I knew from the start that Wal Mart would do this.
From the desk of Jane Galt:
You can't force a cow to give milk . . .
Wal-Mart has fought bitterly against unionisation of its stores. Consequently, it is Target #1 for union organisers, who would count it the high point of their lives to see Gulliver firmly tied down by the Lilliputian locals. So far, Wal-Mart has managed to stay union-free, but now the unions are shopping jurisdictions, hoping to unionise the giant abroad, and then use those friendly sister unions to pressure the behemoth into unionising here. It would be a breathtaking victory for labor if it works.
Hope was on the horizon . . . two stores have unionised under Canada's more labor-friendly laws. Now, however, Wal-Mart has struck back: it's closing one of the stores, saying it can't make a contract.
I know nothing about Canadian labour law, but under American law, management cannot threaten to fire workers for organising. On the other hand, they're under no obligation to provide them jobs, either, if they decide they can't profitably run the company any more (and I suspect that Wal-Mart might well be willing to give up the whole Canadian market rather than set a risky precedent). It's actually quite interesting, in a game theory way. If I remember Labor Relations 101 correctly, management cannot threaten to, say, close the plant if the worker's unionise. On the other hand, Wal-Mart doesn't have to. It's so big that it can close a few stores that do unionise, which effectively tells employees what happens to a unionised Wal-Mart far more effectively than mere threats could.
And though I expect labor forces to cry foul, I suspect that Wal-Mart is probably well within its rights to close the store if it can't reach an agreeable contract with the new unions. This is probably a crushing blow to any hopes of unionising The Blue Menace in the near future. |
