Friday Blog Roundup

J O N Q U I E R E
Home of Walmart worker abuse.
Never forget.

Who decides whether a store opens or closes? The union?
The company has no say in store operations?
Someone is desperate to rewrite history.

Remember Jonquiere. Home of Walmart worker abuse.

That’s pretty interesting Another Bob, because I read that same article and didn’t reach those same conclusions at all.  The article represented both viewpoints not that the union was entirely to blame.

Good point, Alex.  It’s just a simple and typical case of trying to pass responsibility onto someone else.  I have a question.  Under Canadian labor laws, if the union’s demands had been unreasonable from Wal-Mart’s point of view could Wal-Mart say no and did the workers have the right to strike?  Could Wal-Mart hire “scab” workers in their place while the strike was going on?  I’m pretty sure that the answer to both of those questions is yes so I fail to see how workers exercising their right to unionize is the same thing as completely taking over the store and holding it hostage like some of those on the “pro” side are arguing.  In fact, in reality it actually allows the workers to negotiate wages and conditions with their employer like the pro-Wal-Mart people are always arguing that workers have the right to do.

Maybe if Wal-Mart would quit spending money on b.s. PR campaigns and new ways to screw their workers over than they wouldn’t have to worry about a union.  Quit lying and be the company that you pretend to be.

Generic-

I’m not certain, but I, too, believe the answer to both is yes. Perhaps Alex will enlighten us. However, as I have posted before, the Labour Board found that Wal-Mart had the right to close the store to avoid dealing with the union, as long as it did not reopen. Now I’m not going to plainly say that Wal-Mart closed it because of the union, but, if it did, it was legal to do so.

Scrolling down through that list of blogs makes me wish I had the Alka-Seltzer concession in Bentonville.  Anyone care to stick their neck out and guesstimate the dollar value of all this negative PR?

To the Canadian associates fighting the good fight I wish you God speed. Those from Jonquiere join six Texas meat cutters as the first casualties of the Wal-Mart War. I doubt it’s any consolation to those that lost their jobs but historically the struggle between labo(u)r and capital has always been bloody.

Yes, is was perfectly legal for Wal-Mart to shut down it’s store there, regardless of the union issue. On the other hand, it also showed how little Wal-Mart was willing to work with their employees, when they obviously had issues, that they felt were important to them. This does not prove the case for their “open door” policy. When corporations are not willing to somewhat come to an agreement with their workers in their time of need, then situations like the Florida ordeal arrise. This is neither good for the employees, or the corporation. When workers need a problem solved in their time of need, their employer should be there to help solve their problem, not desert them! Not only should a business be there for it’s workers, but the workers should be there for the business in their time of financial need as well!

Generic,

“Under Canadian labor laws, if the union’s demands had been unreasonable from Wal-Mart’s point of view could Wal-Mart say no and did the workers have the right to strike?  Could Wal-Mart hire “scab” workers in their place while the strike was going on?  I’m pretty sure that the answer to both of those questions is yes”

If this is all true, could there be another reason for shutting down the store?  Didn’t Wal-Mart claim that the store was shut down because it was unprofitable?  Wouldn’t that be a reasonable conclusion, if the union was not a threat to their operation?  And, it has been stated that there are 2 other Wal-Mart stores in the area, maybe with other businesses like ALCAN shutting down, 2 stores are enough for that area, could that be a possibility?  After all, they haven’t reopened that store, now have they, even after the courts ruled that Wal-Mart reimburse the employees for their loss, why is that?

So tell me Bob. Two stores are quote, in the area.
What do you mean by “in the area”? Within two blocks?
Two miles?

Remember Jonquiere.

TAKEN FROM YESTERDAY’S NEWSPAPER:

I love those newspaper pieces that seem to get overlooked in the general media because they think that nobody will bother to read them.

Case in point 1: It was reported yesterday that Wal-Mart’s familiar blue vests that “associates” have been made to wear, may be a thing of the past.  In an effort to upgrade its image and attract new customers, Wal-Mart is adopting a new dress code which includes polo shirts, starting with stores in the Northeast and the South.

COMMENT: I’ve said it once, but it bears repeating for any newcomers to this blog.  You can put a tuxedo on an elephant, but it’s still an elephant.  Polo shirts on “associates” isn’t enough to lure me into a Wal-Mart store!

Case in Point 2: This small piece stated that China has made some progress in resolving its long-standing trade disputes with the United States.  The administration’s top trade official for Asia, Deputy U.S. Trade Rep Karan Bhatia said much more needs to be done.

COMMENT: Well surprise!  You mean the U.S. has trade problems with China?  I bet that’s not the only country either.  Who again was that large retailer in America that’s leading the rest of the pack in fueling these tensions?

Alex

The Washington Post article talks about three stores in the area.  Now one is in Jonquiere and the other is in another town about fifteen miles away or 20 KM, if you prefer.

But why should you care?  There is one less Walmart store and that should make all of you Walmart haters happy.  Keep going and in another five or ten thousand years, there will be no more Walmarts.

This is totaly off the subject but I am new to the anti wal-mart community I was wondering how is it that wal-mart claims to roll back the prices and every time i see a so called price roll back and look behind the little tag the every day low price is the same. Is this false advertisement?

Screwed - Sounds like Bush’s top trade official for China, Rep. Karan Bhatia, needs to CHOP, CHOP, and start figuring something out! If you listen closely, the “Giant Sucking Sound” is getting louder!

mm2005 in Louisiana - Years ago, I use to work for a particular retail chain’s wharehouse. We as inside workers, seen that they would raise a price on a specific product, and then a month later, would drop the price back down to it’s original price from a month earlier. Then they would post the item as being “On Sale”, making customers think that they were getting some huge bargain. It was just another “tricky” business tactic, that they thought us peasants were too ignorant to realize!

I never did pricing, but I may be able to answer you mm2005. Because Wal-Mart does not usually have official sales, a rollback is a change in the regular price. Thus, all signage for the item should be changed and the rollback sign is there to emphasize the savings. Either way, it is not false advertising.

Another Bob wrote: “There is one less Walmart store and that should make all of you Walmart haters happy.  Keep going and in another five or ten thousand years, there will be no more Walmarts. .”

It’s never good to underestimate your opponent, Another Bob.

Since 2000 Wal-Mart has lost approximately 25% of it’s capitalization, plus a recent study commissioned by Wal-Mart showed that from 2 percent to 8 percent of its customers had stopped shopping there because of “negative press.”

Increased outside pressure coupled with one management blunder after another and I’d say the anti Wal-Mart movement is on a roll.  That makes me “happy”.

Wrong. The closest Walmart to Jonquiere is in Chicoutimi another city east of Jonquiere. The store there is about 8 miles away. The other store that is “in the area” (your words) is in Alma which is about 20 miles away.

Jonquiere Quebec, home of Walmart worker abuse.

Alex,

“ The closest Walmart to Jonquiere is in Chicoutimi another city east of Jonquiere. The store there is about 8 miles away.”

So what?  Why would anyone in Jonquiere want to shop at Wal-Mart anyway, after all, aren’t they the ‘evil’, “Home of Walmart worker abuse.”?  So, why would anyone care, how far away the store is?  Unless, they don’t feel as bad about it as you do!!

So much for Bobs suggestion that other Walmarts were “in the area”.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E

HOME OF WALMART WORKER ABUSE.

Remember Jonquiere

Where union abuse took place and where around 300 employees lost their job because of it.  Most of them did not want a union to start with.

This site is a world of contradictions.  According to WMW, WMW’s goal is to “reform Walmart”.  Their actual goal is to unionize it.  It makes no difference how much it hurts Walmart employees or Walmart investors as long as they unionize it.

Most of the anti-Walmart posters want Walmart to be destroyed completely, which is not what WMW wants.  You can’t unionize something which no longer exists.

Alex wants Walmart destroyed, but only if the employees continue to be paid.  No comment is neccessary.

I personally believe that Walmart will be overtaken by other competition.  It may not happen in the next ten years, but it will happen.  I just resent WMW and similar organizations willingness to destroy an organization just to suit their own needs.  I personally know Walmart employees who have lost considerable money because of WMW.  The savings was to go to their children’s education.  At some WMW may realize that Walmart employees are not going to join a union who, up to this point, have done nothing but hurt them.

Alex,

“So much for Bobs suggestion that other Walmarts were “in the area”.”

So, you think 8 miles away is a long distance, right?  That’s 15 minutes in a car, guess it depends what your definition of “in the area”, is!!  Most people think that 8 miles is not that far away.

Bob, there COULD be another reason for shutting down the store, but I’m sure that you have enough brain function to realize that that wasn’t the case.  They just didn’t feel like dealing with the union - that’s all.  Not only that, if that store becomes unionized, than other stores might become unionized also (this is called the threat of a good example).  They didn’t reopen the store because the Labor Board ruled that they weren’t in the wrong as long as they don’t try to reopen the store (correct me if I’m wrong).  Also, the fact that there were other stores “in the area” has never stopped them before and if the supposedly close proximity of those stores was bad for business than why did they build another one in the first place?  Obviously this wasn’t the case.  No, they shut the store down because the workers exercised their right to unionize just like they got rid of the meat cutting department because they unionized.  I heard that somewhere there was a TLE (Tire Lube Express) department at some store attempting to unionize.  I wonder whatever happened with that.  What will be their excuse for that one?  “Uhhhhhh, every single TLE associate at this store has to be let go because we suddenly decided that you are all bad associates.......yeah......that’s it, just suddenly out of the blue.” or “We suddenly decided that this particular store no longer needs a Tire Lube Express because it wasn’t as profitable as we thought it was going to be.”

As for the arguments against union intimidation I personally believe that union votes should be done by secret ballot and complete information about the pro’s and cons of unionization be presented.  No company intimidation and propaganda and no people waiting in the parking lot to kick your #$% after work or threaten you because you don’t wish to join the union.  I also believe that once a union is established that it should be up to each individual member to decide whether they want to join or not (I believe in freedom of association and not coercion) and if they choose not to join then they won’t receive any of the union benefits (i.e., if the boss treats you like crap or you’re getting screwed on your pay or fired for some b.s. reason then you’re on your own).

Kind of funny when the boys talk about intimidation, while the Walmart union busting team is flying out to the next hot spot.

Remember Jonquiere Quebec
HOME OF WALMART WORKER ABUSE

Another Bob in

“Where union abuse took place and where around 300 employees lost their job because of it.  Most of them did not want a union to start with.”

You have to be the most retarded person that has ever posted on this sight.......... The UNION was voted in with the majority of the vote. That means (you simple minded fool) that most wanted a UNION.

You keep bringing up intimidation by the unions, but you forget to mention the intimidation that Wal mart used. By that I mean, the vail, if not overt threat of just what they did..... Shutting their doors.

You need to just collect your checks for the pro-wal mart blogs that you have already posted and leave this subject alone. You already look foolish enough.

DAVE SMITH
PROUD UNION IRONWORKER

Generic - Your right on the union membership issue. At least in the U.A.W., when an employee first hires on at a union plant, they have the right to either join, or not to join. The only positive aspect of not joining, was not having to pay union dues, which are usually around $40 a month. This is isn’t a bad price to pay, considering your wages, health care, profit sharing, retirement, bonuses, cost of living, and etc. If an individual chooses not to join, then he or she is obviously not covered under the law binding contract between union members and the company. The company is in no way, shape, or form, obligated to offer the same benefits to that person, as they would a contract-covered union member that pays dues. If they have a legit complaint about anything, then their subject to the “open door” policy, versus the “grievance procedure.” And we know, which one of these gets things taken care off, instead of, “Oh, quit your whining, and go back to work; if you don’t like it, there’s the door” attitude!

Generic,

“No, they shut the store down because the workers exercised their right to unionize just like they got rid of the meat cutting department because they unionized.”

Even if this were true, the Canadian Labour Board, ruled that a business can shut down a store no matter WHAT the reason is.  As fo the meat cuttin thing, didn’t Wal-Mart go to pre-packaged meats?  And, our local Sam’s still has a meat cutting department.

POWER,

“At least in the U.A.W., when an employee first hires on at a union plant, they have the right to either join, or not to join.”

This depends on whether it is an “Open shop” or a “Closed shop”.  In an “Open shop”, it is as you say, except, that non-union employees enjoy all of the benefits, but don’t have union representation.  In a “Closed shop”, all employees are forced to join the union, period.  Most “Open shops”, of the U.A.W. are in ‘right to work’ states, but they usually prefer to have a “Closed shop”.

Bob, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean that you should (which is the point of the argument) and it goes to show that Wal-Mart does not respect the rights of their workers.  If they don’t want a union then they should step up to the plate and see what they can do to change their policies (like making the open-door a reality instead of a gimmick).  In fact, if a union would have been so disastrous for that particular store than it would have ended up shutting down and Wal-Mart could have used it for anti-union propaganda ("See what happens when employees choose a union....").  It also illustrates their sheer horror of workers organizing together (why?).  I understand that Wal-Mart is a business and not a charity and I will admit that Wal-Mart IS attempting to make a few positive changes but it’s not enough.  Also, they switched to using prepackaged meat because it provided a justification for eliminating the meat cutters.  That Sam’s Club still has meat cutters because THOSE particular workers weren’t attempting to form a union.

Well, regardless of what some workplaces have I stand by my opinions about unions, but, to use an argument that is typically used by the other side “If they don’t like it then they can quit.” and “No one is forcing them to work there.”

Generic,

“just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean that you should “

Isn’t that the arguement we have used, that just because employees think that Wal-Mart CAN afford a $3.00 an hour raise, doesn’t mean that they should do it?

“If they don’t want a union then they should step up to the plate and see what they can do to change their policies”

That is your OPINION!!  Just because Wal-Mart doesn’t like being told how to run their business, by some union, doesn’t mean that they should do the things that the union wants them to do, just to avoid the union.  If you had proof, that Wal-Mart is doing LESS than other retailers, you may have a point, but, because Wal-Mart pays more and gives more benefits than the other retailers, shows that you don’t have a leg to stand on.  Take the business view of things for a minute, if it’s possible for you to do such a thing, why on earth, would you want to outprice yourself out of the market?  Just like a shopper, who wants to get the best possible price, a company wants to hire at the lowest possible wages and benefits.  Sure, you want ‘good’ people, but, YOU work at Wal-Mart, don’t you?  And, you claim to be a ‘GOOD’ employee don’t you?  And, you haven’t quit because of low wages and benefits, have you?  So, why raise the PRICE of your labor?  You have to look at things in a realistic manner, and avoid the emotion of what you want.  Until the labor at Wal-Mart becomes either skilled or scarce, the wages will always remain low.  Workers who choose to work there, have to accept that fact or move on, a union won’t do it for them.  The union cannot make the jobs skilled, nor can they make fewer people apply for jobs there.

Generic-

Wal-Mart does respect the rights of its workers to unionize. It also recognizes that they do not have the right to a job with the company. Wal-Mart’s pro-associate stance is designed to protect its associates from the dangers of unions - namely, losing their jobs.

“Wal-Mart’s pro-associate stance is designed to protect its associates from the dangers of unions - namely, losing their jobs.”

I just love the way that you call one of the worst companys in America, with their anti-labor stance and call it “pro-associate”. Do you type that s@#t with a strait face? I am glad to see that you admit that WM closed the store because of the union though. It’s nice to see that you are out of your denile stage.

DAVE SMITH
PROUD UNION IRONWORKER

Wal-Mart’s Official Position on Unions

At Wal-Mart, we respect the individual rights of our Associates and we encourage everyone to express their ideas, suggestions, comments, and concerns. Because we believe in maintaining an environment of open communications through the use of the Open Door, we do not believe there is a need for third-party representation. We are not anti-union; we are pro-Associate.  It is our position that every Associate can speak for himself or herself without having to pay hard-earned money to a union in order to be listened to and have issues resolved.

Someone in USA

That “Official Policy” When you break it down means.... We (wal mart) know that you (the associate) have no power to do or change anything by yourself. As long as walmart can Keep the unions out, They can continue to treat their “associats” in what ever manner that they see fit. This includes working people off the clock and sexual discrimanation as well as so many other inappropriate behavior that they have participated in ,in the past. Using the whole “we are trying to save our associates their hard earned money” is the biggest load of insincere crap that I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

The truth is, Walmart hates UNIONS because they know that their “assosiates” by themselves are powerless, but as a UNITED group they have the power to make so many badly needed changes,I.E. constant work scheduals,health ins., better wages, job security, true job discriptions, retirement pkgs. legal represantation, the list goes on and on.

Sure there are dues to be paid but they are a small price for all of there bennifits that they provide.

DAVE SMITH
PROUD UNION IRONWORKER

Ironhead. 
You are so right. Walmart does not want the workers to have real voice, a strength in numbers.

Someone,

Isn’t it funny, how the anti Wal-Marters say that the employees have “rights” and the unions have “rights”, but, Wal-Mart has “NO RIGHTS”?  Yet, who OWNS the stores?  Do the employees OWN it?  NO!!  Do the unions OWN it?  NO!!  But, somehow, all the people who DON"T OWN IT, have the “right” to say how to run it, but, the people who DO OWN IT, have NO say in how to run it!!  Strange thinking, don’t you think?

Bob in

“Isn’t it funny, how the anti Wal-Marters say that the employees have “rights” and the unions have “rights”, but, Wal-Mart has “NO RIGHTS”?  Yet, who OWNS the stores?  Do the employees OWN it?  NO!!  Do the unions OWN it?  NO!!  But, somehow, all the people who DON"T OWN IT, have the “right” to say how to run it, but, the people who DO OWN IT, have NO say in how to run it!!  Strange thinking, don’t you think?”

Your right Bob, no one should be able to tell a company how to run their business. I mean there should be no regulations of any kind put on business. They, after all put up the money to start the company, and they are the ones taking all of the risks. Walmart should be able to operate in what ever manner that they see fit. That includes beating slow workers, torturing the children of associats that don’t perform their job to the standard of the company, executing cart pushers in order to boost moral, ect............

And while your at it lets bring back child labor, the company store, company script, get rid of safety in the work place, do away with the 40 hour work week, company housing, ect.............

After all Bob the company is paying these people so in a sense they have sold themselves into slavery, and the company now ownes them lock stock and barel.

What is it about the name Bob on this blogg that causes people to become dumber with each passing moment. Bob you truly are an idiot of major proportions

DAVE SMITH
PROUD UNION IRONWORKER

I used to work for Wal-Mart in Sanford, NC. USA.  On the clock I had to go accross the street to K-Mart and be a secret shopper with my handy scaner in my hand and scan K-Mart’s merchindise and than lower our prices even lower to take K-Mart’s business. Believe me I also worked off the clock and was promised raises and bonues which never happened. “I can really tell you some crazy stories”.  Just glad to let you all know I no longer work for them or shop at there stores. Isn’t just amazing that in very wealthy areas there isn’t any Walmart’s that I noticed living in San Diego, CA.. P.S. There was rumors of a cemetary once on the Walmart grounds in NC and was moved before building but Walmart wouldn’t do that.

Samie out for good..

What a joke Walmart is. I know a person who works for another retailer. Walmart will not allow people to do price checks in their store (why, are they afraid of competition?). Anyway these people are in every week and get the numbers.
Walmart thinks it has all this power.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E

H O M E
O F
W A L M A R T
W O R K E R
A B U S E

Hey, Someone, are you willing to attempt to reconcile “Wal-Mart’s Official Position on Unions” with “A Manager’s Toolbox To Remaining Union Free”?

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/antiunionman.pdf

Ken V in Texas

Ken I also read that managers hand book online. Every one should read that garbage so that they can see for themselves just what kind of liers the paid walmart bloggers are.

DAVE SMITH
PROUD UNION IRONWORKER

Wal-Mart’s Official Position on Unions

At Wal-Mart, we respect the individual rights of our Associates and we encourage everyone to express their ideas, suggestions, comments, and concerns. Because we believe in maintaining an environment of open communications through the use of the Open Door, we do not believe there is a need for third-party representation. We are not anti-union; we are pro-Associate.  It is our position that every Associate can speak for himself or herself without having to pay hard-earned money to a union in order to be listened to and have issues resolved.

Someone in USA
Tuesday, October 24 at 07:47 PM

Someone...you need to get your head out of your ass. The so called open-door does not work and you know it does not. Stop pretending. I had an issue at Wal-Mart and called the “Market Office” and they did not return my call. I then called the next level up and the phone rang and no one answered. I tried for two days and no one answered the phone. I finally called the Labor Board and got some attention. Don’t you even try and tell these people on this blog that Wal-Mart is pro-associate and not anti-union.  These people on this blog are much smarted than you and do not belive your crap. Oh by the way....if Wal-mart is so much not anti-union, why do they have a handbook on anti-union for the managers to read. Again, get your head of your ass! You are a fool!

IRONHEAD,

“What is it about the name Bob on this blogg that causes people to become dumber with each passing moment. Bob you truly are an idiot of major proportions”

And, this statement of yours, shows your brilliance, right?

“Walmart should be able to operate in what ever manner that they see fit. That includes beating slow workers, torturing the children of associats that don’t perform their job to the standard of the company, executing cart pushers in order to boost moral, ect............”

Show us one instance of ‘beating workers’, ‘torturing children’, and ‘executing cart pushers’!!  Guess this just shows the extremes an anti Wal-Marter will go to spread his B.S.!!  And, you always go back to that “slavery” thing, tell us right now, how can you call someone a ‘slave’, that is free to leave at anytime?  If you look in the Dictionary for the word extremist, I think you would find your picture.

Alex,

“Walmart will not allow people to do price checks in their store”

Guess Richard K., will not be able to do his ‘basket study’ then, right?  You guys say stupider things all the time.  Next, we will probably hear that Wal-Mart has people with guns, out on the street hi-jacking shoppers and making them shop at the Wal-Mart stores or that they won’t let shoppers out of the stores unless they buy a certain amount of products!!  Come back to reality, will you!!

Bill is correct in regards to the managers having a handbook to read about being anti-union.

Bob

Listen closly Boob, Can you hear all the laughter. Boob they are laughing at you, not with you. That post was written to be as sarcastic as I could make it. Even with that you couldn’t stop yourself from showing the world again just what a fool you are.

DAVE SMITH
PROUDUNION IRONWORKER

Frank,

In case you don’t realize it, there IS a difference between NOT WANTING A UNION IN YOUR STORE and being ANTI UNION.  You may NOT want a DOG POUND in your house, but that doesn’t mean you are ANTI DOG POUNDS, now does it?

Wal-Mart’s policy, clearly states, “ we do not believe there is a need for third-party representation.”, and “It is our position that every Associate can speak for himself or herself without having to pay hard-earned money to a union in order to be listened to and have issues resolved.”, this in NO way says that they are anti union, it simply states that the don’t think a union is necessary.  And, it only follows, that they would instruct their managers in ways to avoid having a union come in and disrupt things.

Bill-

I don’t usually blatantly state things like this, but you are an idiot. What I posted is Wal-Mart’s official stance on unions, verbatim.

IRONHEAD,

“That post was written to be as sarcastic as I could make it.”

You need to work on your sarcasm, it’s hard to tell it from your normal posts.  Guess that remark about COKE murdering it’s union workers, was sarcasm too, right?  Boy, you are just a laugh riot, you should go on the stage or American Idol.  My Bad, and I fell for it, (my face is red).

WASHINGTON � Alex Wells switched shampoos over animal testing.
She won’t buy clothes produced by child labor.
She yells at those who don’t recycle.
She spent a month in India this summer teaching English to preschoolers.
Last year in high school, she helped organize a protest over genocide in the
Sudan that raised $13,000 for Darfur relief.
http://noentry.com