---
"I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It's yours."
--Ellis Wyatt, Atlas Shrugged.
Bravo to Wal-Mart for having the courage to Just Say No to the most vicious form of rights infringement still considered legitimate in the modern era:
Wal-Mart Canada will close one of its two Quebec stores that won union certification last year after failing to reach a labor agreement, the retailer said on Wednesday.
...
Wal-Mart Canada said it advised the union last year when the bargaining process began that the store's financial situation was precarious.
"Despite this fact and nine separate days of meetings over a period of more than three months, the company has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement with the union that would allow the store to operate efficiently and profitably," the company said in a release.
...
In January, a Wal-Mart Canada store in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, won union certification and said it hoped to deliver contract proposals by mid-February. ... Wal-Mart Canada said the decision to automatically certify the Saint-Hyacinthe store was undemocratic and seriously flawed as employees were not offered a secret ballot vote.
By what right does an employee, or any number of employees, or a government, dare try to insist that a company operate a store at a loss?
What kind of union leadership would engage in such reckless collective bargaining brinksmanship?
What kind of government allows unionization votes without a secret ballot?
How many more lessons does Big Labor need? You are collectively bargaining yourselves into oblivion. Which, by itself, is fine with me. But must you inflict so much collateral damage in the process? What expenses did Wal-Mart incur in this fiasco? What burdens of higher prices and lower variety will consumers have to incur?
Sheer madness.
ADDENDUM: Speaking of sheer madness, Wal-Mart is also facing abuse from champions of higher prices and lower variety in Queens, New York, as I have blogged about previously:
Small businesses, union leaders, City Council members and even some mayoral candidates are gearing up to prevent Wal-Mart from setting foot in town, now that the world's largest retailer has acknowledged it wants to open its first New York City store, planned for Rego Park, Queens, in 2008.
...
Wal-Mart's opponents plan to pressure every government body that will consider the application -- the community board, the City Planning Commission and the City Council -- to reject it.
...
"There will never be a more diverse and comprehensive coalition than this effort against Wal-Mart," said Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, an anti-Wal-Mart coalition in New York. "It will include small-business people, labor people, environmental groups, women's groups, immigrant groups and community groups."
Of course, it is sheer madness just that there are so many "government bodies" for the anti-consumer Luddites to "pressure." But that's another rant.
Be careful what you protest against, you of the "diverse and comprehensive coalition" -- you just might kill it. Just ask your now-unemployed union comrades in Canada.
More thoughts at PolicyGuy and Miscellaneous Objections.
Related Posts (Wal-Mart):
"Men's Socks are Amazing..."
New York's Embrace of "Reverse-Poletown" -- Part Two
Political Child Abuse Update: Targeting Wal-Mart
Related Posts (Labor Unions):
Why Doesn't Antitrust Apply to Labor Unions?
"Mr. Gettelfinger, You're Trying to Seduce Me..."
In Honor of Labor Day: Where the Heck is Beck?
Fly the Friendly Skies, Damnit!
A Labor Union Christmas
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.