Attention: The forums will be placed on read only mode this Saturday (Oct. 20, 2018)

During this outage (6:30 AM to 8 PM PDT) the forums will be placed on read only mode. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here to read details

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Wal Mart & Unions

by JP Bill / February 9, 2005 11:19 AM PST
http://money.canoe.ca/News/Economy/2005/02/09/925527-cp.html

Wal-Mart closing unionized store

MONTREAL (CP) - Denying it wants to bust the union, Wal-Mart announced Wednesday it will close a Quebec store whose employees were negotiating to become the first ever to establish a union contract from the world's biggest retailer.

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.


Wal Mart is Non Union at any expense
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Wal Mart & Unions
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Wal Mart & Unions
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) well thats wallmarts right
by Mark5019 / February 9, 2005 12:12 PM PST
In reply to: Wal Mart & Unions
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) That's right It is
by JP Bill / February 9, 2005 12:15 PM PST
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) And the people have a right to unionize
by JP Bill / February 9, 2005 10:33 PM PST
Collapse -
yes they do and wall mart has the right to close
by Mark5019 / February 9, 2005 10:35 PM PST

that store so who losses?

Collapse -
So much for Wal-Mart
by Dan McC / February 9, 2005 9:43 PM PST
In reply to: Wal Mart & Unions

being good to it's employees. Another myth busted.

Dan

Collapse -
wallmart not at fault
by Mark5019 / February 9, 2005 10:03 PM PST
In reply to: So much for Wal-Mart

why need money sucking union?

Collapse -
re
by MKay / February 9, 2005 10:30 PM PST
In reply to: wallmart not at fault

In my younger days, I belonged to the CWA(Communication Workers of America) With Ohio Bell. Looking back that many years ago, I can say I am proud to have been affiliated with them. We got a lot of things that are taken for granted by employees today, by walking the picket line. The unions also lobbied legislation for safety, income protection : Like disability payments. Got much of it passed too. Yes there are cases of union abuse but we have much to be thankful for from the unions.

Collapse -
your right mkay
by Mark5019 / February 9, 2005 10:31 PM PST
In reply to: re

and you do have a valid point, no arguments at all

but wallmart has the right to say no to a union.

Collapse -
Really they don't.
by Dan McC / February 9, 2005 11:09 PM PST
In reply to: your right mkay

If the workers vote in a union then Wal-Mart has to accept it.

Or, they can exercise their narrow, greedy, uncompassionate, hypocritical, sour grapes addled minds and close the store, fire the workers, and forgo the profits.

*sigh*

Dan

Collapse -
Walmart has to accept it ...
by Evie / February 9, 2005 11:12 PM PST
In reply to: Really they don't.

... but they have a right to close a store as well. Unionizing the workforce for large retail establishments is only going to raise the cost of your goods and lower the service. If you think the service is bad now, just bring in a union!

Collapse -
re
by MKay / February 10, 2005 2:22 AM PST

Evie, I don't know where you teach. but are they not unionized? Have you not reaped any of the benefits obtained by the struggles of many in the past through the union???

Collapse -
Unions have been the kiss of death for quality
by Kiddpeat / February 10, 2005 7:49 AM PST
In reply to: re

education. They protect the incompetent, and aren't much concerned about the kids.

Collapse -
Some union ...
by Evie / February 10, 2005 8:32 AM PST
In reply to: re

... some not. In the teaching field it doesn't matter much. Tenure is the only "protection" and I don't agree with tenure. Otherwise, merit is not rewarded in the profession. Only seniority and kissing butt. If my payscale depended even one iota on performance it would make a difference. But so long as a teacher is not failing too many students so that the school can maintain their tuition quotas, that seems to be the important thing these days Sad

Collapse -
re
by MKay / February 12, 2005 2:58 AM PST
In reply to: Some union ...

I have 3 children and 1 GC in the teaching profession and they are all in a union....

Collapse -
Your point?
by Evie / February 12, 2005 3:47 AM PST
In reply to: re

They have probably benefitted. The business (education) and the consumer (parents & tax payers) have definitely not.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) and thats wallmarts right as i said
by Mark5019 / February 9, 2005 11:34 PM PST
In reply to: Really they don't.
Collapse -
This is precisely why entire COMPANIES must be unionized,
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 10, 2005 2:11 AM PST
In reply to: Really they don't.

When it happens store by store or plant by plant, too much chance of the company "making an example" of one unit that dares defy its will.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) and the greedy unions want to much stores close
by Mark5019 / February 10, 2005 3:03 AM PST
Collapse -
Workers today don't buy that Dave. Unions have
by Kiddpeat / February 10, 2005 7:54 AM PST

driven entire industries out of business at the expense of the consumer. Employers today know that they cannot mistreat workers and remain in business. However, they cannot afford to be strangled by unions and still retain their competitive edge. Think railroads.

Collapse -
Some clarification please
by Roger NC / February 12, 2005 12:54 AM PST

I see the point that if the entire company is unionized they won't close one site to make an example.

Do you also believe that if one site can't reach an agreement the union should close down the entire company? all it's sites?

Should a strike at one site mean a supporting stike at the unionized supplier for the entire company? that's happened before with GM and one of it's sites and suppliers as I recall. The two unions had some sort of support agreement that if one struck, they both did.

So should one site disagreement shut a company down across the country?

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
Without Unions, 60 hour weeks would still be the norm,
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 10, 2005 2:06 AM PST
In reply to: wallmart not at fault

Mark. Yes, Unions can over-reach and damage the economy. But for all of society to benefit, there has to be a balance of power between unions (=workers) and employers. For the last 25 years, that balance has be tipped over to the favor of employers, to the detriment of all but the wealthy stockholders, and more recently, of upper management.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
well acording to the article
by Mark5019 / February 10, 2005 3:04 AM PST

union wanted to much money so who loses?

Collapse -
union wanted to much money
by JP Bill / February 10, 2005 3:26 AM PST

How much is too much?

Too much by whose standards?

What do you think is "fair wage" for 1 hours work in a Wal-Mart

Collapse -
as i not the owner i don't know
by Mark5019 / February 10, 2005 3:34 AM PST

but the article said union wanted to much

so as your so concerned(sarcasm) why dont you call them and say hey your wrong.
as im not in charge but why do i think you wont?

Collapse -
OK
by JP Bill / February 10, 2005 3:40 AM PST

You're not an owner, but lets say your a worker, How much would you consider a fair wage?

Collapse -
well as i was
by Mark5019 / February 10, 2005 6:21 AM PST
In reply to: OK

in computer repairs i got 15 bucks an hr
onsite much more.

now i work for myself i get lot more.

but im not working for k mart wallmart, target circut city etc.

of course i wasnt selling cds, or what more teck work


and non union Grin

Collapse -
As much as I can beg, borrow, or steal and still have a job.
by Kiddpeat / February 10, 2005 8:46 AM PST
In reply to: OK

Throw in plenty of vacation also. That sounds fair to me.

Collapse -
The article didn't say the union wanted too much money
by Josh K / February 10, 2005 3:44 AM PST

It said that Wal-Mart claimed that the union wanted the wages raised too much and too many more staff hired.

You are presenting their side of the story as fact, when it's just one side of the story.

And FWIW my wife is in a union and would have been out of a job years ago (or wouldn't have nearly the salary or benefits she currently has) were it not for the hard work of her union. It's also the union that protects her against her employer trying to force its people to work excessive hours with inadequate time for rest/sleep, something her employer has been taken to task for more than once.

Unions are not irrelevant because of their past successes resulting in federal laws (which a lot of Conservatives oppose BTW) that protect workers. The need for continued vigilance and action is a real one.

Collapse -
well all that matters is that
by Mark5019 / February 10, 2005 6:23 AM PST

wallmart felt they were asking to much.
if the people would said no union then end of prob

and as i said b4 if it wqs my place and it ment my proffit gone or union id close it but then u new that

Collapse -
It is the owner and the market who decide that.
by Kiddpeat / February 10, 2005 8:38 AM PST

The union must boost their members' wages and benefits above their market value before it is useful.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!