Second Canadian Wal-Mart store gets union.

[Swede]

"That store, which Wal-Mart revealed hasn't been profitable since it opened a few years ago, was automatically certified in August."


Gee a Wal-Mart that isn't profitable,go figure.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/apbiz_story.asp?category=1310&slug=Wal%20Mart%20Union

[Solon]

1. 6 months from now...

"Wal-Mart Closes Second Store in Canada that was Unionized"

[AliciaKeyedUp]

3. If it's not profitable, who would blame them

[Swede]

5. Every store that is unionised is suddenly unprofitable.

Get it?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

7. Wal-Mart is a public company

If they are cooking the books, that's a felony. It's also relatively easy to prove because those books are public.

[Solon]

11. A felony, yes, but who to jail...

that is the question. Can Wal-Mart be jailed, and the bigger question is, will any jailing result in a change of behavior? Fines don't seem to do much, considering that it is a tax writeoff as an expense of doing business.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

14. Executives for starters

Because, thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, they have to sign off on the accuracy of their accounting. So if they defraud, THEY defraud.

Lock people up for criminal behavior and it will make a dent in it.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

17. I enforce Sarbanes at companies

trust me, enforcement is arbitrary-like any law that applies to big business.

I'm a Sarbox expert-ask me anything! ;-)

[Solon]

8. Another thing...

Wal-Mart Operates many stores at a loss, i.e. no profit, when stiff competition is around. Because they can afford it, this is used to drive out competition, even though it violates competition laws, both here and in Canada.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

9. They operate at a loss on spec

Assuming they will be able to make money later. As a short-term strategy, it makes perfect sense. Long term, you have to cut your losses eventually.

[Solon]

10. Problem is its against the law...

yes it makes perfect sense, but it is illegal, its called undercutting the competition, and as I said, illegal, but hard as hell to prove.

[JanMichael]

12. Don't bother. People just don't understand anti-Trust laws anymore.

They think it's perfectly "ok" to open up shop across the street and proceed to sell things below cost and subsidize the loss with monopoly power.

It's a sad, sad, world...

[Solon]

13. I guess, as long as you make money...

the law shouldn't mean shit, I mean, it is the American Way, is it not?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

15. Here I disagree

Almost every start-up business on planet earth plans to lose money for a time. That's the cost of starting the business, bringing in new business, etc. So you are saying that only small companies can do that?

[Solon]

16. Unless you have no business sense...

No company on the planet, unless they are full of funds, starts off at a loss. They may not make a profit for years, but they have to at least try to break even. They reinvest in infrastructure, or manufacturing, advertisment, whatever. This is not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about using your own Monopoly against smaller businesses by purposefully undercutting the competition in an area for the SOLE purpose of destroying that competition. That is ILLEGAL, plain and simple, if you feel that companies like Wal-Mart should be above the law, that is outragious. This isn't my opinion, this has been law since anti-trust laws have been put in place, unfortunately it has not been enforced, in Wal-Mart's case, yet.

[Spazito]

6. It's one way of getting them out of our communities...

they either unionize or shut down, either way Canadians win.

[Joanne98]

2. Go Canada!!!!!

[Skink]

4. Leave it to the Cannucks..

Or maybe the Chinese to Unionize Walmart. It's the first step towards getting our Unions and decent paying jobs back.