WMT vs unions

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by nitro, Nov 27, 2009.

  1. nitro


  2. Daal


    Its amazing how it took a Supreme Court to allow WMT to exercise a basic corporate action such as closing down a store. If the store was highly profitable they would never had done that, so the workers have nothing to complain about
  3. nitro


    I reserve judgement. It is interesting don't you think, that "among its North American operations, only bakery and restaurant employees in Mexico are represented by a union." ?

    That said, it appears that this store was closed on profit grounds. However, more and more stores will likely unionize in North America within WMT, and if this was in fact corporate strategy to block unions in NA within WMT (which again, I doubt in this case) it will be exponentially more difficult for WMT to win these cases.
  4. dave74


    I think it's obvious the store was closed because they were going to unionize, but so what? I'm amazed that WM was even allowed to be taken to court. I personally believe that had WM lost, it probably would have exited Quebec altogether, which is why they gave the decision to WM.

    Good for WM.
  5. nitro


    It is not even close to being obvious to me at all.

    Uh, so what? Because it is blatantly illegal.
  6. everyone in Quebec hates all things not union, and not just that, anything not french.

    Look at how long it took Tim Hortons to get into Quebec....

    Walmart probably most likely, was not making money there...
  7. How can unions have any clout? There are 6 seekers for every available job. And it's not like the unions can hold WM up for high wages.

    WM should just tell all the unions, "drop dead".

    I don't know about Canada, but there is a huge labor surplus in the US... hardly fertile ground for unionizing anything.
  8. Wallmart was the beneficiary of possibly the single largest subsidy in US history.

    There's nothing "capitalism" about either side, here.
  9. nitro


    #10     Nov 28, 2009