The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Wal-Mart: The Poor, Misunderstood Employer?

by David Doorey April 13, 2009
written by David Doorey April 13, 2009

This is an interactive version of a shorter editorial comment of mine published this week in the National Post.

I enjoy reading Terrance Corcoran’s opinions in the National Post dealing with labour relations. Honestly. Because they are great fodder for teaching students how to read columnists critically.  You always know what Corcoran is going to say even before you read the column, because it’s always the same, and it’s virtually certain that the villain in the article will be a union, a union leader, a supporter of collective bargaining, or laws that permit employees to opt for collective bargaining.  Employees are always said to be better off bargaining for themselves (without a union), unions are corrupt and greedy, and employers are helpless, law-abiding citizens doing the best they can under a repressive legal system that undermines them at every corner.

But  even I was a little surprised to see Corcoran presenting Wal-Mart as the champion of decent employment practices in his most recent column.  You gotta be kidding me!  Wal-Mart, the poor misunderstood employer?  Now that takes some creative writing.

In Corcoran’s strange world, Wal-Mart, a company that rakes in billions of dollars a year in profits, is a hero for convincing a Quebec arbitrator to allow it to keep its employees’ wages at slightly above minimum wage, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union is a villain, for obtaining for the employees “only” a 30 cents per hour raise. 

How rarely we hear anyone—except Wal-Mart itself, of course–describe Wal-Mart’s employment policies in such a positive light.  This is a company that an American court recently found violated employment laws “2 million times”, and that has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and settlements in claims relating to wage discrimination and unpaid wages.   In Canada, Wal-mart has been found in violation of labour laws repeatedly.

But Corcoran argues that it is the bully unions that should be chastised, and not Wal-mart.  Why?  Because the union promised the employees more than it actually was able to obtain from the arbitrator, for one thing.  And, for another, it was certified on the basis that a majority of the Wal-mart employees signed a card saying they wanted the union to represent them, rather than by winning a vote.

In fact, the model worked as it should.  It gave the workers an opportunity to see what a union could do for them.  If the employees are not happy with what the union was able to obtain in the first agreement, they can decide not to give the union another chance by decertifying them.  If they prefer that very generous model of employment relations offered by Wal-Mart to its non-union employees, they can opt to go back to that model before the next round of bargaining.

That is why there is nothing ‘undemocratic’ about the card-check model that is in place in a variety of Canadian jurisdictions and is being considered in the U.S.  If a majority of workers sign a contract saying they want the union to be given a chance to bargain something worthwhile, the union is given that chance.  Ultimately, the union is measured by its ability to make gains in the bargaining that follows.  If it can’t do that, it will have a short spell as the employees’ representative.

In fact, as anyone knowledgeable in labour relations knows, unions rarely make huge strides in first contracts.  Improvements come incrementally, round by round.  In this case, the union not only won a modest raise, it won a grievance procedure that will allow employees to challenge management decisions they perceive to be arbitrary or based in favoritism. And the union will ensure that Wal-Mart actually complies with existing employment standards and human rights laws, something this company has shown it has a difficult time doing.  So, its unfair to suggest that the union achieved nothing here.  

And ask yourself whether, in these difficult times, the people of Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec would be better off if Wal-Mart employees earned a little more money in wages so they can buy their children clothes, pay for daycare, go to restaurants, etc., and thereby help fuel the local economy, or if Wal-Mart’s profits increase from, say, $3.4 billion to 3.41 billion? 

Of course, Mr. Corcoran has argued in his column before that unions that win ‘good’ settlements for their members are to blame for the crumbling of the economy, the failures of government, and various others evils.  Here, he chastises a union for not bargaining a better settlement for its members.  That’s the great thing about ideologues—they can take any facts and make them fit their skewed worldview.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
A New Chapter in the Ongoing Reform of Freedom of Association
next post
Wal-Mart Continues to Stall Bargaining in Saskatchewan

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
14h

A Nationwide Bargaining Unit to Fight Starbucks Is a Moon Shot Worth Trying

My latest on ⁦@jacobin⁩. https://jacobin.com/2022/08/starbucks-service-unions-nlrb-law-centralized-bargaining/

Reply on Twitter 1556339370461786112Retweet on Twitter 15563393704617861122Like on Twitter 155633937046178611211Twitter 1556339370461786112
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
18h

Luck is part of it for sure. Right time right place. True of a lot of jobs not just academia.

But in my experience sitting on lots of academic hiring committees, people selected have superior CVs. 60 applicants, one position. Not all luck. It’s a very competitive job market.

David Webster@dwebsterhist

I've been hired for 2 tenure track jobs and been on multiple committees, sent in more than 100 job applications, and done multiple interviews. Here is my thread 🛢
of job market advice for early career academics based on decades of experience:

1. Get lucky.

Reply on Twitter 1556285407817506817Retweet on Twitter 1556285407817506817Like on Twitter 15562854078175068171Twitter 1556285407817506817
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
6 Aug

Sunflowers!

Reply on Twitter 1556032894640037890Retweet on Twitter 1556032894640037890Like on Twitter 15560328946400378905Twitter 1556032894640037890
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.