Wal-Mart! Wal Mart! Walmart!

Yes, employees have a right to unionize, and in doing so they should understand they have created an adversarial relationship with their employer. Employees do not have a right to a job. In the most heavily unionized area of Canada, the employees decided to join the union, and voted to do so. Now, they do not have jobs.

Wal-mart, after evaluating the situation of their underperforming store, which would now have higher costs associated with its operation, decided their resources would be better spent elsewhere, so they are closing the newly unionized store. The employees have their union, they just do not have jobs any longer. This is the hyper-accelerated cycle seen in unionized job destruction.

Wal-mart is so damn honest, acknowledging that they exist to turn a profit, not to create jobs. How much do you want to bet that the newly unionized store employees would gladly give up their new union for their old jobs. Oh well.

Kind of reminds us of Err-America. If the union, which has a lot of money, thinks that Wal-mart and others can provide these high priced jobs and turn a profit, they should start their own stores: Err-mart.

Smile, itís all in a dayís unionization.

Wal-Mart! Wal Mart! Walmart!

(Know any Wal-Mart employees? They are good people who seem to like their jobs, but donít worry, the unions are doing their best to put an end to that situation.)

posted at 11:37:32 on 02/11/05 by clearpolitics - Category: Economics - [Permalink]

Previous | Next


KR wrote:

Unions are not all evil job destroying monsters. Unions ensure that employees get a fair wage and decent working conditions. If you could guarantee that corporations and industry would be fair and honest in their treatment of employees, unions would not be necessary. History proves otherwise.
02/13/05 10:58:54

KR wrote:

P.S. When Hitler took power he abolished all unions.
02/13/05 11:07:04

2+2=4 wrote:

Hitler? You just lost all credibility.

Unions are evil destroying monsters when they attempt to extract more from corporations than the market can bare.

History proves this... again, and again, and again, and...
02/14/05 09:32:13

Laborguy wrote:

Unions have actually been loosing marketshare in the modern workforce. In 1945 (post WWII), the American labor movement was at it's height with a 36% unionization rate. In 2002, that number dropped to 13%. There are 3 reasons why Unions are not needed as much as in the past...

1.) A shift in jobs away from traditional unionized jobs like manufacturing to high-tech employment

2.) New legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Equal Opportunity Employment Act. These pieces of legislation take away many of the union's primary bargaining points.

3.) Unions are spending very little money on membership drives, only 5% of their total take.

I think that the Walmart situation is a great example of a company that treats it's employees just slightly worse than the average employer. As a result, they risked unionization and the pain of collective bargaining. It was a strategic blunder on their part, and now they have to suffer the concequences. Had they been a tad bit more conciencious in the past, they may not be suffering this problem in the present.
02/15/05 09:11:13

KR wrote:

To: 2+2=4 It is a historical fact that Hitler replaced all labor unions with one Nazi controlled labor front.
02/17/05 14:01:18

2+2=4 wrote:


Do you really think Hitler is relevant in this context? Please, let's have a bit of reasoned thought.
02/18/05 07:18:13

Add Comments

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it