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

Posted by sdesapio 11 years, 8 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.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by UncommonSense 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So, do you think that followers of Saul Alinsky have gone to far, or not far enough?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ah, but the expansion of that end WAS justified by the appointed chancellor of the time, and many others of like mind.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You always pick the meaning of just arbitraily, however. So it does come down to someone 's arbitrary definition. Who decides that? Majority rules? Who ever is currently in power?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well that particular example is a case where the end itself was not justified. If the end is not justified, then no means of achieving it could be, either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This qualitative ends justify the means idea just seems very backwards, like the wrong question, that would be asked by the wrong people, to justify their wrong actions.

    Did a master race for the greater good of the Fatherland justify another World War?
    What particular means were justified? Who decides?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course, the gov't officials are at fault in this case, but if their palms were greased, they could be "convinced" to see things a certain way ...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo