The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Unionizing Wal-Mart On June 27, Wal-Mart employees in Thompson voted on whether to unionize. The vote count in mid-August resulted in a turndown by the "associates" by the tally of 61-54-2. The union expressed surprise and disappointment, claiming a majority had signed union cards, but some had changed their minds. Union president Robert Ziegler insists that unionizing Wal-Mart remains a priority and the union will step up its campaign. Ziegler, who replaced long time president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Bernie Christophe last year, wants to make his mark in a labor-friendly province like Manitoba, claiming: "There are a lot of people across Manitoba who want to be represented by a union." Perhaps he is right, but not at Wal-Mart. The U.F.C.W. began its drive in April, visiting employees at home and offering them higher wages and benefits, better scheduling, and other good things plus only $6 per week union dues. Wal-Mart spokesmen claimed after the vote that Manitoba's labor laws are unfair to employers as the deck is stacked in favor of of the union recruiting supporters. They pointed out that management is not allowed to explain to their workers why a union is not necessary or to their advantage, as it could be viewed as intimidating employees from a superior position of power. Other critics point out that if a union signs up 60% of the workers there is no vote and the union is established. The secret ballot, if less than 60% sign up, brought in by the Filmon government, probably doomed the unionizing at Thompson, as in every election a number of people change their mind in the voting booth or before. In any case, Wal-Mart's 3,500-plus stores remain non-unionized. Why? There are a number of reasons why unionizing Wal-Mart has nearly always failed. Nearly always? Roger, a Winnipeg Wal-Mart employee told "the corner" that there was one Wal-Mart store unionized but the employees petitioned successfully to disestablish the union. Apparently the union negotiators botched the contract negotiations, not putting the profit-sharing in the proposal, and the employees ended up with less money than the non-union stores. One founding concept of the world's largest retailer was owner Sam Walton's different approach to customers and employees. Exceptional care and concern for customers was his rule and employees who became "associates" were to be treated the same. Baseball-cap-wearing Sam, one of the world's richest men, worked every day until his death, visiting stores, greeting customers and associates. To Sam, Wal-Mart employees were family and the thought of a union interfering or coming between "family" was not in his playbook. Wal-Mart pays a decent wage, with regular increases, hires seniors and students, promotes a friendly workplace, and has profit Ð sharing. Roger told me that the amount he receives each year depends on the profit margin increase in his store as a percentage of his annual wages. Last year his share was $900. A Thompson Wal-Mart cashier, making $7.80 per hour, was interviewed and said employees in her store get a 30-50 cent increase per hour per year depending on performance. She received a profit share of $200 last year and would have paid $312 in union dues in a contract that probably would not have included profit-sharing. I wonder how she voted? During its unionizing drive, the U.F.C.W. pointed out to the Wal-Mart associates that in a grocery chain in the same union, employees get nearly $16 per hour after four years. What they did not say is at these large chains full-time work is a rarity. At Canada Safeway, sadly to say, higher union contracts have meant fewer hours for non - management employees, and a drop in pay for many. Rumors persist that beset by high costs, increasing competition, and shrinking profits, Safeway may close its Manitoba stores if the next employee contract is not suitable for the company. This would mean a great loss of jobs and union dues for the U.F.C.W. which insiders whisper is one reason for the union's determination to unionize the 2,000 Wal-Mart employees. Why the U.F.C.W.? The main reason industrial relations experts see for the drive is Wal-Mart's getting into the grocery business, with their 'grocery shelves'. Although not anything like the super 24-hour Wal-Marts in the U.S. which sell all foods cheaper than the grocery chains, they still provide substantial competition for the unionized stores. If they are successful in unionizing any Wal-Marts, they will find Wal-Mart a tough negotiator for any contract. Wal-Mart has a reputation with its suppliers as always demanding the lowest price for goods, and as one complained: "beating us into the ground so we barely make a profit". I talked to a Wal-Mart employee in a restaurant line-up in the U.S.A. He was wearing a military-like uniform and sporting a 25-year pin. The associate was a Wal-Mart truck driver hauling goods to stores throughout the eastern U.S. He spoke glowingly about his job and his company. His loyalty was most impressive, and unusual in today's world. Or is it unusual? Maybe Wal-Mart has it right. This is not to say that unions are not needed in today's workplace, for they are a necessity in large industrial workshops and even some smaller ones to protect the workers from bad and indifferent management. The union movement was a needed and necessary reaction to the sweat-shops and slave-shops of the nineteenth century. In today's global economy, distant management is often uncaring and unsharing. Recently, Motor Coach Industries laid off 600 workers. Would you work for M.C.I. without a union? I wouldn't!
