The Jonquiere, Quebec store, which was the first to have a union in North America, is going to close:
NEW YORK - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Wednesday it will close a Canadian store whose workers are on the verge of becoming the first ever to win a union contract from the world's biggest retailer.Wal-Mart said it was shuttering the store in Jonquiere, Quebec, in response to unreasonable demands from union negotiators, that would make it impossible for the store to sustain its business. The United Food & Commercial Workers Canada last week asked Quebec labor officials to appoint a mediator, saying that negotiations had reached an impasse.
"We were hoping it wouldn't come to this," said Andrew Pelletier, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada. "Despite nine days of meetings over three months, we've been unable to reach an agreement with the union that in our view will allow the store to operate efficiently and profitably."
Pelletier said the store will close in May. The retailer had first discussed closing the Jonquiere store last October, saying that the store was losing money.
The demands sounded odd, increase the number of employees and also the number of working hours for a number already there. A Wal-Mart spokesman said " they failed to appreciate the fragility of conditions". It looks more like the issue was not just wages, but how the store was run. If the store really wasn't profitable, management through union contracts doesn't seem likely make it so.
The whole article is in the extension.
NEW YORK - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Wednesday it will close a Canadian store whose workers are on the verge of becoming the first ever to win a union contract from the world's biggest retailer.
Wal-Mart said it was shuttering the store in Jonquiere, Quebec, in response to unreasonable demands from union negotiators, that would make it impossible for the store to sustain its business. The United Food & Commercial Workers Canada last week asked Quebec labor officials to appoint a mediator, saying that negotiations had reached an impasse.
"We were hoping it wouldn't come to this," said Andrew Pelletier, a spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada. "Despite nine days of meetings over three months, we've been unable to reach an agreement with the union that in our view will allow the store to operate efficiently and profitably."
Pelletier said the store will close in May. The retailer had first discussed closing the Jonquiere store last October, saying that the store was losing money.
A spokesman for the UFCW said Wednesday the union had not yet seen the retailer's statement, and that leaders were traveling and not immediately available for comment.
Some employees at the store said they believed the store was closing because of their agreement to join the union and several cried as they left the store. They told Radio-Canada TV that an announcement had been made and they were not allowed to ask questions.
The store in Jonquiere, about 240 miles northeast of Montreal, became the first unionized Wal-Mart store in North America last September, after the bargaining unit was certified by provincial labor officials. Since then, workers at a second Quebec store have also been granted union status. Neither had reached a contract.
The union efforts at both stores are part of a larger chess game labor organizers are waging with Wal-Mart at stores across Canada. The campaign, financed by UFCW money from both Canada and the United States, is also geared to captured the attention of workers in Wal-Mart's home country.
The closest a U.S. union has ever come to winning a battle with Wal-Mart was in 2000, at a store in Jacksonville, Texas. In that store, 11 workers — all members of the store's meatpacking department — voted to join and be represented by the UFCW.
That effort failed when Wal-Mart eliminated the job of meatcutter companywide, and moved away from in-store meatcutting to stocking only pre-wrapped meat.
Recently, some workers in the tire department of a Wal-Mart store in Colorado have sought union representation, and the National Labor Relations Board has said it intends to schedule a vote.
Wal-Mart spokesman Pelletier said the company was closing in Jonquiere because of unreasonable union demands over scheduling and staffing, and the UFCW's refusal to detail its pay requirements.
The union's demands would have forced the retailer to add 30 people to the existing payroll of 190, and guarantee many workers additional hours, he said.
"In our view, the union demands failed to appreciate the fragile conditions of the store," he said.
Posted by Bob on February, 9 2005 at 08:34 PM
fred flintston wrote:Good for walmart! Truly low prices are more economically important than artificially inflated wages.
-- February 9, 2005 11:28 PM ∞
Mark Shannon wrote:What is an artificially inflated wage?
Mark Shannon
-- February 10, 2005 01:44 PM ∞
Dennis Register wrote:Those poor people all lost their jobs because Wal-Mart prefers keeping unions out at any cost. Maybe if enough Wal-Mart employees continue to push for unions they'll get them and that will police Wal-Mart and force them to pay livable wages and stop the unfair labor practices they're getting away with now. We can all live with less Wal-Marts if it means workers will be treated better. Wouldn't it be great if they all either went 100% union or were shut down completely?
-- February 10, 2005 02:19 PM ∞
Progressive Patriot wrote:This is beautiful.....one Walmart down...many more to go.
Join the effort to make these scumsuckers tow the line of decency!! Shop Costco!!
-- February 10, 2005 04:59 PM ∞
misterburns wrote:Glad to see someone stand up to the unions for a change, I love shopping at Walmart. Just think if we could get rid of all these unions from the government - our taxes would go down by 80%!
The object is to do something productive instead of demanding something for nothing and expecting everyone else to pay for it. Just look at GM or Ford - unionized up the yin-yang and 40 billion in debt. No money left after paying for all the freebies and union demands to do any research and improve their lousy products.
Socialists and communists just don't get it. Having a job is not a human right, you have to do something of value for someone in return for payment. The payment will be in line with the value of the service to the business. If it isn't then go work somewhere else where it is. It's really very simple.
Please see: http://mises.org/ for lots of articles explaining the simple logic of the free market.
mister burns-- February 10, 2005 05:28 PM ∞
susan smith wrote:Walmart stores sell stuff that costs a little less, but doesn't last at all. In addition, how are people supposed to secure health insurance without companies that work with their employees to provide it? Maybe, I am too much of a humanist. The most important thing that any company has is a loyal, able workforce. Walmart has wrecked the appearance of more towns in the Midwest than any company I know. Also, their fruits and vegetables are not worth buying.
-- February 10, 2005 08:34 PM ∞
Mark Shannon wrote:There is a great cartoon character from the 1930s called Mr Block. He's the sucker (blockhead) the boss always uses to get his message out there. Things like "having a job is not a human right" and anyone who says it is must be communist.
Mark Shannon
-- February 10, 2005 08:53 PM ∞
Mark Shannon wrote: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 settlement with workers.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.
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/walmart05
-- February 10, 2005 08:59 PM ∞
nobody wrote:if walmart employees are determined to have more control of the company, why dont they use the power they have thru purchase of walmart stock? with over a million employees buying stock they should be able to gain a controlling interest in the company. just a thought vs. the union angle.
-- February 10, 2005 11:21 PM ∞
The Eclectic Econoclast wrote:I can easily imagine that the customers in the region feel a true sense of loss. Wal-mart offers a very large variety of products in a friendly environment at low prices -- and now the consumers in this part of Quebec will be forced to shop at stores that do not offer choices they value nearly so much. If workers left the store in tears, I can imagine many consumers were pretty sad, too.
-- February 11, 2005 06:01 AM ∞
BMN wrote:Walmart stores sell stuff that costs a little less, but doesn't last at all.
Just keep telling yourself that, because it belongs in the "Japanese products are all garbage" Hall of Fame.
The most important thing that any company has is a loyal, able workforce.
Ah, never had to meet a payroll, have you?
Also, their fruits and vegetables are not worth buying.
That must be why no one shops there.
-- February 11, 2005 08:52 AM ∞
Roy W. Wright wrote:Wow, these anti-WM people are really intelligent, well-studied folks. Heh.
-- February 11, 2005 11:55 AM ∞
susan smith wrote:I don't think that you know what you are talking about. anyone who has children and buys clothes or tennis shoes there does know that the brands don't last. This was not idle brattle. Also, I do have a small business and make a payroll every two weeks with health benefits and a 4O1K. Ask some shoppers abou the Walmart fruits and vegetables. I am talking about my real life experiences. Do you have any life or do you just attack people?
-- February 11, 2005 06:11 PM ∞
Kevin Brancato wrote:Susan,
1) how are people supposed to secure health insurance without companies that work with their employees to provide it?
On my own accord, I've been out of work since July, yet I have purchased my own family-plan health insurance. It's my responsibility anyway--not my employer's or my government's. In CA, DC, and many other areas, Kaiser-Permanente (an HMO) provides quality care at very reasonable rates; that's what I use.
2) You weren't writing to me, but I don't prattle. I fail to see how MOST of the items at WM are of lower quality than other stores, since MOST of the items found in WM and Target are identical--produced in factories with identical locations with identical equipment. How are the Huggies diapers inferior? or diamonds? or brand cereals? or car wax? or tires or oil changes or gasoline? Other items--like Levi Signature jeans are of lower price and quality, and one can debate their relative costs and benefits. You come out for higher quality; many--including me--differ.
3) Since I run this blog, I have asked shoppers (most have been from Texas) about produce, and most of them don't see much difference in quality. Hence, I have seen no evidence that the produce at most WM supercenters is--IN GENERAL--of inferior quality to similarly priced merchants. I'm sure some stores have terrible produce. And the produce is certainly of lower quality than the high-class grocers.
-- February 11, 2005 06:30 PM ∞
susan smith wrote:I am glad that you can buy individual healt insurance for your family in these states. Are you over fifty? Do you have diabetes ? If you have a chronic illness and try to buy individual health insurance you are out of luck. Also, I don't know many people who try to wash Huggies and re-use them.Haven't you ever heard any complaints about Walmart gasoline? I have in southern Illinois. My only point is that I think that companies should work with their employees and not against them. Some people believe in unions others don't. I do believe that union movement started in the past because companies placed profits over employees' welfare. Since some corporations in the year 2005 have not become any more sensitive to the needs of their
employees, unions still need to exist. Everything is not about profit and stockholders.-- February 11, 2005 07:27 PM ∞
BMN wrote:nyone who has children and buys clothes or tennis shoes there does know that the brands don't last
Really? Amazing how people are so stupid that they buy them anyway. Also, Walmart must sell 100% different merchandise than Target and Costco. Extraordinary.
Also, I do have a small business and make a payroll every two weeks with health benefits and a 4O1K
Walmart workers must be forced to work at gunpoint then. You ought to call the police and report them.
Ask some shoppers abou the Walmart fruits and vegetables. I am talking about my real life experiences.
I thought no one bought fruit and vegetables at Walmart. I couldn't therefore ask anyone.
Do you have any life or do you just attack people?
In my life, I've noticed that no one is forced to shop at or work at Walmart, but do anyway.
-- February 11, 2005 07:32 PM ∞
BMN wrote:I do believe that union movement started in the past because companies placed profits over employees' welfare.
Susan Smith has invented a business where profits are not as important as employees, and yet she can still provide benefits and a 401K. She must be in the perpetual-motion-machine business.
-- February 11, 2005 07:35 PM ∞
Grocery Worker wrote:So by now we all know Wal-Mart is closing the store that unionized in Quebec, Canada. Canada has much more worker-friendly labor laws than the USA, yet this still happened. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the same thing would happen to any union store here.
Their cited reason is they can't make a profit with the union in place. The other "secret" reason is they hate unions.
Lots of people will cite how much revenue and profit they make and say sure they could make money with a unionized workforce. Lets look at the FACTS:
FACT: Wal-Mart had sales of $280 Billion.
FACT: Wal-Mart made a profit of $9.82 Billion.
FACT: Wal-Mart has 1.5 million employees.Now do the math. $9.82 Billion divided by 1.5 Million.
FACT: Wal-Mart made a profit of $6546.67 per employee.
*********************************************
FACT: If Wal-Mart spent just $6547.00 more per employee in added compensation and benefits, THEY WOULD BE LOSING MONEY.
*********************************************OPINION: Any union that organized Wal-Mart would want the company to spend more than that on each worker.
FACT: The result would be that Wal-Mart could not make a profit.
But wait! Other retailers (e.g. unionized supermarkets) spend more than that extra amount on their workers and they make a profit (or at least they have been before Wal-Mart comes to town). How is that?
Answer: They have higher prices! Wal-Mart could theoritically spend that extra $6547 per worker and still make money if they raised their prices.
But wait! Why do people shop at Wal-Mart?
Their good service? No.
Their clean stores? No.
Their convienent locations right in your neighborhood? No.
Their wide, uncluttered aisles? No.
Their fast, no-wait checkouts (chuckle, chuckle)? No.
Their safe parking lots? No.Their LOW PRICES? BINGO!!!
So if they no longer had the lowest prices, would anyone shop there? Probably not enough folks to keep them in business.
So it seems to me their entire business model is intriniscaly flawed. They need to have the lowest prices in order to get people to patronize them; yet the only way they can have such low prices is by abusing their employees.
If they don't have the lowest prices in town, people won't shop there. If they don't abuse their employees, they can't have the lowest prices in town.
We could say we need to "educate" the public about this. Oops...we've tried that and failed miserably. We could picket outside their stores. No wait...that didn't work either. We could launch a nation-wide boycott! Damn, that didn't work either.
The stupid public only sees one thing: the low prices. Even for the minority of people who know its wrong to shop there, they know what it does to the community, most of them still shop there. They make excuses to justify themselves like, "I know its wrong, but I'm so short on money and my husband got laid off, etc. and I have to stretch my dollars further."
I know several of my union co-workers who shop there for the low prices in order to "stretch their budgets." We of all people should know better than that!
Please let me know if you disagree with anything I've said here.
My bottom line question is this. I'm a UFCW supermarket worker. My union (both local and national) keeps spending my dues money trying to organize various Wal-Marts.
Have I not PROVEN here that it is IMPOSSIBLE to unionize any Wal-Mart in this country and have that Wal-Mart stay in business? If not, let me know where my logic is flawed please.
YOU CANNOT UNIONIZE WAL-MART ***and*** keep it in business.
So why does my union keep wasting my money going after the impossible?
Instead, we need vast, sweeping changes in our NATIONAL labor laws. Don't f__k with various stupid states...state laws can be overturned by one stupid un-elected federal judge. They pit one state against another. They create an uneven playing field.
We need a significigantly higher minimum wage. Strong union protections. Strong penalties for violating rights. Etc, Etc.
Look at Germany. They have STRONG, NATIONAL labor laws. The Wal-Marts there ARE UNION, and they HAVE to pay fair wages, good benefits, job security, guaranteed hours, safe working conditions, etc.
SUPRISE! The German Wal-Marts are losing tons of money! They CAN'T abuse their workers, therefore they CAN'T have the drastically lowest prices like they do in the USA.
So why isn't my union putting its rescources towards changing our laws to be more like Germany? That would result in the betterment of our entire workforce at all employers across all industry!
As a result of the losing battle against Wal-Mart, and the wrongheaded defense being put up by my union, I am looking to leave the grocery business for another industry. I don't feel that jobs like mine will exist (as they do today) for much longer.
-- February 12, 2005 12:24 AM ∞
BMN wrote:Yeah, Grocery Worker, we need labor laws that are more like Germany's. Ever tried to find a job there? Didn't think so.
Mr Brancato, sorry to waste your bandwidth. Best of luck to you in the future.
-- February 12, 2005 12:29 AM ∞
Roy W. Wright wrote:It's a genuine shame that the misconceptions of Marx and Engels still find so many adherents among the uneducated in America, so long after having proven to be utterly destructive. If you like other countries' laws so much, go ahead and try to live there. Try to have a truly happy life in a country that has abandoned freedom to the demands of people who have accomplished little more than standing at a cash register.
Actually, who knows? It might not be so bad for a worker in such countries, if he can find a job. But I'd hate to try to be productive there, to actually make something of my life and produce something of value to people, when the law demmands that I give undeserved amounts of money away to unionized workers. It's a testament to the sheer tenacity of businesspeople that they find the motiviation to run their companies in such an unjust environment.
I wish Walmart would give Canada and similarly abusive countries what they really seem to want and withdraw completely from any business there.
-- February 12, 2005 11:14 AM ∞
Kevin Brancato wrote:Susan,
Let me see... you want insurance companies to pay the expected, known health costs of sick people. Then you don't want INSURANCE, you want a DOLE, which is fine, but don't confuse the issue.
Grocery Worker,
Your calculation would look just as outrageous for Susan's small business, right Susan? If you took your salary as profit, how much would it come to per employee? However, these calculations are nonsense. Both labor and capital are inputs to production. GW, you forgot about the capital in your calculations--the money put up by the shareholders to build the company also deserves a return from profit. Please take that out BEFORE dividing by the number of workers... what is the amount of profit per employee?
-- February 12, 2005 11:19 AM ∞
Grocery Worker wrote:>Please take that out BEFORE dividing by the >number of workers... what is the amount of >profit per employee?
Absloutely that would reduce it greatly. Meaning it would take far, far less per worker to bankrupt them.
My whole point is that Wal-Mart CAN'T AFFORD to pay higher, give better benefits, etc. Their whole business model is flawed in that regard.
So having a signed, fair union contract at EVERY Wal-Mart in America wouldn't do squat. They'd be out of business.
So I want my union to quit wasting my money trying to organize Wal-Mart. That is not the solution.
The real solution is FEDERAL LAWS to level the playing field.
-- February 12, 2005 09:51 PM ∞
Roy W. Wright wrote:In other words, since Walmart refuses to go out of business of its own accord, and since those poor workers keep voluntarily working there, we should get the government to force Walmart out of business, and the workers out of their jobs. Brilliant plan.
-- February 12, 2005 11:11 PM ∞
Dr. Stat wrote:Oie...
Walmart's business model is flawed because if they changed it it wouldn't work. I guess you need a PhD to figure that one out.
People in my town are crazy to get jobs at Walmart. My own daughter works there. She gets paid more than she would anywhere else. She has a minor handicap and WalMart's labor policies are great for her. And they give her health insurance, which I am glad about but don't consider it WalMart's duty.
Unions keep people from getting jobs. That's a fact for many reasons. Germany was discussed above; the unemployment rate there is about 11% and in some cities is 18%. I guess it's because of their great labor practices.-- February 16, 2005 10:26 PM ∞
Walmart rocks wrote:Fact is most workers should understand that Walmart is the boss, if you don't like what they offer in pay and benefits than quit working there. Don't blame Walmart for being number one, Unions are a good thing but I don't think they have a place in Walmart. What's next Unionizing McDonald's?
-- February 25, 2005 04:20 PM ∞
ANTI UNION JOE wrote:IT'S NOT WAL-MART EMPLOYEE'S PUSHING FOR UNIONS, BUT UNIONS TRYING TO SHOVE THEM DOWN THE THROATS OF UNION NON BELIEVERS. IT'S ABOUT TIME SOMEONE HAD THE GUTS TO STAND UP TO ORGANIZED CRIME - OOPS I MEAN LABOR.
-- April 30, 2005 03:56 PM ∞
