Mass defection from the AFL-CIO

Well that is Wal-Mart's right. If that is what they feel is necessary to avoid suffering the fate of Ford and GM, Ford and GM were rendered completely uncompetitive by unions- then yeah.

[lehighguy]

It's an incredibly bold management move to take a loss like that. Shows some real long-term planning. I have a lot of respect for that move, show they actually care about the long-term viability of the company.

They really had no other choice from a financial standpoint, because the labor laws in this country are very friendly to unions. Unions have an almost unlimited right to organize so sometimes the only option is to shut down, lest they suffer the fate of Ford and GM, two companies that the UAW have a stranglehold on. Big Labor has been this way for years and they fail to realize that they are not helping themselves by forcing companies into bankruptcy. You get almost nothing from a bankrupt company. If they were a little less demanding in their contract negotiations then these companies would be doing better. Just my $.02

[Hamish McBagpipe]

This was in Canada. McDonald's have been organized as well. Once the corporate SWAT team has been sent in and failed to stop the certification (unionization) process the company can still just close the doors and leave. The union's idea in North America is that once one of these low-wage chain stores is organized the rest will fall like dominoes. It hasn't happened yet. The corporate message sent by a willingness to close profitable stores is intimidating, clearly fearful, and possibly mad.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

It is not bold at all. It is cowardly. Walmart's bullying is well known, not just in its labour relations. If a cost in another part of the business goes up, they do not shut the store down. So, what are they scared of. Certification does not automatically mean that wage costs will go through the roof, or even rise at all. If, on the other hand, they don't want to negotiate with a so-called third party, then skirting the law and finally closing perfectly viable outlets is their only option. Sounds quite crazy to me.

[Hamish McBagpipe]

[ QUOTE ]
the labor laws in this country are very friendly to unions

Unions have an almost unlimited right to organize...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply beyond the pale. Labor laws are NOT friendly to unions in the US unless your comparison country is your local south american dictatorship or worse. Definitely not any other industrialized western country. In every way, no argument.

Unlimited right to organize? You have to be joking.

[FishHooks]

Me too, I dont like unions and I think it was a GREAT move on Wal-Marts part, kudos to them.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
If they were a little less demanding in their contract negotiations then these companies would be doing better. Just my $.02

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont agree, most unions, not all but most are comprised of just human labor jobs that dont require much if any skill, there is no reason for the businesses to compromise with the workerss when there will always be many unskilled workers available for jobs. Like wal-mart they will have no problem trying to find new workers, they have no incentive to negociate.

[FishHooks]

hundreds of thousands of people aren't going to risk their jobs to try to bring down a company, its not work it. It's like a lock-out for sports, its a lose lose situation.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The union's idea in North America is that once one of these low-wage chain stores is organized the rest will fall like dominoes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, what about the typical consumer, like me?

I WANT to buy cheap goods--as cheap as I can possibly get them (things like towels, cleaning products, screwdrivers, insect repellent, tee-shirts, etc).

I DON'T WANT to pay more for them just so some low-level worker can get paid more.

Therefore I don't want Wal-Mart or any other chain store to unionize.

I WANT to get a cheap oil change in a hurry at a Jiffy-Lube or other chain outlet.

I WANT to be able to get a hamburger for under a dollar.

I WANT to be able to get a Taco at a drive-thru for 69 cents.

I don't want anything unnecessarily getting in the way of companies getting these things to me at the lowest possible prices. And I certainly don't want to be paying more just so some low-level worker can make closer to a "living wage".

The way I see it, the good to the consumer far outweighs the not-so-good for the low-level worker.

Besides, the low-level worker's meager paycheck also goes further if he too can buy the necessities of life really cheaply.

So I'm afraid I don't see unions today as much other than a special interest group, seeking to increase the wealth of their members at the expense of everyone else.

My view is essentially this:

Go Wal-Mart! Get that stuff even cheaper! Thank you.