operations or bankrupt.

A job is worth what a person is willing to do it properly for.

Keep on avoiding the fatal flaw in your argument.

Monetary compensation alone is not necessarily enough to retain a worthwhile employee. An employer who chronically disrespects their staff will end in the same fate as one that underpays them.

On the other side of the coin, some Wal Mart workers overvalued themselves and disrespected the employer.

quote:

---

There is no law or union compelling me to pay any more than minimum wage when I hire. If I tried that in the business that I am in though, I would have no employees. Simple as that. Thus I have to pay much more than minimum wage. No need for union or legal intervention there.

---

quote:

---

A job is worth what a person is willing to do it properly for.

---

I'm not talking about your concept of "employees" who have certain supposed rights & privileges, within a labour market and such.

I'm talking about "human beings" who have contributed to a firm.

The ability of Wal-Mart to "teach" these people that there are consequences for disrespect and overvaluing themselves, (by depriving them of their livelihood)... this power that Wal-Mart and every other employer assumes they have a right to is illegitimate.

quote:

---

That is the best line I've heard to convince working people to stand together and refuse to do the work unless they get the wages they think they're worth.

---

Hey on that we can agree. Employees can vote with their feet. They must watch though that before threatening to withhold work, how much they are worth, and how easy they are to replace.

quote:

---

You haven't grapsed the significance of the point.
I'm not talking about your concept of "employees" who have certain supposed rights & privileges, within a labour market and such.

I'm talking about "human beings" who have contributed to a firm.

The ability of Wal-Mart to "teach" these people that there are consequences for disrespect and overvaluing themselves, (by depriving them of their livelihood)... this power that Wal-Mart and every other employer assumes they have a right to is illegitimate.

---

I am not saying that Wal Mart taught those employees anything. Those employees learned that lesson all by themselves. One can hope that other people currently employed have learned from that lesson.

As to people being considered human beings, that is more the call of the employer or manager than anything. It varies person to person as everything does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:

Not denying the right of workers to organize. Just not denying the right of a business to close shop either. As concluded earlier, time will tell. I don't see a strong case on the unions part here.

---

I'm denying the right of the business to close shop for the purposes of intimidating union organization, and also saying that when local government has bent over backwards to facilitate the business, local gov't should show some balls and make that closing as difficult as possible.

I acknowledge how hard it is to prove the motivation for closing a store. Doesn't make it right, though, if that's what happened.

Can't speak for Canada, but in the US W-mart often gets a free ride. Local govt's rezone, cut sweet deals, and use tax $$ to attract them. The thought is that W-mart benefits the community,and it's worth the extra expense. W-mart changes the community is some ways - small businesses close, but more jobs are created etc. - and the local gov't decides it's worth it in the end.

For instance, when W-mart comes into town there's a huge spike in the number of uninsured people depending on emergency rooms for medical care. W-mart employees. And public subsidy rises to meet that need.

Then W-mart can just close up shop and leave, after they've sucked the town dry?

quote:

---

Originally posted by thwap:
]
Once you have asked other human beings for their help amd accepted their help, you should be obligated to consider their feelings and wishes.

---

No, they shouldn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
As to people being considered human beings, that is more the call of the employer or manager than anything. It varies person to person as everything does.

---

Ok, there it is. We've been dancing around it here but there it is in stark honest terms.

And we've heard this before:

quote:

---

"All the worldly goods we possess we owe to the struggle of the chosen..."
--Adolf Hitler

"...the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society..."
--Ayn Rand, Capitalism The Unknown Ideal

"Private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy..." (Hitler again)

any my all time favourite:

" . . . to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of the factory--that is, the employer ... Only the employer can decide."

-- Nazi Labor Minister Robert Ley.

Rand also held the masses of humanity should serve only as a naturally occurring resource, exploited by the superiors as a means to their ends:

"What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it? ...I loathe most of them."
--Ayn Rand, We The Living 1936

---

Words to live by for Wal-Mart management

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: Egalitarian American ]

One more time:

quote:

---

As to people being considered human beings, that is more the call of the employer or manager than anything. It varies person to person as everything does.

---

Care to elaborate?

Birthday gifts? Regulated daily attaboys?

I don't expect the accounting department to look at things any other way.

How any individual does things is up to the individual.

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
The words on this board from people like Gir and C.Morgan should be shown to every working person. Perhaps when working people realise that their employers view them with contempt ,as simply overhead and not really human, they won't be so hesitant to organise.

---

Hardly. You want to use me as an example of an employer? That would be a lie. I am a "working person". I may not be trying to raise a family on an income based on unskilled labor, but that IS the kind of work I do at the moment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
EA: it is a logical fallacy to ignore the arguments of somebody based on their reputation. Rand could be right about some things. And yes, even the modern paragon of evil Adolf Hitler had to be doing something right in order to acheive what he did.

---

Employers have bosses too, they are called clients or customers. Like employees who cross their bosses, employers do so at their own risk.

There is little difference when it is broken down. It is just that some who lack the ambition to try to work to the upper levels play the politics of envy in hopes of dragging others down to their own place in life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egalitarian American:

Please tell me I'm not reading this.

---

You are.

Not everything Mahatma Ghandi says is patently true.

Not everything Herr Hitler says is patently false.

Meanwhile, for those that have a semblance of a human heart for working people in this world, read the following about what people in the food service biz in San Francisco, ostensibly a progressive place, have to put up with:

No SItting Down on the Job

quote:

---

Workers have filed claims against such eateries as the Cheesecake Factory over unpaid breaks and Lori's Diner over sexual harassment. Schwarzenegger's proposed regulation, however, would make it much easier for restaurant owners to make breaks virtually nonexistent. Not only that, it would make make much more difficult what workers are doing to defend themselves -- going to court.

Meanwhile, enforcing existing law is shrinking with the state budget, and some of the governor's proposals to streamline government -- including eliminating the Industrial Welfare Commission -- could make enforcement even harder. Fortunately, the city's restaurant workers also have some important allies -- Young Workers United, the Chinese Progressive Association and Equal Rights Advocates.

The next time you sit down in a restaurant, look at the person who put the plate in front of you, or who cleared it away. When you hear these people are young or immigrants, that they don't need the same wages or conditions that you do, ask yourself: Could I work an entire shift without eating or sitting down? Could I pay my rent on $8.50 an hour? And if my boss cheated me, or violated the law, would I have the courage to protest? The individuals below did. These are their stories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
With the disrespect for the working person that seems to come through in your posts it is probably better that you don't employ anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
If you're not a business owner why the big lecture to stupid lil' 'ol me about how difficult and risky it is to set up business and don't I know how much hard work it is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
IF you're a working person why are you acting as if you're a CEO?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
I certainly did not imply that owners didn't do any work ; I said the dirty work was done by the employees and it is. In the building industry a successful business will not see the owner 'putting on the tools' as he or she is usually too busy answering the phone or coordinating jobs. I didn't say this wasn't work just a different kind of work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
The profits occur when the job is done and the job gets done because of the workers not the boss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:
Go ahead and kiss ass for the boss man Gir I can guarantee it won't get you anywhere.

---

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: Gir Draxon ]

"There is little difference when it is broken down. It is just that some who lack the ambition to try to work to the upper levels play the politics of envy in hopes of dragging others down to their own place in life".

That is utterly hilarious. People who spend their lives fighting for social justice - union organisers, feminists and our ilk - lack ambition and are filled with envy - the "politics of envy", no less!

And "place in life" - what century is that from? As in the lower classes, Blacks (not Conrad...) and women "knowing their place".

quote:

---

As to people being considered human beings, that is more the call of the employer or manager than anything. It varies person to person as everything does.

Even the most humantiarian and caring employer has to look at a balance sheet at the end of the day.

---

I thought that EA's response to this nonsense was best. The quotes were appropriately chosen.
It is not the call of the individual employer to decide if their workers are human or not.

Gir: re--employers having to respect workers

quote:

---

No, they shouldn't.

Good morals dictate such, but I don't beleive in moral government.

---

No, this should be along the lines of "don't kill people" you know? "When you get people to help you, treat them like human beings."

btw Gir, I don't think you were saying that you liked Hitler. But to agree with him and Ayn Rand in their just quoted sentiments is bizarre, to put it kindly.

Back to C. Morgan,

bold is EA:

quote:

---

You want a point? You don't see it then, do you? You are claiming that the employer has a right (by whom?) to decide whether he or she will regard their employees as human beings? Or did I miss something from what you wrote?
One more time:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to people being considered human beings, that is more the call of the employer or manager than anything. It varies person to person as everything does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]Care to elaborate?

My quotes were advisory: be careful when you say things like that and then look in a rhetorical mirror - you might not like who looks back.

[/qb]

---

To which you respond with:

quote:

---

I am not sure what you are seeking.
Birthday gifts? Regulated daily attaboys?

I don't expect the accounting department to look at things any other way.

---

I take it you read somewhere that these were part of the UFCW's "non-negotiable demands"?

quote:

---

How any individual does things is up to the individual.

How do you propose to end such individualism?

---

By getting society to recognize that the mini-despotisms of employers over their employees has no inherent legitimacy that we are bound to respect.
In a free society, where people have a right to a subsistence, such narcissitic behaviour as you're defending would not be tolerated, and our mighty entrepreneurs would be left to their empires of nothing by the disgusted, sane majority.

Back to Gir:

quote:

---

Employers just as employees will end up unemployed when they do not work (contrary to popular socialist thought).
Employers have bosses too, they are called clients or customers. Like employees who cross their bosses, employers do so at their own risk.

There is little difference when it is broken down. It is just that some who lack the ambition to try to work to the upper levels play the politics of envy in hopes of dragging others down to their own place in life.

Thank goodness that they have not been successful.

---

Throughout your debating here, you and C. Morgan keep using the strawman position that Wal-Mart workers and other workers who want unions, who want respect, who want decent pay, are demanding exorbitant wages, ridiculous perks, and free money for no work --- regardless even, of the long-term effect these demands would have for the health of the company.

This is so stale an argument that I can't believe I have to address it here.

Workers aren't so stupid as to imagine that they can take from the company, and give nothing back. That they can kill the goose that lays the golden egg and there will be no dire consequences.

And if you do believe the workers are so stupid, you cannot believe this about the unions, that are so cynical and crafty and self-interested. They won't sink the employer who pays the wages from which they extract their dues.

You guys can't have it both ways with unions like that.

Similiarly, no one seriously states that employers and managers do not work. (I don't anyway.) What we are saying is that they do not deserve to be little petty despots over the lives of their employees. I'm saying that by accepting their need for the assistance of others, they have created a cooperative undertaking and that they must face up to this reality.

And I don't believe there are enough stock-shelvers, loading dock workers, and retail clerks who would dominate a union meeting, and vote to pay themselves the same wages as more skilled, harder working people.

I think people are basically sane and fair. That people will respect an owner-operator's greater investments and efforts (if such they are), and will simply ask to bargain fairly for what their contributions are worth.

I am going to close this thread now for length.

If you're interested in further debating whether workers have any rights other than the right to submit blindly to the whims of their oh-so-"superior" employers, please feel free to start a fresh thread.

If you're interested in practical, progressive strategies for fighting walmart, you might want to check out this thread.

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]