Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Wal-Mart and Unionization

I have been following some interesting crap regarding this whole Wal-Mart union-busting thing going on in Quebec (read about it here).

Seems the province, as well as the left-wingnuts throughout the country, have their panties in a knot because some corporate demon decided to close an unprofitable store rather than allowing it to be unionized. Sniff. Quebec has the highest rate of unionization in the country...in fact of all North American jurisdictions. The fact that it is also one of the worst economies has failed to register with the "unions-are-always-right" crowd (as evidenced by the pundits at places like Peace, Order, and Good Government, eh.) What these liberal types fail to realize (and let's face it, they probably side with the players not the owners in the NHL mess) is that a business has the right to do business as they see fit. If they don't want to deal with a union, then they can close up shop. Call it a "corporate-strike". Instead of labour fighting back, we have a corporation standing up to the evils of white-collar unionization.

The blogger over at Verisimilitude has it correct when he asks:

I too am baffled at the utter inability of these people to connect the dots
between Quebec's labour laws and Wal-Mart's actions. When your laws stack the
deck in favour of labour unions, is it really all that surprising if a business
decides it just doesn't want to deal with the hassle? When your goal is to have
no non-unionized businesses in your province, why kick and scream when you get
exactly what you wanted? Isn't Wal-Mart doing exactly what one would expect? If
the employees can go on strike, why can't the employer?

I live in Quebec and I see, on a daily basis, the result of unchecked unionization. This province's economy is in the shitter and has no way of getting out short of another social upheaval. Civil war anyone?