Obviously it is, but Im wondering if there is a better way to implement the wishes of the voters in these states to shift the balance of power away from unions and towards companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of...representation

I'm a union organizer/rep. It's like this in every RTW state I've ever worked in (because it's federal law).

The duty of fair representation is incumbent upon U.S. labor unions that are the exclusive bargaining representative of workers in a particular group

That's a no.

first bolded part : nah they just leave a country to another being finances by the states at 30%cut salary, that is what globalisation does :


http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...mphis/?print=1

"One of the last steps in the cost-cutting process was the company's 2010 decision to shut down a unionized kitchen appliance plant in L'Assomption, Quebec, and build a new one in Memphis, where unions are weak and wages and transportation costs will likely be lower.

Memphis is benefiting from Straberg's strategy.

For now.

The company's history suggests that if its leaders ever concluded that leaving Memphis would boost profits, they would do so."

"The current estimated cost of building the factory is $190 million. State and local governments are expected to contribute $137 million in immediate construction costs, more than twice the company's anticipated contribution of $60 million."

means socialising the free market no ?

btw that is the point why i dont go to wall mart, in the sense i dont necessairylly by the cheapest product because IT DOES HURTS the economy .

in the same article :"and ordinary customers wouldn't pay extra for a product just because of where it's made"


once consumer realise this:" buy ure country first,etc ".
the citizens will stop the bleeding of company moving out !
of course if u can afford small sacrifice between 2 company if u can afford it .
for my part its cosco vs wall mart, here cosco better salary than wall mart so i go to cosco , cost is almost comparable for consumable prices


second bolded part : after a long judicial saga with wall mart ending in supreme court :
http://www.cbc.ca/fp/story/2009/11/27/2275445.html

"Laid-off workers at the store in Jonquière argued Wal-Mart violated Quebec labour laws and the workers’ constitutional rights by shutting its store during negotiations for an inaugural collective agreement in 2005.

A majority of the Supreme Court judges rejected their appeal. They ruled that under the specific section of the Quebec Labour Code that formed the basis of the workers complaints, the workers cannot seek remedy if their former place of employment no longer exists.

Had the workers brought forward their case under a separate section of the Labour Code, namely sections 12 to 14, then the question of whether Wal-Mart closed the store as part of an anti-union strategy might have been put in play."


"The Canadian Labour Congress had intervened on the workers’ side to argue against an “unfettered right to close down operations” when workers unionize because it would “intimidate, prevent or discourage employees at other locations from exercising their freedom to unionize and engage in collective bargaining.”

Before I continue, let me make sure I understood your original question. We are talking about a group of workers that have a union, in a right to work state, but choose not to join as members. Right?

No it doesnt. See your next sentence for the market's verdict on that. Pay less at Walmart and donate 100% of the savings to whatever lefty cause you want and you'll accomplish more.

Why do you keep citing that Supreme Court case about a non-unionized store? To be clear, your position is that a company should just have to run a business it doesnt want to run? They werent violating any union contracts, they didnt move a plant elsewhere, they closed up shop.

Boeing easily could have done this if their CEO had shut his mouth and not bragged about how they were doing it because of the union actions in the past.

we agree on the first part !
its exactly why country loose job, because citizen dont get that point.

we do agree on this point, but too many think its because u make lower price u create more job when it clearly says here it doesnt , u only need responsible consumers .

if not u just kill your economy by forcing company on small margin of profit to move out, costing job.

electrolux did move to the states because tenesse invest 137 millions compare to electrolux who only had to invesrt 60millions.
and they save 30% on salary.

has for wall mart it close shop to make a statement, if u try to create union we close shop, they did it twice.

and being blind about the effect of: if in quebec it would succeed to create unions,other would create union and it would propagate trough out canada and maybe other country.
its really bad intention of your part because u know dam well it would happen.

that s creating precedent situation is all about.

other store didnt see union creation because they are scared too losse their pityfull job, not realising keeping the statu quo unless means to stay in poverty..

Sounds like a smart business move. No clue what your point is.

I know why they did it. You didnt answer my question. Your contention is a business HAS to operate a union labor store rather than not operate?

Disgonbegood.gif

its a smart move for them i agree, but it wont in the long term for the common man, u agree ?

if ure not why u think everyday canadian and americains looses job to other country ?

u just cut down benefits from workers to benefits the owner of the company by making society pay more with subvention and paying less worker for the job they do.

this doesnt contribute to enrich society, it just make competing worker of other country to others without cutting the benefits of the owners...



i nerver said that :"HAS to operate a union labor "!!!!

but letting a company closing for this reason is awefull.
cause it prevent others to try get more benefit on the menace of bieng close at their own shop.


if the company cant survive its another matter but those 2 case in Quebec, walll mart was making money.

they just didnt want let union to infected other stores, that why they close and this help maintain society in a poor economic situation.

No


I like free trade.

It benefits society in the aggregate. Agree we need to distribute those benefits more broadly

Huh? What's choice 3? How do you force a company not close? March the manager to work at gunpoint and force capital investment?

No it doesnt

You dont have close to enough information to evaluate this

Is Canada doing poorly or really well? Im confused.

orly

how can u say free trade ????

the states invest 137 millions while a company invest 60 millions to attract a company from another country who use to pay 20$/hour and now will pay 13$/hour his workers.

and u call this free trade !?


every company can close obviously....
u just twisting my words because im flat out bad in english...
if u cant see they close not for direct economic reason ( because why close a company that make money?) but for futur economic problem by reducing profits because more unions would be created in other company.
they simply open elsewhere where they know they wont face union treath that want better conditions for the workers.
they did once, they close they did twice they close again.
now seeing this, u think other worker will try to unionise themself even if they wanted to have better condition ?

yes canada is doing well because its a group of people at minimum wage that WONT change a country economy, exaclty 1 point that is contested for the supposedely needed to ban MW because its bad for the economy. wich obv. is not cause we would suffer greatly by the loss of this wall mart, wouldnt we ?

I think that is the definition of free trade. If it's cheaper and more profitable to move your company, you (can) do it.