[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]

[ 17 March 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Here's a good worldwide clearinghouse on the Wal-Mart situation worldwide. Its interesting to see who is doing what to fight Wal-Mart. Many interesting methods and ideas.

union-network.org

UFCW even has a "Justice at Wal-Mart" page. Here it is!

I have a friend who is a journalist at the FTQ communications department and they are currently working on a communiqué and a press conference to be held tomorrow morning. (The FTQ is the French name of the Québec Federation of Labour - that parent body). I'll pass your offer on to him and he'll tell me what can be concretely done to help the workers up there. (Look on a map - it really is UP there...).

Another site that also has good coverage of workers' struggles is http://www.labourstart.org/ - and the WalMart closing is at the top of the page today.

Although this news is not unexpected, given WalMart's reputation as a "non-union employer", it is a shock and I'm very, very sad. Like Coyote, I know people up there. I used to live with a fellow who moved back to that region. They are very proud people - very creative and hard-working too. The insinuations that they are slackers are painful.

The workers were not trying to win "control" - beyond basic respect, or make extravagant wage and working conditions demands. All they wanted was conditions similar to those enjoyed by workers with the same skills and job categories at retailers where there is a union - here, stores such as Loblaws, Métro, IGA...

It is an important battle for workers everywhere as WalMart's bottom-of-the-barrel approach to wages and working conditions is putting pressure on the competition, especially Loblaws (for the moment the immediate effects are felt more outside Québec).

Canada is critically important because (take a big bow) you've come as close as anyone to wounding this malevolent giant. The battle is pretty much lost in the pro-business Bush USA. But as N. Beltov said in the other just closed thread:

quote:

---

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.

---

You bet! Well here's one USian that stands with all of you. Canada has the best chance of turning the tide on Wal-Mart. I hope all other non-Canadian babblers will support this effort in any way they can.

Meanwhile, here is the AP report from earlier today. Some of this is absolutely heartbreaking as Lagatta knows:

As Union Nears Win, Wal-Mart Closes Store

quote:

---

"Wal-Mart has fired these workers not because the store was losing money but because the workers exercised their right to join a union," Michael J. Fraser, national director of UFCW Canada, said in a written statement. "Once again, Wal-Mart has decided it is above the law and that the only rules that count are their rules."

Wal-Mart's decision to close the store reflects the retailer's deeply rooted aversion to unions, and its worries that organized labor had nearly established a beachhead, said Burt Flickinger III of Strategic Resource Group, a consulting firm specializing in retailing and consumer goods.

But he said the move could backfire for Wal-Mart, which has worked hard to counter a wave of bad publicity and portray itself as a generous employer.

"The store closing may potentially catalyze the combination of the government (officials in Canada), organized labor and consumers working together against Wal-Mart," Flickinger said.

Claudia Tremblay, a cashier at the store, said many employees burst into tears when managers told them the news Wednesday morning.

"Many people cried, including myself," Tremblay said. "I'm a mother of two children and I'm separated from my husband. It's very difficult."

Tremblay said she abstained from the unionization vote. She said she was upset her noncommittal stance won't save her job.

---

http://www.labourstart.org/wal-mart/

UFCW is the union currently leading the drive to organize Walmart, but you might also want to check out the SEIU union's efforts in support. SEIU is quite a bit further ahead in "harnessing the power of the internet" for the union cause, which could help offer us cyber-supporters something concrete to do. Check this link out:

I refuse to go into the Ikea's, Idomo's, Leon's, Bricks etc. I have a friend whose family owned about 4 furnature stores and once those don't pay a cent events started up in the '80s their stores started to close because they could not compete with the pricing etc.

The good side is that there won't be a Wal-mart. The Wal-mart empire is pushed back by that much. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. And as a result, local shops will be less likely to become extinct and may have an opportunity to flourish. City land use plans can be returned to.

quote:

---

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.

---

*****
HOLD WAL-MART ACCOUNTABLE!

The world's largest corporation is choosing to destroy the livelihoods of nearly 200 working families rather than accept a fair and impartial agreement defining workers wages and benefits.

Wal-Mart announced, yesterday, it was shutting down the store where workers had unionized six months earlier to have a voice on the job. Workers at the Jonquiere, Quebec store had been in negotiations with Wal-Mart the last several months, attempting to reach a fair agreement on wages and benefits. The company pulled the plug on the store when the workers appealed to the Quebec Labor Ministry to initiate a process that would establish a wage and benefit settlement.

An Associated Press story put it this way: "As Union [Workers] Near Win, Wal-Mart Closes Store" (February 10, 2005).

The message from the world's largest and wealthiest corporation to consumers, communities and workers worldwide is clear: Wal-Mart would rather close stores, eliminate worker's jobs and make the entire community suffer, rather than reach an agreement with workers for fair wages and benefits.

We need your help today. Please sign our petition to Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott. Tell Mr. Scott to respect workers. Wal-Mart can't shut down stores because it doesn't want workers to be paid fairly.

This is not just a fight for Wal-Mart workers. With Wal-Mart's unprecedented size and growth--$280 billion in revenues last year--we realize We are fighting for everyone. But we cannot win this fight alone.

Wal-Mart is too big, the company has more than $9 billion in profits and the management is hell bent on world-domination.

But, we have a secret weapon. We have something their billions of dollars cannot buy. We have the people.

Together, we have the power to stop the largest, greediest corporation in the world. We are their consumers and we can make a difference. Sign our petition today and tell Wal-Mart to open its doors to fairness.

The battle over Wal-Mart is a struggle for the kind of society we want to live in. Entire towns shut when Wal-Mart moves in.

Mom and pop stores disappear. Health care costs are skyrocketing because Wal-Mart shifts its costs to communities and taxpayers. And Wal-Mart pressure forces manufactures to ship jobs overseas.

You can stop Wal-Mart.

Take action now and sign the petiton to Wal-Mart's CEO:

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/walmart05

Tell a Friend:

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/walmart05/forward

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Who knew it would be so easy to get rid of them. Maybe, all the stores will leave Canada as they all become unionized. Because they will. This is a subtle cultural difference between the US and Canada that they probably don't understand. And, they can't calculate how many Canadians already don't shop there for ethical reasons.

If you have to box shop at least Kosco has a good reputation, pays better, has health care in the US, etc.

[ 10 February 2005: Message edited by: Blueiris46 ]

"Thank you for taking action on the petition to Hold Wal-Mart Accountable on behalf of Voice Activated: The Worker Voice Activist Network of the UFCW. You can keep up with what we are
doing at http://www.ufcw.org .

Sincerely,
UFCW"

quote:

---

FabFabian: Does anyone know of some kind of legal recourse that the employees or even the town can use? This is beyond unfair, it is plain old bullying and blackmail.

---

It is, however, typical for Wal-Mart. The union needs to demonstrate that this closure constitutes an unfair labour practice if they can show that Wal-Mart (a) bargained in bad faith and had no intention of coming to an agreement; or (b) that the real reason for the closure is the democratic decision of the employees to be represented by their chosen union, etc. Easier said than done. The general strategy of Wal-mart has been flexible, but, basically, they have tried to delay the process until the other side gives up. As a business they are entitled to make business decisions, e.g., whether to keep a business open or not...provided that these decisions aren't the result of a deliberate anti-union campaign. In their current public pronouncements, Wal-Mart's mouthpieces seem to walk a carefully calculated tight-rope where they assert "business reasons' and then, virtually in the same breath, remind other employees of their recent atrocity taking place in the context of a union drive.

quote:

---

I also had the thought, that maybe if all the Walmarts in Canada went union they would close. They are ugly ass stores that are a blight on the landscape.

---

quote:

---

Tremblay said she abstained from the unionization vote. She said she was upset her noncommittal stance won't save her job.

---

quote:

---

The good side is that there won't be a Wal-mart. The Wal-mart empire is pushed back by that much. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. And as a result, local shops will be less likely to become extinct and may have an opportunity to flourish. City land use plans can be returned to.

---

This isnt necessarily so, they often just move to a different section of the city or a smaller town closeby and thus keep the same clientele.

Has anyone considered working on the managers? They get some amount of autonomy and if they can be brought onside (by whatever means fair) to treat the employees better, things could move smoother. It wouldnt take much, just whatever they can do within the rules and be more flexible with breaks, shifts, etc and show a corresponding increase in productivity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:

Has anyone considered working on the managers?... It wouldnt take much, just whatever they can do within the rules and be more flexible with breaks, shifts, etc and show a corresponding increase in productivity.

---

This is where W-mart displays evil genius. Store managers have very limited responsibilities, which don't include the general welfare and profitability of the store. They are responsible for keeping staff costs to an unreasonably low level, keeping losses (mostly due to theft) at a low level, and so on.

Your average non-W-mart store manager has the responsibility to move inventory and manage staff to get the most profit. So something like an increase in productivity would help that manager do his job better. With the W-mart store manager, Corporate HQ is managing inventory and such to manipulate profits. Heck, sometimes they even want a loss, as evidenced in this thread.

The managers' marching orders are to keep staff costs below $X no matter what it takes, not to worry about the overall financial health of the store. So they treat the workers like crap because it works for them. They force unpaid overtime, lock employees in the store, deny breaks, etc. because these are the things they are measured on. Targets for staff costs are so unreasonably low that they have to do this to meet their performance objectives.

So yes, if a W-mart manager wanted to be humane he could treat his employees better by not forcing them to clock out and return to work (for instance - that's a common W-mart practice). But the increase in wages paid would certainly cost him his job, regardless of increased productivity.

Wal-Mart Chief Defends Closing Unionized Store

quote:

---

The chief executive of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. yesterday defended the retailer's decision to close a Canadian store after its employees voted to form a union, saying demands from negotiators would have forced an already unprofitable store to hire 30 more people and abide by inefficient work rules.

"You can't take a store that is a struggling store anyway and add a bunch of people and a bunch of work rules that cause you to even be in worse shape," H. Lee Scott Jr. said.

In his first interview since Wal-Mart announced it would close the store in Jonquiere, Quebec, Scott said Wal-Mart saw no upside to the higher labor costs and refused to cede ground to the union for the sake of being "altruistic."

"It doesn't work that way," he said.

snip

Scott characterized the performance of the chain's handful of urban U.S. stores as "okay" and said its failure to win approval for stores on the South Side of Chicago and Inglewood, Calif., last year received an inordinate amount of attention, given that Wal-Mart opens as many as 60 U.S. stores a month. Nevertheless, he said, the chain made a strategic error in Inglewood when it attempted to circumvent what it expected to be an unfavorable city council vote on a new store by seeking a voter referendum instead.

"In doing that, I think we came across as a bully who would get their way regardless," Scott said. "Our size causes us, when we do something inappropriate, which is usually done out of stupidity, to come across as being done out of arrogance. And people just won't stand arrogance."

---

damn vmichel, I was hoping the managers would be a viable solution. I have never treated employees that way whenever i was a manager

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

quote:

---

Wal-Mart Runs Away from Workers and Runs Over Workers' Rights; Workers Unite in Response to Wal-Mart's Actions in Jonquiere

Thu Feb 10, 6:38 PM ET

To: National Desk

Contact: Greg Denier, 202-466-1591, Jill Cashen, 202-728-4797 or [email protected], both of United Food and Commercial Workers

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- No one validates Wal- Mart criticism better than Wal-Mart itself. The retail giant announced plans to shutter its store in Jonquiere, Quebec rather than work with its employees and their certified representative, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW).

Joe Hansen, UFCW International President, announced a major grassroots mobilization targeting Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott that will reach out to workers and concerned community members to take action in support of Wal-Mart associates. The UFCW launched an electronic petition campaign to Wal-Mart calling on the retail giant to, "abandon plans to close its Jonqueiere, Quebec, store," and "to live up to the responsibilities that come with being the world's largest corporation. Those responsibilities begin with respecting workers, consumers and communities."

Hansen said, "Wal-Mart is choosing to destroy the livelihoods of nearly 200 working families rather than accept a compromise agreement with workers. It is clear from its actions in Jonquiere and in Jacksonville, Texas, that Wal-Mart will go to any length to avoid recognizing its workers' organized voice on the job."

Wal-Mart announced, yesterday, it was shutting down the store where workers had unionized six months earlier. Workers at the Jonquiere, Quebec store had been in negotiations with Wal-Mart the last several months, attempting to reach a fair agreement on wages and benefits. The company pulled the plug on the store when the workers appealed to the Quebec Labor Ministry to initiate a process that would establish a fair and impartial wage and benefit settlement.

Wal-Mart is no good for any community when it turns its back and runs away from its employees. The only way Wal-Mart will change its behavior toward workers and our communities is by people coming together and sending a unified message to the giant corporation. To get involved with the UFCW campaign and to sign on to the electronic petition, visit www.ufcw.org

---

CBC: Union fights to keep Wal-Mart Store Open

quote:

---

Union fights to keep Wal-Mart store open
MONTREAL - A lawyer for unionized Wal-Mart employees says the company's decision to close its first unionized store in Quebec could spark a legal battle and a national boycott, and the retailer could be forced to reopen the store.
***
Paul Cavalluzzo represents the United Food and Commercial Workers. He says the union has three options to fight the closing of the store: legal action, an economic boycott, and political pressure.

The union's national director has already said he will file a charge of unfair labour practice against Wal-Mart with the Quebec Labour Relations Board.

---

Reuters: Quebec Unions call for Wal-Mart boycott

quote:

---

QUEBEC CITY (Reuters) - Unions for thousands workers in northern Quebec have urged a boycott of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT - news) over its plans to close a store that last year became North America's first unionized Wal-Mart.
***
Officials for the United Food and Commercial Workers union, a branch of the Quebec Federation of Labour said they may file a complaint with the government's labor relations board and union leaders at local metals and forest products companies said they deplored Wal-Mart's decision.

The Quebec Federation of Labour is the largest union group in Quebec.

Local mayor Jean Tremblay accused Wal-Mart of being a "bad corporate citizen."

"There are labor rules that everybody follows in Quebec. Other large-surface retailers follow them as well," he said.

"I'm disappointed that Wal-Mart decided to shut down the store instead of negotiating an agreement."

---

[edited so baby jesus doesn't cry]

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Sam Walton, the man who started Walmart decades ago in the State of Arkansas, had several success formulas that he followed to build a thriving business. Not the least of which was, he was always asking questions of his customers, the people who were actually in his store shopping, and then listening carefully to their answers. His philosophy was give the customer what they want. He rarely spent any time in his office, he was down on the floor talking to customers and employees. Listening and learning. And then putting into action what he found out.

As a Canadian, I would rather shop in Walmart, and buy products made in Canada, than shop at a Canadian retailer and buy made in China or made in Indonesia, or some other country that has terrible human rights violations among other problems. Of course, Walmart has many products in it's stores that are made in China and elsewhere besides Canada and the US. I heard a stat that 10% of all products that come from China and that are brought into the US go to Walmart. But to me, I'm not so concerned about buying from a Canadian retailer over an American one as I'm concerned about where the product is made.

Walmart buys alot of Canadian made products. It's a policy of theirs to buy alot of products to stock the shelves from the country in which the store is located, in our case Canada. Also, many Canadian manufacturers of products can and do benefit greatly by having Walmart stock their products in stores across Canada and the US. Obviously the potential revenues that a company can earn by having products on Walmart store shelves across NA is huge.

When I shop at Walmart, I'm careful, because despite the advertising, they are not always the cheapest. One of the techniques Walmart uses in particular is to pick certain products that people buy regularly and are quite familiar with price and price those products competitively if not cheaper, then actually have other products that people would tend not to be as familiar with the price and slap on an extra dollar or two, increasing profit. Walmart is not always the cheapest price but they do an excellent job of creating the perception that they are. Be careful, Don't believe the hype.

Working at Walmart does not require a great deal of education or training for most jobs. So it's quite understandable that those low end types of jobs will have low end wages associated with them. But for people with little or no work experience, like students, or high school grads trying to get a start in the workforce, it's perfect. For people, in many cases women, trying to get back into the workforce after years without working, it's exactly the stepping stone they need.

Walmart hires alot from within. In many cases people who move up into higher management positions once worked on the retail floor in one of the departments at some Walmart store.

quote:

---

Leuca:Walmart has some good, it's not all bad.

---

quote:

---

As a Canadian, I would rather shop in Walmart, and buy products made in Canada, than shop at a Canadian retailer and buy made in China or made in Indonesia, or some other country that has terrible human rights violations among other problems. Of course, Walmart has many products in it's stores that are made in China and elsewhere besides Canada and the US. I heard a stat that 10% of all products that come from China and that are brought into the US go to Walmart. But to me, I'm not so concerned about buying from a Canadian retailer over an American one as I'm concerned about where the product is made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leuca:
His philosophy was give the customer what they want.

Working at Walmart does not require a great deal of education or training for most jobs... For people, in many cases women, trying to get back into the workforce after years without working, it's exactly the stepping stone they need.

---

Okay, has anyone ever actually had a good experience shopping in W-Mart? When I've been it's been a complete disaster. The exploitation of the workers shows in the lack of help, order, and inventory in the store. I've only been because it was the only store available in the area, which it was because local laws gave the retailer an unfair advantage, and it drove all other stores out of business.

So say what you will about W-Mart, I really don't think you can say it meets the needs of the customer. It thrives b/c it grinds other businesses out. But if you've had a good experience there, and feel they did a superior job of meeting your needs as a customer, I'm willing to listen.

Second, have you actually talked to anyone who works at W-mart? Because again, say what you will about the company, but this is definitely not the place to work if you want to advance to something better. You end up fired, or quitting with a bad record, because you wanted to go to the bathroom or complained that the doors were locked or refused to work o-time w/o pay. They thrive on high employee turnover.

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

For those people on the board that defend the right of Walmart to stomp all over working people PBS has a web page devoted to their investigation called storewars.While the majority of Walmart employees live below the poverty line the corporation makes 9 billion annually in profits.

---

Nobody is being forced to work at or shop at Walmart.

How do you know 'the majority of Walmart employees live below the poverty line? What definition of poverty line is used in this instance?

9 billion is a lot of money no question. But if the company is earning 9 billion on 90 billion worth of assets and investment, that's about 10% which economists refer to as 'normal profit'. And it's not like people aren't allowed to be 'owners' of Walmart by buying shares in the company if people would like to participate in those profits. And Walmart is not the only company in the world that is profitable, people can buy shares in these companies as well if they are publically traded corporations. Also, there are well over 300 million Americans, so if we divided the 9 billion evenly among 300 million people, we're talking about 30 bucks a piece. That's for the year, not big money, if Walmart was forced to share their profit with 'everyone'.

quote:

---

If just a small portion of that profit was given in bonus form to enhance the payscale of employees it would relieve poverty in a small way, perhaps enough to make a difference. 925,000 Walmart employees could split a share of that profit based on hours worked, say 3 billion divided by 925,000 could create some very good bonuses to spread the wealth a little. Perhaps Walmart wouldn't then have 70% of their employees leave within the first year.

---

If Walmart employees want to share in the profit of Walmart they can buy shares in the company like anyone else. Or they can work for a retailer that has a profit sharing program, if Walmart doesn't have something like that.

What percentage of employees leave Zellars, or Target, or other similar retailers. Is 70% within a year in line with other companies? Why are they leaving? Maybe some have decided that retailing is not for them, maybe they have taken the skills and experience they have developed working for Walmart and moved up to a better opportunity elsewhere, maybe they were only planning on working there so long and had every intention of leaving once they have earned enough money, maybe they were students and went back to school, could be any number of reasons why people would leave, and because of the nature of the job people can find equivalent opportunities, or better, in many places.

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: Leuca ]

quote:

---

Yup. And I understand also that the trains ran on time in Mussolini's Italy. Of course that didn't prevent the citizens of Italy from stringing him up by his feet when the time came.

---

quote:

---

SAGUENAY, Que. — A boycott against Wal-Mart has been ruled out after the U.S. retail giant announced it is closing a unionized store, the head of the Quebec Federation of Labour said today.

"We're going to put this aside for now," Henri Masse told a news conference.

Instead, Masse said efforts to unionize more Wal-Mart stores in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada will continue.

The union will also push to have a first contract implemented at the store in Saguenay, about 250 kilometres north of Quebec City, even though Wal-Mart has said it will close on May 6 due to financial reasons.

---

I'm not saying the union representing the Jonquiert Walmart employees is similar to the Canadian civil service union I was attached to until recently but here's that union's story.

The trade union I was attached to showed an unwillingness to put effort and resources into fighting individual cases to the point of being COMPLETELY USELESS and exhibiting DEREGATION OF DUTY, as well as practicing MISREPRESENTATION. It was not uncommon for fee paying union members to pay for labour lawyer representation because the union was totally ineffective.

The union simply refused to put resources into that part of the operation. In short , they were chiefly interested in the organization's survival.
On top of that they had the gall to try to rely on volunteer members to represent the union in grievances while , at the same time, showering them with contempt. The union president was more of a mafia style boss than an effective leader.

So what to do when a Canadian trade union acts like a corrupt, castrated bull? Have others had similar experiences in the current labour relations scene?

quote:

---

According to the pbs site Walmart only buys about 15% of its merchandise locally the other 85% comes from sweat shops in the third world.

---

I don't personally like the fact that the Canadian and US govt.s allow products to come into our countries from third world sweatshops, forced labour and child labour camps. If it were up to me, it would end tomorrow. I try to buy canadian and US as much as possible. Or buy European or other places in the world that have fair labour practices as well as environmental standards among others. I don't know about China and other Asian countries, but in Mexico, it's pump it in the air and dump it in the river that the rule.

I can't always, but when I can I support Canadian and US manufacturers. I recently bought wires to connect the dvd to the tv, every product was made in China. I had no choice except to not buy them at all, which is no choice. In that case I can write a letter to the company and politicians. I encourage people who care about human rights and environmental standards and fair wages and labour practices to vote with their dollars, always check the label when buying items, clothing, furniture, shoes, electronics, etc. etc.. Do the same and others will become more aware. There must be a critical mass of support for something to change, only then do business and politicians take note.

Certainly however Walmart is not the only retailer selling 'sweat shop products from third world nations'. It's pervasive in our society today. And by the way the US has no business shipping factories overseas to take advantage of cheap labour and limited regulation only to have those products shipped back to the US to be purchased by American consumers adding to their already exploding trade deficitis. And at a time when they have massive deficits. If I were American I would be embarrassed and ashamed of that record. (Open message to Americans) Open up your eyes and turn on your brains.

quote:

---

Actually can we redirect discussion about the goodness or evility of Walmart to that thread ltj linked, folks? This one here is supposed to be about activism in support of the organizing drive.

---

My point is Walmart is not as horrible a company as it is being made out to be, nobody is forced to work or shop at Walmart. And if they want to shut down a store location that is threatening to unionize, it's their business, they have the right. I think they sent a clear message that they won't tolerate unions in their stores. My understanding is that there is a Walmart, relatively close to the location that was shut down, where people there who would like to continue shopping at Walmart can, and probably will.

boycott ruled out...for the time being.

Of course there's nothing to stop good people from carrying out an "unofficial" boycott.

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

Les Colocs
La rue principale Paroles et Musique: André Fortin   1993 
---------------------------------------
Dans ma p'tite ville on était juste quatre mille
Pis la rue principale à s'appelait St-Cyrille
La coop, le gaz bar, la caisse-pop, le croque-mort
Et le magasin général
Quand j'y retourne ça m'fait assez mal
Y'é tombe une bombe su'a rue principale
Depuis qu'y ont construit le centre d'achat

L'aut' jour j'ai amené ma bien-aimée
Pour y montrer où c'est que j'étais né
Aussitôt arrivé me v'la en beau joualvert
Ça avait l'air de Val-Jalbert
Quand j'y r'tourne ça m'fait assez mal
Y'é tombé une bombe su'a rue principale
Depuis qu'y ont construit le centre d'achat

Une bonne journée j'vas y retourner
Avec mon bulldozer
Pis l'centre d'achat y vas passer
Un mauvais quart d'heure

Avant la v'nue du centre d'achat
Sur la grande rue c'était plus vivant qu'ça
Des ti-culs en bicycle, des cousines en visite
C'tait noir de monde comme en Afrique
Quand j'y r'tourne c'est pathétique
Ça va donc bien mal su'a rue principale
Depuis qu'y ont construit le McDonald

Une bonne journée j'vas y retourner
Avec mon bulldozer
Pis l'centre d'achat y vas passer
Un mauvais quart d'heure

Dans ma p'tite ville y sont pu rien qu'trois mille
Pis la rue principale est devenue ben tranquille
L'épicerie est partie, le cinéma aussi
Et le motel est démoli
Quand j'y r'tourne ça m'fait assez mal
Y'é tombé une bombe su'a rue principale
Depuis qu'y ont construit le centre d'achat

Une bonne journée j'vas y retourner
Avec mon bulldozer
Pis l'centre d'achat y vas passer
Un mauvais quart d'heure

Dans ma p'tite ville on était juste quatre mille
Pis la rue principale à s'appelait St-Cyrille
La coop, le gaz bar, la caisse-pop, le croque-mort
Et le magasin général
Quand j'y retourne ça m'fait assez mal
Y'é tombe une bombe su'a rue principale
Depuis qu'y ont construit le centre d'achat
Le centre d'achat, le centre d'achat,
Le centre d'achat...

We were thinking of updating the lyrics to include "Le WalMart"....

I think rabble/babble can have a role to play in petitions and information campaigns about this.

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Two Wal-Mart stores in Gatineau, Que., receive bomb threats; one reopens

Yes, of course it is "Astérix", in a far corner of the Empire, but people in the Saguenay Lac-St-Jean region are proud folks and glad to hear their story has inspired other WalMart workers throughout North America.

quote:

---

This is a subtle cultural difference between the US and Canada that they probably don't understand. And, they can't calculate how many Canadians already don't shop there for ethical reasons.

---

Yes I remember folks saying back in the 1980's that in the U.S., former Chrysler head Lee Iacocca was considered a "hero" for supposedly "saving" Chrysler, while here in Canada founding CAW president Bob White was considered a national hero for standing up to General Motors and pulling Canadian members out of the UAW.

quote:

---

And take your business elsewhere for the time being.

---

Last I heard, and this was several months ago, UFCW Canada was not calling for a boycott of Walmart. Instead, they were asking folks to shop at Walmart but while there, to talk to staff and express your support of their struggle to organize.

Of course, lots of folks...and folks that I know who aren't even all that "political" have refused to shop at Walmart ever since they came to Canada...just because they don't fit in with what they feel are "Canadian values" (yes I know that's a vague term).

I've only been in a Walmart maybe once or twice in my life...and its only because I was with other folks who were going there and I just didn't feel like engaging in a political harangue that day. And then felt kind of "dirty" afterwards.

I don't know whether or not UFCW Canada has or will change their position in light of the shutdown, but it seems that some Quebec unions are calling for a boycott.

And Leuca, before you post anything else on this or any other Walmart thread I would suggest you watch this streaming video here

Once you post that you've actually watched the video from start to finish I might be willing to entertain your comments. Till then...toodles

I never liked the Wal-Mart philosophy, and I truly despise it now. I hope all the Joe and Jane Averages in our communities wake up to the fact that buying at Wal-Mart under Wal-Mart's present terms contributes to destroying our communities. Unfortunately, the message is not getting through to many of them. I went to a store beside our local Wal-mart today and was discouraged to see the Wal-Mart parking lot filled with cars. Personally, I will never go back in there until their employees' rights to unionize are recognized and fully respected. I'd rather pay more for what I buy and know that workers receive a fair wage and enjoy decent working conditions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
According to this Reuters article, the unions are calling for a boycott. Link here.

---

Every time I go to Sept-Iles for a week every year, WALmart is full while all the other stores are virtually empty. It's clear WALmart is having a terrible impact on smaller retailers (everyone else in the city!). The only comparable store of size is a huge Canadian Tire complex, but it's never as full as WALmart.

I hate WALmart. I'd love to see them shut down and other retailers step up but that's a long way away. Just out of curiousity, is there any way I can gauge their appetite for union? I don't speak French well.

[ 12 February 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barcode:
Can someone explain why China is the only place on earth that WalMart has unions?

---

The "unions" in China are run by the government, which is where they get their muscle. If Wal-Mart wants to do business in China, they have to go along to get along. That said, those unions don't do a whole lot for Chinese workers.

[ 13 February 2005: Message edited by: pogge ]

quote:

---

The basic duty of the Chinese trade unions is to protect the legitimate rights and Interests of the workers and staff members. In the course of developing the socialist market economy, the Chinese trade unions, in accordance with the regulations of the State’s Labour law and other relevant laws, actively safeguard workers’ political rights, their right to work and their material and cultural interests; participate in coordinating labour relations and regulating social contradictions and make efforts to promote the economic development and a long-term social stability of the country.

---

I think that there's an ... ahem "slight" contradiction between protecting workers rights and "regulating social contradictions" and promoting the "long-term social stability of the country".

At the very best the ACFTU functions as a kind of "advisory committee" on issues of workers rights.
Its the kind of toothless union federation that the folks at Walmart can live with.

Maybe Chinese Walmart workers only have to give two cheers for Walmart in the morning instead of three.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Which gives me an idea. So, you've got your Wal-mart and it's killing other local businesses. Before they all die, maybe they should get together and put together an employment package for people working at the Wal-mart should it disappear, and encourage them to unionize with the guarantee that, should their successful unionization result in the Wal-mart evaporating, they will have guaranteed jobs elsewhere in the community. Then either Wal-mart eventually grudgingly accepts the union, in which case the workers have won but it's also easier for the competitors to compete, or the Wal-mart goes away, in which case the workers have jobs somewhere better and the Wal-mart went away. It's win-win. Well, for everyone except Wal-mart.

---

Hmmm.

Wal-mart would have people believe it has an open-door policy with its employees, like in a mom and pop operation, but that just isn't the case. It's a huge multinational with faceless leaders managing everything from their ivory towers, totally disconnected from their millions of workers world-wide.

quote:

---

Problem is that other businesses (especially small, local ones), for all that Wal-Mart does beat them into the ground (or tries to), would probably rather have the Wal-Mart union defeated and the workers lose their jobs. It helps enforce discipline at their own businesses and makes workers there less likely to want to unionize as well.

---

Small local businesses may have these fears but generally they're unfounded based on the reasons outlined by Jumble.

Its a .pdf file

quote:

---

Wal-Mart decided to become union free because to Wal-Mart their employees are worthless.

---

The following statement was issued today by the national director of UFCW Canada, Michael J. Fraser in reaction to the announcement made by Wal-Mart Canada to close its "unprofitable" store in Jonquière, Québec.

quote:

---

Nearly thirty years ago I started out as grocery clerk which is the kind of work that many of our members do today.

Our members, 230,000 across Canada, are your neighbours. They work in grocery stores and meat packing plants and hotels like this one. Some of them work in nursing homes, car rental agencies, grain elevators and many other places.

Some work as security guards. Others work at the Beer Stores here in Ontario.

Our members are the people who make Maple Leaf hot dogs. Others make Heinz ketchup. They're working men and women. They're not rich. They don't have glamorous jobs but over the years their job in a union workplace has held their families together.

Their union job has helped send their kids to college, given them security and has allowed them to earn a pension so that when they retire they won't have to face poverty.

About six months ago two hundred men and women in Jonquière, Québec became the newest members of our union. For doing that, for exercising their legal right to join a union, their employer Wal-Mart decided to teach them and their families and their community a very bitter lesson.

They fired all of them by telling them their store will shut three months from now.
Wal-Mart says it wasn't because they joined a union. Wal-Mart says it was just a business decision and in a way it was.

Wal-Mart decided to become union free because to Wal-Mart their employees are worthless.

Wal-Mart, which now controls the working lives of 70,000 Canadians, made a business decision that the cost of disposing of 200 men and women in Jonquière was a good long term investment in creating fear in the rest of their employees across Canada and the United States.

I want to assure our members and their families in Jonquière that we are there for you. We will continue to be there for you as long as it takes until the wrong that Wal-Mart has done to you is made right.

In Québec we will be filing charges against Wal-Mart for bargaining in bad faith because it's clear that over the past two months Wal-Mart was only bargaining on the surface.

Wal-Mart never had any intention of reaching a collective agreement. Wal-Mart made its decision to close the store months before we sat down at the table with them. They made the decision the day the labour board certified the union.

Everything since then has been a charade.

On behalf of our members we will also be filing unfair labour practise charges regarding Wal-Mart's vindictive actions in Jonquière.

We will be asking the Québec Labour Relations Commission to force Wal-Mart to prove that the store in Jonquière was losing money because we know that in spite of the company's statements, Wal-Mart's decision to wreck the lives of 200 workers, their families and their community was not about profits.
The store was making money and would have continued to make money like other unionized retail chains in Québec.

Wal-Mart's calculated ruthlessness was not about profit. It was about power – the absolute power that Wal-Mart wants over its workers, and suppliers and towns it does business in.

---

Looks like an extention of the PR Blitz they've been on here in the U.S.

quote:

---

Canadian Press

Monday, February 14, 2005

MONTREAL -- Wal-Mart Canada took out a full-page ad in several Quebec newspapers Monday, telling its employees they are the "cornerstone" of the company.

The retail giant's move came after its decision last week to close a Quebec store where unionized employees were seeking a first collective agreement.

The company said the store is not profitable but the announcement triggered allegations of union-busting against the U.S.-based company.
***
Wal-Mart's ad says the company has found the last few days "very trying" and seeks to reassure its employees they are its "biggest strength."

"Never let anyone or the media tell you otherwise," the statement reads.
***
The union representing the 190 employees at the Saguenay store blasted the ad, saying it is insulting to talk about the company finding the last few days hard when workers are losing their job.

"They've been threatening this closure ever since we got the accreditation," said union spokeswoman Marie-Josee Lemieux.

"How can they now say they (employees) are its biggest strength?

"Quebec isn't the Far West where the cowboy with the biggest revolver can do what he wants."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumble:
With small businesses, we aren't talking about the same dynamics. First of all, the relationship between the boss (the actual owner) and the employee is a face-to-face one. The boss usually has a hands-on approach to his business, and this creates a totaly different environment for everyone involved.

There usually is a real human rapport between workers and their boss, and the need for to unionize is not there. As the business becomes more successful, the owner is more inclined to share his good fortune with the workers who have helped him in his venture by giving them raises.

---

I beg to differ: all businesses, big or small are embedded in a capitalist economy in exactly the same way, with exactly the same whip driving them on.

Small businesses have less cash to play with, and so, of course, will go to the wall before a larger business, but the employees will hit that wall before the owner, regardless.

The "relationship" you posit, for all it can exist, completely masks the social relationship of owner and worker. A boss can "get down" with the hired help, but it's a _fundamental_ mistake to take that at face value. A small-time boss might cry big tears about having to let a worker go, but it's all the same to the worker.

This:

"need for to unionize is not there"

just blew me away with its breathtaking naivete.

Unions form to use collective bargaining to increase the collective strength of the workers vis-a-vis the owner, to something approaching the owner's strength in a bargaining position. It doesn't matter a tinker's damn either what the owner thinks: if workers want to unionize, for whatever reason (and its something workers _need_ to do), that's _their_ business.

Since there is absolutely no inducement for an owner to share the wealth he appropriated from workers (bar the owner's goodwill, which is always a chancy thing), workers have to band together to make sure they get it.

quote:

---

Wal-mart would have people believe it has an open-door policy with its employees, like in a mom and pop operation, but that just isn't the case. It's a huge multinational with faceless leaders managing everything from their ivory towers, totally disconnected from their millions of workers world-wide.

There's no loyalty, there's no human rapport. It's all about profits for the owners and minimum wages for the workers. Hence the need for a union.

---

So, so long as the exploiter is there to pat you on the back in person while paying you your crap wages (and make no mistake: small businesses are among the worst-paying employers imaginable), everything's fine?

Here's a timely piece from the Canadian Federation of Independant Business:

http://www.cfib.ca/mcentre/mwire/releases/on121604_e.asp

Cruise around their media centre; see just how folksy and kind "Mom & Pop" really are.

I also recommend Jim Stanford's "Paper Boom" for a succinct and unsentimental account of small business in Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:

Small local businesses may have these fears but generally they're unfounded based on the reasons outlined by Jumble.

Where Walmart's strategy does have an impact is with other large retailers including those that are unionized...witness the large supermarket strike in Los Angeles some months ago and UFCW's agreement with Loblaws over the Great Canadian Superstore. The existance of Walmart pushes wages and working conditions down across the entire industry.

---

I belong to a union and I'm a strong believer in unions. I've done my share of picketing during strikes. I'm not afraid to speak up for unions when people around me engage in union-bashing (which seems to be really in right now). When people spew out nonsense and half-truths about unions, I call their bluff. So if you're looking for someone to lecture to about unions, you've got the wrong person.

[ 15 February 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

Le Bloc tire à boulets rouges sur Wal-Mart (2/14/05)

quote:

---

Le chef du Bloc québécois, Gilles Duceppe, dénonce vigoureusement l'association du ministère fédéral de la Santé avec la compagnie Wal-Mart dans une campagne de lutte contre le tabagisme.

Aux Communes, M. Duceppe a déclaré qu'il était « inadmissible de s'associer à quelqu'un d'antisyndical, d'antisocial, au comportement tout à fait inacceptable ».

M. Duceppe commentait alors l'entente annoncée le 17 janvier entre Wal-Mart et le ministère fédéral de la Santé. Dans le communiqué annonçant l'entente, Santé Canada encense fortement la compagnie américaine qui a annoncé la fermeture prochaine de son magasin de Jonquière.

« Que le gouvernement fédéral soit devenu un associé de Wal-Mart, je pense que c'est incompréhensible, inacceptable, indigne d'un gouvernement démocratique », a tonné le chef du Bloc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumble:
I'm not naïve. I don't think we have the same business size in mind when we both refer to small businesses. I'm talking about businesses with a few employees.

---

I'm sure there's a more precise definition, but yours works fine enough for me to know that, yes, we are talking about the same animal.

quote:

---

I've worked in independent cornerstores, for instance, where the owner works long hours and does not make huge profits. Usually the owner will hire untrained staff, train them and give them small raises as the business makes greater profits. The employee also profits from this informal arrangement as he or she can move on to a better paying job as he or she gains experience. Sometimes the employees go into business themselves.

---

I'm not denying that this can happen or that the latter can be a positive thing; what I'm getting at is the relationship between the employer and the employee. This relationship is fundamentally the same, no matter the size of the company; we're talking about a social relationship of power differentials. How much money the proprietor makes matters, but the relationship of owner and non-owner matters more.

That's why asking some businesses, no matter what their size, to support strikers is quite liable to backfire or harm workers in some way: small business-owners don't have any more of a reason to like unions or strikers than the big bourgeois do. As I demonstrated with that link to the CFIB: they're even more interested in busting unions than big companies (in large part due to structural, not personal, reasons).

Ignoring facts like this can lead a person to make some _very_ bad mistakes.

quote:

---

I belong to a union and I'm a strong believer in unions. I've done my share of picketing during strikes. I'm not afraid to speak up for unions when people around me engage in union-bashing (which seems to be really in right now). When people spew out nonsense and half-truths about unions, I call their bluff. So if you're looking for someone to lecture to about unions, you've got the wrong person.

[ 15 February 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

---

quote:

---

My french is not very good but I caught a story from Radio-Canada the other day regarding some controversy between Health Canada and Walmart? I'd appreciate if anyone else has any more information.

---

The press release on Health Canada's Web site actually included some pro-Wal-Mart propaganda about how Wal-Mart had been chosen one of the best employers yadda yadda. It was co-signed by Wal-mart's Canadian repman Andrew Pelletier.

I should have copied the press release. It was quietly amended that same day and the offensive glorification of Wal-mart was removed from the communiqué.

quote:

---

That's why asking some businesses, no matter what their size, to support strikers is quite liable to backfire or harm workers in some way: small business-owners don't have any more of a reason to like unions or strikers than the big bourgeois do.

---

Ok. But who has asked small businesses to support strikers? First of all, Wal-Mart workers have not even been on strike. And secondly, small businesses are being eaten alive by Wal-Mart. I don't recall anyone suggesting that it would be in the interest of small business owners to support Wal-Mart workers in their quest to negotiate a first contract. Small busineses would be quite happy to see every Wal-mart store close. It's a matter of survival since Wal-Mart is an oversized unfair competitor.

I agree that it is in the interest of workers in mid-size businesses, as it is for those employed by multinationals, to be represented by a union. This is also in the interest of the whole community. Unions help level the playing field. They help all workers by ensuring that fair wages and benefits are the norm in any given field of work. The whole community benefits in turn. So, we're not that far apart in our beliefs.

[ 17 February 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumble:

Ok. But who has asked small businesses to support strikers?

---

This is what Rufus P. suggested

quote:

---

Which gives me an idea. So, you've got your Wal-mart and it's killing other local businesses. Before they all die, maybe they should get together and put together an employment package for people working at the Wal-mart should it disappear, and encourage them to unionize with the guarantee that, should their successful unionization result in the Wal-mart evaporating, they will have guaranteed jobs elsewhere in the community. Then either Wal-mart eventually grudgingly accepts the union, in which case the workers have won but it's also easier for the competitors to compete, or the Wal-mart goes away, in which case the workers have jobs somewhere better and the Wal-mart went away. It's win-win. Well, for everyone except Wal-mart.

---

Beg pardon: he wasn't talking so much of "strikers" as "unionizers". I misspoke, but my critique still stands; I think either one would be an evil small businesses would be just as happy to see go away (or be driven away).

quote:

---

First of all, Wal-Mart workers have not even been on strike. And secondly, small businesses are being eaten alive by Wal-Mart. I don't recall anyone suggesting that it would be in the interest of small business owners to support Wal-Mart workers in their quest to negotiate a first contract. Small busineses would be quite happy to see every Wal-mart store close. It's a matter of survival since Wal-Mart is an oversized unfair competitor.

---

Read Rufus' post.

quote:

---

I agree that it is in the interest of workers in mid-size businesses, as it is for those employed by multinationals, to be represented by a union. This is also in the interest of the whole community. Unions help level the playing field. They help all workers by ensuring that fair wages and benefits are the norm in any given field of work. The whole community benefits in turn. So, we're not that far apart in our beliefs.

[ 17 February 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

---

No, we're not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumble:
Well, your post didn't do squat either in explaining why you view the employer-employee relationship in a small business environment in such a totally negative way.

---

Then I suggest you go back and read my post again.

As for it "being totally negative": I'm afraid social power differentials are "totally negative", and I'm very sorry if talking about reality totally bums you out.

quote:

---

Human beings can interact quite decently in certain settings. I remember a feature story on T.V. about a small bakery owned by a woman. She had a few female employees, and they worked in a friendly, cooperative manner. They had a very pleasant employer-employe relationship, and no union was needed. They were happy at work and got along just fine without a union.

---

First: this sounds like a "feel-good story"; the kind that's beloved on TV news, next to the blood-and-guts stuff that's a prime driver for ratings (and therefore ad revenue). It's not exactly a close examination of the social relationship between employers and employed.

Second: it's entirely possible for workers and employers to get along, so long as they ignore the fact that they _are_ workers and employers (and all that that information entails). I've never said otherwise. I have been talking about an objective examination of the social power difference in the relationship. Which you have been consistently ignoring.

Third: unions are not about "being happy at work"; you are individualizing what a union is there for, seeing it more as a human resources department, designed to "smooth" relations between the two parties. It isn't (although it can be used that way).

This thread's gotten pushed as far astray as I'm willing to push it in trying to explain something without going into a new thread. I'm done with it.

quote:

---

I beg to differ: all businesses, big or small are embedded in a capitalist economy in exactly the same way, with exactly the same whip driving them on.

---

I don't disagree with you here. There's always the inherent contradiction between the interests of the boss and the worker. However in smaller enterprises the "human dynamic" is much more present...and that "human dynamic" means much less likelihood of workers "perceiving" a need to unionize.

But of course some smaller business owners can be complete reactionary right-wing assholes.

I guess that's why good-old Charlie Marx referred to these folks as the "petite bourgeois".

[ 18 February 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

quote:

---

Which gives me an idea. So, you've got your Wal-mart and it's killing other local businesses. Before they all die, maybe they should get together and put together an employment package for people working at the Wal-mart should it disappear, and encourage them to unionize with the guarantee that, should their successful unionization result in the Wal-mart evaporating, they will have guaranteed jobs elsewhere in the community. Then either Wal-mart eventually grudgingly accepts the union, in which case the workers have won but it's also easier for the competitors to compete, or the Wal-mart goes away, in which case the workers have jobs somewhere better and the Wal-mart went away. It's win-win. Well, for everyone except Wal-mart.

---

Excellent idea.

Is the UFCW helping these workers to pay their bills? The UFCW should guarantee short time financial support to Walmart workers whose stores close because they unionized. Many Walmart workers will not risk unionizing if there is no guarantee of short term financial support after their stores close.

[ 20 February 2005: Message edited by: CUPE_Reformer ]

[ 20 February 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

WINDSOR, Ontario--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 1, 2005--Attention: Assignment Editors

Current and longtime Wal-Mart employees will be briefing the media at a press conference on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. regarding a union drive at their Windsor, Ontario store.

quote:

---

The UFCW is also attempting to unionize workers in the Tire and Lube department of the Langford Wal-Mart

---

quote:

---

Blue Collar:...not only does this meant the possibilaty of a living wage for walmart workers but also takes the threat used by Loblaws on UFCW members employed by them, which means more money for superstore members.

---

There's still the vote on the Application for Certification and negotiating a first contract. Neither, especially the latter, is a "slam-dunk". Wal-Mart, when faced with a favourable vote, has already announced plans to shut down a store in Quebec. Wal-Mart has also demonstrated a willingness to prolong the process by their corporate legal strategy.

Perhaps a modified bargaining approach is in order? Is it possible to 'leap over' the first contract and go directly to the first strike (vote)? What does Ontario labour law say? Anyone?

I have to admit it is encouraging to see all these little brushfires start breaking out. I still think the UFCW needs a better response to the store closure threat, though. That's how Walmart has extinguished the brush fires to date.

Striking one store probably won't do it, but if you could take out a whole bunch - then you've escalated the brush fires into a full-fledged blazing inferno. If that's not feasible yet, finding a way to ratchet up consumer pressure might also work.

The other thing, though, is that I am still not convinced the UFCW, as an organization, is capable of adopting the sort of "take-no-prisoners" streetfighting tactics its going to need to win this fight. I'd be very happy to be proven wrong. But I think the Loblaws situation is an example of exactly the kind of top-down, demobilizing way the UFCW has operated at its worst. If the union won't even trust its members to vote on a contract, how can it expect them to come out and fight for the unorganized?

Like I said, though, I'd like to be proven wrong. Blue Collar: would you and your coworkers boycott Walmart if the union asked you to? Would you come out for a solidarity picket of a Walmart store?

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I still think the UFCW needs a better response to the store closure threat, though. That's how Walmart has extinguished the brush fires to date.

---

quote:

---

James: ...in the daily pre-shift employee team "rah-rah" sessions, where volume, profit, all those numbers are laid out, management has been going on great lengths about how much more profitable this location is compared to the older, smaller one they left behind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
If you are able, collect the evidence carefully. Or am I mis-reading you?

---

Post moved here.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

The other thing, though, is that I am still not convinced the UFCW, as an organization, is capable of adopting the sort of "take-no-prisoners" streetfighting tactics its going to need to win this fight. I'd be very happy to be proven wrong. But I think the Loblaws situation is an example of exactly the kind of top-down, demobilizing way the UFCW has operated at its worst. If the union won't even trust its members to vote on a contract, how can it expect them to come out and fight for the unorganized?

Like I said, though, I'd like to be proven wrong. Blue Collar: would you and your coworkers boycott Walmart if the union asked you to? Would you come out for a solidarity picket of a Walmart store?

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

---

Well two thing one the street fighting technique that was effect back in the 1920's-1940's created a system where violence was not needed but rather good lawyers, others had their heads bashed so we would not have to.

If you are refering to what happened in the stored in Ontario, they is a way of remedying that and the company not the union forced a no vote contract down the workers throat.

The question is never are the union officials ready to fight it is are union member ready ie how are you sitting financially for a long fight.

At our general meetings we have discussed the harm walmat has brought to society as a whole as far as a boycott goes I have suggested quite the opposite, I say we get a few buses and about a 1000 UFCW members all dressed in union clothing and go to walmart and talk to the staff and if we have to buy a pen or something under a dollar.

You want to have some get some UFCW t-shirts or a jacket and walk into a walmart they follow you every where and will ask you too leave.

And if the Labour Boards decide that Walmart should be allowed to close its stores, I would also hope that UFCW members would be prepared to march to their provincial legislatures or Parliament Hill to demand that governments change the law.

My point is just that I foresee a huge fight and I hope you and your union brothers and sisters are up for it. I also hope that your union leaders are prepared to lead a bigger fight than any of us have seen since the 30s, because otherwise you are going to have to nudge those leaders out of the way.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

We are paid well and that leads to apathy and I do not care attitude about the welfare of others, the Superstore employees I believe will be the future of the movement, the old time Loblaws employees had it to good for too long and are just trying to keep what is there at the exspense of others I feel.

Zweifel!

quote:

---

So, under terms of Canadian labor law, the union petitioned Quebec's labor minister to appoint an arbitrator who ultimately has the power to impose a first contract on newly organized workplaces.

It soon became clear that no one is going to push Wal-Mart around. No workers. No union. And certainly no Canadian government.

The company's response to this brazen union move was swift and simple. Come May, the Jonquiere store will be closed and its 130 employees can just go someplace else to find work.

Wal-Mart execs claimed it was closing the store because it had failed to meet financial goals.

One did admit, though, that the union's demands "would have fundamentally changed the economic model" and would have required adding 30 employees to the store's work force. It can be tough, you know, abiding by such niceties as 40-hour workweeks.

The Canadian union has filed a complaint that Wal-Mart has bargained in bad faith by announcing it will close the store. No one expects much to come of it because companies have the right to open and close stores as they please.

The Arkansas-based conglomerate may have to shut more stores in Canada, though. Already employees at two other Wal-Marts in Quebec have petitioned for union recognition.

One thing Wal-Mart won't have to do in Canada, as it does in this country, is counsel its workers how to get the government to pay for their health care.

Canada already does that for all its citizens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thorin_bane:
The Walmart in windsor was unionized under the CAW last time around.But somehow CONvinced a judge that it was a forced vote.

---

(login: babblers8 , password: audrarules)

quote:

---

OTTAWA, March 2 - Workers at a Wal-Mart store in Windsor, Ontario, will try to form a union for a second time, union officials said Wednesday.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Canada filed on behalf of the employees with the Ontario labor board Tuesday.

Andrew Mackenzie, the union representative who led the organizing drive, said Wednesday that the union delayed its application more than two weeks after Wal-Mart said that a unionized store in Jonquière, Quebec, would be closed in May. Workers at that store are in the process of negotiating their first contract.

Andrew Pelletier, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada, said the company would challenge the petition on the ground that the union's definition of the store's bargaining unit was undemocratic. According to Mr. Pelletier, the union wants to exclude 50 hourly workers from the unionization vote. About 200 people work in the store.

Mr. McKenzie said the 50 were excluded because they all had the word "manager" in their titles.

In 1997, the Windsor store, which was then in a different location, was organized by the Canadian arm of the United Steelworkers of America.

After the union and the company failed to negotiate a contract, employees voted to remove the union in 2000.

---

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]