:: rawblogXport ::

:: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 ::

Wal-Mart or Loblaws: Who's More Anti-Union? By WM Pasz, ufcw.net
The problem with the chest beating about Wal-Mart's anti-unionism is that distracts us from employers who are arguably more dangerously anti-union and their methods. Employers like Loblaw Companies.

Now some of you may be thinking, what the hell? How can anyone suggest that Loblaws, which is unionized from coast to coast and has a warm relationship with its union - the UFCW - is more dangerously anti-union than Wal-Mart which is unionized nowhere and kicking the UFCW's ass?

It's like this: Wal-Mart is upfront about its disdain for unions. It seeks to prevent its workers from engaging in collective action through the use of pretty standard tools of the trade. Loblaws on the other hand, is far more deceptive in its efforts to keep its workers from engaging in collective action.

In order to understand where I'm coming from, it's important that we're straight about what I mean when I talk about 'unions' and 'collective action'. My definition of a union is 'an association of employees who come together with the shared goal of improving their working conditions and having a voice at their place of employment'. 'Collective action' refers to the things that the group of employees does to pursue its shared goals.

posted 6:18 AM :: reference link :: 0 comments ::

-------------------------------------------