Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

H&M Employees Unionize. Now the Real Battle Begins.

by David Doorey November 2, 2011
written by David Doorey November 2, 2011

According to the union organizers who won a union certification vote at the H&M clothing store at Square One in Mississauga last week, the employer  was unusually well-behaved during the campaign.  No terminations, no threat to close the store and fire everyone if the workers voted for a union. The employees voted 25-13 in favour of having the UFCW union represent them in collective bargaining. H&M is a Swedish retailer, from a country where almost everyone is in a union, so unlike North American employers, the thought of union does not provoke panicked hysteria.
Now the hard part begins.  The UFCW needs to bargain a collective agreement that a majority of the employees will accept in a ratification vote.  In order to gain some leverage in that bargaining, the employees may be asked whether they are prepared to strike.  If a strike threat could be organized in time for the Christmas shopping season, that could actually apply some pressure on H&M.  But it is far from clear that the UFCW will be able to bargain a strong enough first agreement to maintain employee support over the long run.  Best of luck to them.
In sharp contrast, there is Walmart.  Walmart fights tooth and nail against employee attempts to unionize, including breaking the law when necessary.  Recall in Windsor during the late 1990s when Walmart was found to have violated the Labour Relations Act in a number of ways, including threatening to end certain employee benefits and by leading employees to believe that if they voted to unionize, the employer would close the store and fire everyone.

When despite all odds, Walmart employees do choose to unionize, Walmart does everything in its power to prevent the union from bargaining a decent collective agreement.  This strategy is almost always successful.  Why is that?
Because our labour law model is not designed to empower retail workers to bargain decent collective agreements.

Think about why unions did so well in car plants, steel mills, and mines.  What do those workplaces have in common?
They are all giant workplaces, with hundreds of workers who report to the same physical location.  The union can organize all employees of Ford in Oakville and Stelco in Hamilton.  If they go on strike, the entire workplace would usually shut down.  That’s a blow to the employers, and therefore, they have a strong incentive to bargain seriously with the union to avoid a work stoppage.
Now look at Walmart, Starbucks, McDonalds, Scotiabank.  What’s different about those workplaces?
The answer is that they are all huge corporations, but they operate through hundreds of small workplaces dispersed across huge geographic areas.  Walmart has every reason to ensure that the unionized store employees do not win improvements above the nonunion stores.  If the union were able to do that, then other stores might unionize too.  The only tool the unionized workers have to pressure Walmart to give them improved working conditions is a threat to strike.
Is that a real threat?  Do you think Walmart is shaking in its boots at the prospect of one of 500 stores going strike?  Absolutely not.  Under our legal model, it is not unlawful for Walmart to tell the union that it is not prepared to agree to the union’s bargaining demand to win improvements above what the nonunion stores receive.  The employees can then strike to try and change Walmart’s mind, but that strike is unlikely to be very successful.
History shows that most of the time, unions that manage to get certified for retail operations are either unable to bargain a first collective agreement, or do so, only to be decertified later on because the agreement bargained is weak.   This is a main reason why Walmart employees usually decertify soon after they are unionized. See this story about a Walmart store in Quebec being decertified this week. There are exceptions–the grocery industry is a prime example, where workers are well represented.  But our model was never designed to allow unions to flourish in the retail and service sector.  It was designed to encourage unionization in large, industrial workplaces, so workers there could earn ‘family’ wages sufficient to buy cars, houses, clothing.  Retail workers were considered secondary, less important.
Studies show us that retail and financial sector workers have among the highest support for unions, yet are least likely of all workers to be unionized.  For example, Meltz & Lipset (two of the most respected industrial relations scholars in North America) found that  while the retail sector is only 11.6 percent unionized, over 31% of nonunion workers would vote for a union if asked.   The financial sector unionization rate is only 3.5%, but over 33 % of the nonunion workers would vote for a union if only they were given that opportunity.  That is a huge gap between demand for unionization and actual unionization.
Given that those large industrial workplaces are becoming far less prominent players in the Canadian economy, is it time for our labour laws model to change in order to faciliate more collective bargaining in the low-wage retail and service sector?
If so, can you think of ways that law could empower retail workers to bargain decent first collective agreements?
Hint:  The NDP under Bob Rae in the early 1990s in Ontario had some ideas that could have actually achieved this.  Do you know what the NDP did?

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Canadian Industrial Relations Association Conference Call for Papers
next post
Can an Employer Require Employees to Declare they are not Gay?

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.