Originally Posted by LetsGambool
He's talking about companies that already have unions. No, they cant just close shop and move or disband the union instantly. Boeing had a huge problem just moving new work to a non-union state this year.
Again, please stop posting things as facts that aren't facts.
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 :
"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.
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 :
"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