Canada's Supreme Court Penalizes Walmart for Closing Store After Workers Unionized

Posted by sdesapio 9 years, 10 months ago to Business
93 comments | Share | Flag

Canada's Supreme Court ruled Friday that Wal-Mart must compensate former workers at a Quebec store that was closed after they voted to become the first Wal-Mart store in North America to unionize.
SOURCE URL: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/27/Court-rules-Wal-Mart-must-compensate-workers


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago
    As much as I like shopping at WalMart and support free enterprise in general, a couple of WalMarts in my county that I don't use were built on sites that county commissioners deemed "blight" allegedly because they weren't paying enough county taxes. WalMart went in a few months later. The rumor is that WalMart paid a county commissioner to declare at least one of the zones "blighted". I am not sure whether this is true, but I don't doubt it. If WalMart does this, then they are getting their just desserts.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
      I would keep the focus off walMart and on the corrupt government officials. Most businesses have a motivation to make as much money as possible, and that isn't going to change. Governments job is to keep its nose clean and do an honest job regulating, which is extremely important considering they have the monopoly on force.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago
        When a company asks for a piece of land to be considered "blight" for eminent domain purposes so that they can buy the land at a discount by devaluing the property of the current landowners, I will keep attention on both WalMart and on the corrupt government officials. This is a standard practice for WalMart. Look up WalMart and "eminent domain", and you will see countless cases around America like this.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 10 months ago
          Crony Capitalism at its worst. This is why those on the right and left don't like Ayn Rand.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
            As much as I enjoy Ayn Rand's stories, one of the single biggest problems with her theories is that she failed to recognize that corporations can potentially be a form of tyranny as well.

            When government controls corporations, that's called Communism. But what do you call it when corporations control government?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago
              Rand supported laissez faire capitalism. The more limited the government is regarding commerce, the less likely corporations can grab too much power. A large multi national welcomes regs because they have the means to comply. In fact they often push for regs in their industries to discourage competition.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                That's one side of the coin, though the other side is that without regulations, there would be nothing to *stop* large corporations from grabbing too much power.

                The reason that regulations often give power to corporations and inhibit competition from small businesses is not because that's just the inherent nature of regulations, because it isn't. Rather, it's because the corporations are the ones writing the regulations, and they write them in a way that favors them. If the regulations were written differently, they could just as easily favor the small businesses over the large ones.

                Remember, the issue is never about whether we have too much regulation or too little regulation, but whether or not we have the RIGHT regulations.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 10 months ago
                  for your 2nd paragraph, RIGHT!

                  For the 3rd, ONE of the issues is about whether we have too much/too little regulation. There is no way a country can possibly have the number of regulations we do, and have them be "right."
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
          I don't doubt that this is the case, but if so, then it is the gov't officials who are at fault. WM can ask/propose whatever they want. Only by gov't actions are those proposals made manifest.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rozar 9 years, 10 months ago
          Eh, do what you will. I don't see much point to it personally.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago
            Walmart is far from the only company lobbying government officials to get favorable land prices via eminent domain. There was a US Supreme Court case that a recently retired justice from NH was in charge of writing that made eminent domain takings easier to do, and it was a Judge Narragansett moment.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 10 months ago
    I hope Wal-mart stalls them in the courts, costing Quebec lots of money, and keeping the unionized employees unemployed.

    Meanwhile, without Wal-mart... prices will go up...
    It's win-win for everybody... /sarc
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your snip-it from Saul Alinsky's book does provoke some questions.

    Is dignity an individual right? Meaning, it exists for all individuals without any services required from other individuals. And, you are not to violate that right against any individual, not just the ones you are currently working with. And, any violation of this right is morally wrong and may be punishable.

    If dignity is not an individual right, does dignity supersede individual rights?

    I'll continue this on a new topic if you so choose to create it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
      Well, he did say "the dignity of the individual," which does definitely seem to suggest that it would be applied to individuals. And I don't think he was necessarily presenting it as a right, but more like a piece of advice if you want to succeed in your endeavors. If a community organizer does violate the dignity of individuals, his "punishment" will be that the community organization will not succeed. This is also good advice for businessmen. When you're trying to close a deal, you have to respect the dignity the other party, otherwise they're not going to get on board with you.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
        So, does "dignity of the individual" supersede individuals rights?
        Should both individual rights and "dignity of the individual," be respected by everyone?
        How would have Saul Alinsky answered these?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
          You seem to be rather fixated on the concept of rights. I don't think Saul Alinsky was even talking about rights at all. He was simply saying that when you're working with other people, you have to respect their individual dignity, otherwise they're not going to cooperate with you. Not everything is about rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
            Oh I know Saul Alinsky didn't care much about individual rights. He had a very different philosophy.

            "Not everything is about rights."
            Here is a simple "mind exercise":
            If there were only two people on an island, which of these two basic philosophies would be more ethical?

            Respect each others individual rights? You can do anything else you want.
            Or
            Respect each others dignity? You can do anything else you want.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 10 months ago
    I think the workers were arguing that closing the store was altering the working conditions. Yeah, closing the store where I work definitely alters my working conditions - if you close one eye and tilt your head to the left. ;} It's unclear whether there was an actual "unionization process" or not, and whether any "up" was ongoing or finished when the store was closed.
    Nevertheless, arrrrrgggggh.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 10 months ago
    From a business perspective I have to say that I agree with this ruling. Wal Mart knew the rules going in and thought they could once again use their size and political muscle to avoid the consequences. Wal Mart had a similar issue in Germany where they were required to accept unions. They pulled out years later complaining about the wages they had to pay. Again, they knew the rules going in and tried to use crony capitalism to bully every one around.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Isn't one of the core tenants of Objectivism that all regulation is automatically bad no matter what?"

    I don't know. Maybe an Objectivist here will answer that question. What I know is that they only need government force for three fundamental purposes. I'm sure you can Google it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
    Darn. It would have been an interesting experiment to see what kind of results a unionized Wal-Mart would produce. Oh well.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 10 months ago
      Failure. That's what all unions eventually do. They destroy. Need some proof? Have you driven through the Beaver valley in Western PA? You should ask the older citizens what happened to B&W plant that closed in 1983 and the union said "You'll be back." The last time I drove through, it was a nice grove of trees.

      If you're still not convinced, drive through Aliquippa & Ambridge, PA and Stuebenville, WV. Unions destroy. Period. So much for 'the little guy, the economy & the children' and any other leftist non-sense slogans I may have forgotten.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
        Parasites can't imagine a world without lots of hosts. If one gets too weak, they just jump on another.
        This would NOT include those unions that actually respected individual rights.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
          I don't think employees really qualify as "parasites." A large company cannot exist without its employees.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 10 months ago
            You should mark this date down: I actually agree with you on this one. Hell, crack out a beer for this.

            Can you guess what happened after Prohibition was lifted? Well, in Chicago, Al Capone and his minions (Saul Alinsky worked with his henchmen) infiltrated into...can you guess?

            Unions. And so did the communists. It's never been the same since.

            My take on unions is this: if you (the angry union member/boss) think you can do a better job AND provide better benefits than the company/corporation boss, then PROVE IT by STARTING YOUR OWN COMPANY. Show us how it's done. Otherwise, STFU or QUIT.

            But don't give this BS excuse 'But you can fire anyone at any time for any reason...we gotta have a union to protect against that!' Because IF you are one of the best employees who really knows his/her stuff AND is a MENTOR to JUNIOR employees AND is reliable: WHY on earth would I (as a company boss or manager) be stupid enough to fire you, just so you could go to my COMPETITION and assist them in putting my dumb arse out of business??? Western PA knuckleheads simply didn't understand that. If you're guessing that's where I'm from ~ you guessed correctly! NO UNIONS!! PERIOD. EVER. Kas sa saad aru? Comprende?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -4
              Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
              I actually think Saul Alinsky's idea of community organizations sounds like a good idea. That's something significantly different from a labor union.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 10 months ago
                Saul Alinsky was a thug. I have his book "Rules For Radicals" from 1971. He worked along side with Al Capone's henchmen in the 1930's. NOTHING he says is for good. He was just another pawn in the game. Ovomit loved the guy. And so does Hellary.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                  Organizing the members of a community to work together and improve their own living conditions doesn't sound like a good thing to you?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
                    You ask some rather simple and innocent questions that you try to relate to premises of questionable morals. You try to package these together as if they should or must be packaged that way.

                    Like if I stated, then asked,
                    If all your enemies were dust beneath your feet, you would be free.
                    Don't you want freedom?

                    We'll don't you?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • -1
                      Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                      Of course I want freedom. Saul Alinsky was a big advocate of freedom. He even called himself an advocate for a free society living in a free society.

                      Don't you want freedom?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
                        I am so tempted to down vote some of these.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                          Why?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
                            See my post above with three thumbs up that starts with, "You ask some rather simple and innocent questions..."
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • -1
                              Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                              I did read that post. Unfortunately, your comment is rather vague and cryptic, and a clear and concise meaning is difficult to derive from it. Perhaps you could expound on your thoughts a bit more?
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
                                Ok, you say, “Saul Alinsky was a big advocate of freedom”
                                You ask, “Don't you want freedom?”

                                Packaging the two together as if they should or must be packaged that way.
                                Agreeing that a person wants freedom does not in any way mean the person would automatically agree to Saul Alinsky's idea of freedom or methods required to obtain it.

                                Saul Alinsky may say he was for freedom but he was not for the type of freedom most individuals would voluntarily choose to have or in the way they would voluntarily choose to have it.. He and now his followers condone and justify seriously questionable morals to arrive at their ends.

                                A simple, yes or no question:
                                When working torward his goals for a free society, would Saul Alinsky tell all his followers to respect everyone individual or natural rights?
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 10 months ago
                                  Sorry, but I have to comment on this: lolololol. That would be the most ridiculous thing I could ever imagine: SA respecting individual rights. If Maph thinks "yes he does', then he obviously doesn't know SA.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Solver replied 9 years, 10 months ago
                                  • Maphesdus replied 9 years, 10 months ago
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • -1
                                  Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                                  "Through all this the constant guiding star of the organizer is in those words, "The dignity of the individual." Working with this compass, he soon discovers many axioms of effective organization.

                                  If you respect the dignity of the individual you are working with, then his desires, not yours; his values, not yours; his ways of working and fighting, not yours; his choice of leadership, not yours; his programs, not yours, are important and must be followed; except if his programs violate the high values of a free and open society. For example, take the question, "What if the program of the local people offends the rights of other groups, for reasons of color, religion, economic status, or politics? Should this program be accepted just because it is their program?" The answer is categorically no. Always remember that "the guiding star is 'the dignity of the individual.'" This is the purpose of the program. Obviously any program that opposes people because of race, religion, creed, or economic status, is the antithesis of the fundamental dignity of the individual.

                                  It is difficult for people to believe that you really respect their dignity. After all, they know very few people, including their own neighbors, who do. But it is equally difficult for you to surrender that little image of God created in our own likeness, which lurks in all of us and tells us that we secretly believe that we know what's best for the people. A successful organizer has learned emotionally as well as intellectually to respect the dignity of the people with whom he is working. Thus an effective organizational experience is as much an educational process for the organizer as it is for the people with whom he is working. They both must learn to respect the dignity of the individual, and they both must learn that in the last analysis this is the basic purpose of organization, for participation is the heartbeat of the democratic way of life. We learn, when we respect the dignity of the people, that they cannot be denied the elementary right to participate fully in the solutions to their own problems. Self-respect arises only out of people who play an active role in solving their own crises and who are not helpless, passive, puppet-like recipients of private or public services. To give people help, while denying them a significant part in the action, contributes nothing to the development of the individual. In the deepest sense it is not giving but taking—taking their dignity. Denial of the opportunity for participation is the denial of human dignity and democracy. It will not work."

                                  ~ Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals," In The Begining, pages 122-123
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Solver replied 9 years, 10 months ago
                  • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 10 months ago
                    No. I'd rather inspire others to emulate or do better than what I did to improve my own situation. That way, *collectively* we all improve our living conditions, on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

                    If you don't have the initiative to make things better for yourself, but see others striving to make things better for themselves....don't bitch about 'things are not fair' and other communist tripe

                    An exception here is: a tornado just wiped out your town & community. Everybody lost everything. The Gov't can GTFO. Ok, now we can all pull together. But once things are no longer in a state of chaos (Saul Alinsky's utopian wet-dream) THEN it's back to individual initiative.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                      Right, and when you go about as an individual improving your own personal living conditions, will you be cooperating with any other individuals, or will you be doing everything alone, by yourself, without any help from anybody?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 10 months ago
                    Except that there is another party to the negotiations - the company involved. The members of the community can "work together" all they want, but where do they work?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago
                The part where he suggested class warfare or the part where he encouraged false information spreading?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 10 months ago
                  You can sum up SA and RforR in one simple acronym - BAMN: By Any Means Necessary. The methods are immaterial, only gaining power is important, and those seeking it should do whatever it takes to gain it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • -1
                    Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                    Not exactly. He did say that you should do whatever it takes to achieve your goals, but he also qualified that statement by saying the means used should be proportional to the ends sought, and that using methods which were too extreme for a particular goal would have counter-productive results.
                    ---
                    'Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, "Does the End justify the Means?" but has always been "Does this *particular* end justify this *particular* means?"'
                    ~ Saul Alinksy, Rules for Radicals, Of Means and Ends, page 47
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                  Saul Alinsky didn't suggest spreading false information or class warfare. He simply pointed out that class warfare was already taking place, and suggested fighting back.

                  "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
                  — Warren Buffett

                  Several media outlets on both the right and the left have recently reported that the United States is no longer either a Republic or a Democracy, but rather has become a Plutocracy. Did you think that just happened by accident?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago
                    Ilary Clinton followed rules for radicals and miraculously finds herself in the top !% of the !%
                    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/27...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • -1
                      Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                      I know Hillary wrote a paper on Saul Alinsky back when she was in college, though as far as I'm aware she never engaged in the kind of community organizing that Alinsky describes.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago
                        She took what she needed from it. It takes a village, you know
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                          It depends on what you're talking about. Large endeavors, if they are to be successful, do in fact require the cooperation of large groups of people.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
                            Yep, I agree with cooperation. And if a huge dam needs to be built where the village is, it just takes cooperation of all the established residents to move their families and belongings, and the world is a happy place.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • -1
                              Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                              Fun fact: free market capitalism has been used to justify that exact scenario. If you don't let the dam be built, you're interfering in the free market! Or so the large corporations claim.

                              There's a documentary called "The End of Poverty?" which you can watch for free on YouTube here:
                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktOXJr1...

                              Skip ahead to 1:12:00 for the part where they talk about the dam being built and destroying the farmland of the local population.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by Solver 9 years, 10 months ago
                                Do you know the difference between free market capitalism and cronyism? If someone says cronyism is free market capitalism, do you believe it?

                                People can claim the sky is green. That doesn't make it true.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                                  And tell me, how can you mitigate cronyism without imposing legislation? Isn't one of the core tenants of Objectivism that all regulation is automatically bad no matter what?
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Solver replied 9 years, 10 months ago
                  • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 10 months ago
                    Regarding your last sentence: it is no accident. Yes, it is by design. The bought-and-paid-for MSM outlets are merely parroting what they are told to. Yet, it is the truth. There isn't any difference between the R's and D's. It's a 2-head, one body politic.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 10 months ago
                    Wrong again.
                    The country was remarkably free of class warfare until the communist agitators began waging it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
                      Are you sure about that? Are you sure there was no class warfare during the 19th century? Cuz' I seem to remember history books mentioning something about a war that went from 1861 to 1865...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 10 months ago
                        Well, there was another war around about 1940, too... and a war about 1812... both of which had as much to do with class as did the Confederate War.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago
            I'm with Hiraghm. Unions have given employees entitlements above and beyond what the market bears for the level of skill.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 10 months ago
              I think it depends on the specific situation. It's not really possible to make a sweeping, generalized statement like that about all unions without the statement being wrong in at least some instances.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 10 months ago
                Yes it is possible, if you understand English and can parse what he said?

                "Unions have given employees entitlements above and beyond what the market bears"..."... that they have. Benefits packages, double-digit-per-hour wages for doing menial, mindless, work bearing no responsibility.

                One can find examples for virtually every union out there.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 10 months ago
            Depends on the employees.
            A large company can do better without some employees.

            Union employees qualify as "parasites", as they always suck away more than they contribute.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo