Les Jones

Economics > Colby Cosh on Canadian Unions and Wal-Mart

If this be terrorism, pass me the Semtex:

I don't get it--I really don't. Workers at the Wal-Mart in Jonquière, Quebec received union certification in August--the first workers at any Wal-Mart to do so--and now the corporation is shutting the store. Okey-dokey. The NDP, displaying typical respect for niceties of the English language, are calling the shutdown "economic terrorism". But isn't this sort of threat part of the deal between labour and capital even if you believe in labour unions? The whole premise of a union, it seems to me, is that it allows the workers to collectively withdraw their labour and go out on strike if bargaining doesn't go to their liking. The law of Quebec entrenches their right to do so, and union men make a point of not crossing picket lines. So how is Wal-Mart's closure of the Jonquière store any different morally? They're withdrawing their capital. It's theirs to withdraw just as the workers' labour is theirs, no? In what sense is closing a store the equivalent of "terrorizing" its employees?

It seems that the citizens of Jonquière didn't want to work for a non-unionized Wal-Mart, and now they're getting their wish--an eventuality that was, incidentally, at least as foreseeable as a Ken Griffey hamstring injury. Why aren't the employees thrilled about this? Wouldn't "Don't you dare close your evil, oppressive store, you heartless, convenient bastards!" be a good English translation of all the Gallic gibberish being spouted here? Am I alone in suspecting that this farce is being staged as a satire in honour of Ayn Rand's centenary? Do Quebeckers really think that calling in bomb threats to other Wal-Marts is a good way to keep the retailer in Quebec?

(I excerpted a little more than I normally would have, because Cosh's permalinks don't last forever.) See previous post on unions and US Airways for another example of union tactics gone awry.