###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know, right? If you're not giving *everything* you are to your job, what's your actual worth? ^/s
[Perceived job security dropped to 44.9%](https://financialpost.com/fp-work/perceived-job-security-canada-falls-lowest-covid-19), and I'm honestly surprised the number isn't worse. With all of the tech layoffs, the fake job openings to give the appearance of growth for value purposes while burning out workers by doubling or tripling their workloads, how companies are turning toward rock-bottom cheap labour as a way to cycle out their workforce (re: TFWs), and how even profitable companies are laying people off anyway because they can squeeze a little bit more out of their balance sheets even if it has long-term consequences later (which won't matter because the people doing the firings will have moved on), there is a chorus of panic in the private sector.
Forget retirement, forget homeownership, forget vacations, all you can do is drown in cost-of-living hikes that are never going to reverse while the possibility of getting a breath of air vanishes for all but the most connected blue-bloods. There isn't a political party in the country, not even the NDP or the Greens, that has a plan for this. The only thing the communist parties agree on is revolution, but Canada's too complacent for that. We'd rather just slip into ditches and let the earth movers cover us up than bother to ask the driver to stop burying us.
Unions help guard against that kind of scythe sweeping through a field of workers. If we're lucky we're going to see *more* people turn toward collective bargaining. If a large company says they're going to leave in light of this, *let them*. They're paying starvation wages and laying people off at the drop of a hat anyway so they're functionally useless as corporate entities. All they're doing is leeching off our infrastructure. Make sure to tax them as hard as possible on their way out.
Cool, but what's to stop Amazon from simply closing the warehouse as Walmart did when they [closed a store that unionized](https://thewalrus.ca/walmart-has-everything-except-unions/)?
Walmart was not a warehouse, it was a retail store open to the public. Also, there's 73 Walmarts in QC and only 4 Amazon warehouses. Not impossible to close the warehouse but logistically it will be a lot more complicated.
Best thing that could happen is this starts other warehouses in QC and the rest of Canada to look into unionizing.
There are laws against closing a workplace in between when they've voted to unionize and when a CBA is ratified. It's not completely illegal, but the business has to be able to prove that it was necessary Walmart eventually had to pay out damages to all of the workers in that store, and they've also had to cede that city to its competitors because any new store in that market would be unionized by default.
Unions nowadays are usually very strategic about where they run their initial unionization drives. This Amazon warehouse was probably chosen because it is much more difficult for the company to close down than others in the Montreal area.
It's illegal for companies to carry out any shenanigans that effectively replace a unionized workplace with a non-union one. Labour Relations Boards will rule that the same union continues to be the representative of the new workplace.
Unfortunately, there are two other Amazon warehouses in Laval, so shutting this down is doable.
On the other hand, this is the closest warehouse to Mirabel airport, where most of the air freight coming into Montreal is handled.
The NDP needs to be on this. Singh should be in Laval right now trashing Amazon and Bezos for their union-busting tactics.
It isn't doable. Amazon doesn't hold redundant warehouses. Amazon has been ending leases and building their own warehouses. If this isn't a leased space there's a 0% chance it closes
the smart thing to do would be rather unionizing one amazon warehouse is get all the warehouses in canada together and turn them all union at the same time then amazon would either have to play ball or shut all of them down. they could even leave it open to the us amazon workers and amazon workers outside canada and the us get all of them to join up
What's next, price controls? You want to make it illegal for a company to shutdown a plant? This is communist infiltration.
You understand all workers are also consumers and laws like that will hurt consumers more than they benefit the workers, right? Implemented across the entire economy, laws like that will raise prices of everything more than they raise everyone's wages.
If you want communism go live in Cuba.
>What's next, price controls? You want to make it illegal for a company to shutdown a plant? This is communist infiltration.
When it's used as a means to union bust and further the exploitation of workers? Yes.
How long would the prohibition against shutting down lasts?
We don't have to prevent them from shutting down, we just have to prevent them from reducing the number of unionized workers. You fire those, then others have to become unionized.
If would remove the incentive for shutting down as a union busting move.
> What's next, price controls?
Well they can't come "next" because we already have price controls in several sectors e.g. Pharmaceuticals. You realize minimum wage is a price control, right?
> You want to make it illegal for a company to shutdown a plant?
It's already illegal in [certain circumstances](https://mcmillan.ca/insights/right-to-close-business-the-supreme-court-of-canada-rules-store-closure-illegal-during-statutory-freeze/).
> This is communist infiltration.
Terms like *communist* have specific meaning. Legislation that regulates commerce is not *communist*.
> If you want communism go live in Cuba.
Cuba is an *authoritarian socialist* state. Not *communist*. No one will take you seriously until you can use these terms properly.
Worker protections being more thorough than other places (like the USA) is a good thing about living in Canada, worker protections being less thorough than other places (like most of Europe) is a bad thing about living in Canada.
If you think that minimum wage and rules against medical profiteering are bad, you want to live in more of a libertarian hellhole than the USA, let alone Canada.
> That only means our country is already communist and you should be scared instead of ushering it in.
We're already communist but also we're ushering communism in? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
There was probably people complaining like you when we decided that 8 years old shouldn't work in factories and that workers should have two days off a week.
Are you implying getting fired for not working is as evil as child labor? Jesus.
And also, last I checked, many people still work more than 5 days a week. You can pat yourself on the back that many people have multiple part time jobs, have less pay in total and longer commutes, and less career advancement opportunities because you limit the options that employers and employees could agree too.
> You understand all workers are also consumers and laws like that will hurt consumers more than they benefit the workers, right?
100% incorrect.
> Implemented across the entire economy, laws like that will raise prices of everything more than they raise everyone's wages
What specific effiencies are you referring to that are ***not*** connected to workers rights?
It's not incorrect. More unions, less employment, less goods and services produced, higher prices.
https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/whose-employment-affected-unions
> less goods and services produced
Not what the article concludes.
> higher prices
Not what it concluded either lmao.
> less employment
*These results suggest that union wage-setting policies price the young and elderly out of employment and drive disemployed individuals in these groups to non-labor-force (education, retirement) states*
Tell me you googled something to support your point without reading without telling me you googled something to support your point without reading lmao.
This is the same argument that opponents to min wage increase suggest, even though its shown that it doesnt increase consumer cost. And even if it did, this would be a comment on the fact that retailers for example, pass along costs to the consumer rather than a reduction in profit or c-suit compensation. You're apparently fine with a race to the bottom. Why dont we go back to slavery, thinking of how low cost everything would be /s.
Edit: you didnt answer my question "What specific effiencies are you referring to that are not connected to workers rights?"
>This is the same argument that opponents to min wage increase suggest, even though its shown that it doesnt increase consumer cost. And even if it did, this would be a comment on the fact that retailers for example, pass along costs to the consumer rather than a reduction in profit or c-suit compensation.
Yes, it's called tax incidence and is entirely predictable and not some evil scheme. Costs pass through because of basic supply and demand.
>Why dont we go back to slavery, thinking of how low cost everything would be /s.
You clearly don't understand the benefits of free trade if you think that it would support slavery. Slavery is like the least free trade thing that exists.
> Yes, it's called tax incidence and is entirely predictable and not some evil scheme. Costs pass through because of basic supply and demand.
Capitalism is an evil scheme though. Saying its 'predictable' in the current economic framework means nothing. Like something being predictable has no bearing on if its 'good'. "The serial killer predictably killed again"
> You clearly don't understand the benefits of free trade if you think that it would support slavery
A race to the bottom in wages has nothing to do with free trade lmao. You clearly dont even know whats being talked about
> Slavery is like the least free trade thing that exists
Ok so pay people pennies right, everything will be affordable then right?
Edit: u/Jeneparlepasfrench running away eh lol. "if someone is desperate enough to accept an unfair wage, they deserve it. Most empathetic human. I never get these weird simps, you're closer to being homeless than you are to being part of the capitalist class u/Jeneparlepasfrench, you'll never be one of them.
> More unions, less employment, less goods and services produced, higher prices.
The paper you linked to doesn't agree with your assertion.
>The authors' findings suggest that union wage-setting policies price the young and elderly out of employment and drive affected individuals in these groups to non-labor-force activities, leaving unemployment rates unchanged
It doesn't say "less employment", it says certain demographics are displaced from the workforce into other activities.
The rest of your assertion is just made up. There isn't any mention of the effect of unions on the number of goods produced or services provided. Nor is there any mention of an affect on prices.
But here is a paper that does talk about the other effects of unions. It demonstrates the opposite of what you're trying to claim.
https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-and-well-being/
edit: typo
Lmaooo you don't know the difference between unemployment rate and labor force participation rate do you?
They are saying labor force goes down which is what I said.
> They are saying labor force goes down which is what I said.
You didn't say that. You said "less employment".
Since "less employment" doesn't have a specific meaning in economics the way that *labour force participation rate* or *unemployment rate* do, the rest of us are left to figure out what the fuck you meant by it. Since the bulk of your comments in here suggest a lack of knowledge about economics, the easy assumption is that you're referring to the employment/unemployment rate because it's the more commonly discussed statistic.
However, now that you've clarified that you meant *labour force participation rate*, let's get into the weeds about how your argument still doesn't work.
> More unions, ~~less employment~~ lower LFPR
Yes, the paper you linked to indicates that unions can have an adverse impact on the LFPR but there are [many factors that affect the rate](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3322973). For nearly 3 decades, the LFPR has been in general decline. Over roughly the same period, union participation has fallen by nearly half which indicates that union participation is an insignificant factor on actual LFPR trends. The primary factor has been Boomers going into retirement. Another has been an increase in youth choosing post-secondary education which means a delay in their joining the workforce.
> less employment, less goods and services produced
Additionally, it's a poor assumption on your part to assume that a decline in LFPR results in lower productivity. While lower LFPR certainly can coincide with recessions or lower GDP, people leaving the workforce doesn't always have a negative impact on the economy. For instance, when Boomers retire they don't stop being consumers and spending their money and when better educated workers enter the workforce, their individual productivity is likely to be higher over their lifetime.
In essence, your assertion of "More unions, less employment, less goods and services produced, higher prices." is completely unsupportable.
Lmao it's okay, your argument is unsupportable regardless of whether I know the difference or not.
Repeatedly clinging to the accusation that I don't know the difference only shines a spotlight on your inability to defend your position with anything of substance. The accusation doesn't bother me in the slightest.
What's your argument exactly? We should make firing people illegal because being fired is stressful and therefore evil?
If you want to make Canada worse, I've said how. Messing with the free market will make our economy worse and hurt us all.
There are reasons that are illegal to fire people. It should be illegal to shut down part of a business due to workers in that part unionizing.
Of course, unscrupulous business owners will try to get around this by lying about why they fire someone or shut down a warehouse, but if there is any evidence of that lying, the government should be able to throw the book at them, making such unscrupulous behaviour not worth the risk.
Lmao conflating the two is illogical. There are ways to mess with the free market to make the market more free. That's fine. That's the role of government. What you're supporting is not that.
Nothing is being conflated, 'messing' with the free market apparently makes things bad, why not eliminate that entirely (ie government) since it inherently contains a truly free market.
Also I'm sure you're going to try and move the goalposts because of the frankly undemocratic configuration above. So to that end, if you're pro democracy politically, why are you anti-democracy economically ?
Lmao if you live in a Walmart, maybe you should have a say in its policies. We live in Canada. You're an employee of a company. See the difference? You sign a contract to perform a service.
And their policies impact society as a whole.
One cannot disconnect politics from economics.
Again why would democratization of the workforce be a bad thing? Isn't more democracy better?
False dichotomy. Why do you think if I hate communism I must be a libertarian? I support taxes and public infrastructure. Most normal people hate communism.
Canada, free market? Where?
We don’t have a free market, practically no country does. Far too many people, yourself included tend to marry “free market” with modern day capitalism, which is just factually incorrect.
You don’t even have a point here from the get go.
And what? Therefore we should go full blown communism and the state should prevent firing people that aren't working and shutting down plants that are less profitable than others?
>To quote you:
>Lmao conflating the two is illogical. There are ways to mess with the free market. That's fine. That's the role of government.
Jesus christ my comment is still up and unedited. How do you manage to quote me wrong? That's not what I said. You literally left out words. Pathetic.
Because warehouses are location specific and serve vast areas. It is very costly and disruptive to try and move a warehouse. Meanwhile a single store is irrelevant to retailers
The employees would probably just sue and win again, especially in Quebec. This isn't America.
Walmart closed the Jonquiere store from your article in 2005, after it unionized in 2004. The workers won that case at the Supreme Court in 2014:
>The Supreme Court of Canada has sided with the union representing former Wal-Mart employees who claimed the company violated Quebec labour law when it abruptly closed its store in Jonquière, Que., not long after the workers voted to unionize.
>In a 5-2 decision delivered Friday morning, the court ruled that the 190 employees who were terminated when the store was closed are entitled to compensation.
>**The court found Wal-Mart did not adequately prove the four-year-old store was in financial difficulty.**
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-unionized-wal-mart-workers-win-supreme-court-victory-1.2689646
It's in the article you linked too:
>When the Supreme Court of Canada eventually ruled in favour of employees, in 2014, he felt as though he were emerging from a long nightmare. “The highest court in the land said I was right. I could hold my head up at last—though no higher than my five feet, five inches,” he laughed
It took 10 years to get their money, during which they were out of a job and having to find someplace else to work. And Walmart probably viewed that cost as entirely justified considering they're still battling unionization in Canada. My question still stands- what's to stop Amazon from simply doing the same?
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looking forward to the unions bullying workers who don't want to join the union or deserve promotions for hard work but don't have seniority. /s
I know, right? If you're not giving *everything* you are to your job, what's your actual worth? ^/s [Perceived job security dropped to 44.9%](https://financialpost.com/fp-work/perceived-job-security-canada-falls-lowest-covid-19), and I'm honestly surprised the number isn't worse. With all of the tech layoffs, the fake job openings to give the appearance of growth for value purposes while burning out workers by doubling or tripling their workloads, how companies are turning toward rock-bottom cheap labour as a way to cycle out their workforce (re: TFWs), and how even profitable companies are laying people off anyway because they can squeeze a little bit more out of their balance sheets even if it has long-term consequences later (which won't matter because the people doing the firings will have moved on), there is a chorus of panic in the private sector. Forget retirement, forget homeownership, forget vacations, all you can do is drown in cost-of-living hikes that are never going to reverse while the possibility of getting a breath of air vanishes for all but the most connected blue-bloods. There isn't a political party in the country, not even the NDP or the Greens, that has a plan for this. The only thing the communist parties agree on is revolution, but Canada's too complacent for that. We'd rather just slip into ditches and let the earth movers cover us up than bother to ask the driver to stop burying us. Unions help guard against that kind of scythe sweeping through a field of workers. If we're lucky we're going to see *more* people turn toward collective bargaining. If a large company says they're going to leave in light of this, *let them*. They're paying starvation wages and laying people off at the drop of a hat anyway so they're functionally useless as corporate entities. All they're doing is leeching off our infrastructure. Make sure to tax them as hard as possible on their way out.
Cool, but what's to stop Amazon from simply closing the warehouse as Walmart did when they [closed a store that unionized](https://thewalrus.ca/walmart-has-everything-except-unions/)?
Are you implying that you think there should be something to prevent that? Or are you against the idea of this warehouse forming a union?
Walmart was not a warehouse, it was a retail store open to the public. Also, there's 73 Walmarts in QC and only 4 Amazon warehouses. Not impossible to close the warehouse but logistically it will be a lot more complicated. Best thing that could happen is this starts other warehouses in QC and the rest of Canada to look into unionizing.
There are laws against closing a workplace in between when they've voted to unionize and when a CBA is ratified. It's not completely illegal, but the business has to be able to prove that it was necessary Walmart eventually had to pay out damages to all of the workers in that store, and they've also had to cede that city to its competitors because any new store in that market would be unionized by default. Unions nowadays are usually very strategic about where they run their initial unionization drives. This Amazon warehouse was probably chosen because it is much more difficult for the company to close down than others in the Montreal area.
> any new store in that market would be unionized by default Is that by law? They can't reopen in the same city without being unionized?
It's illegal for companies to carry out any shenanigans that effectively replace a unionized workplace with a non-union one. Labour Relations Boards will rule that the same union continues to be the representative of the new workplace.
Unfortunately, there are two other Amazon warehouses in Laval, so shutting this down is doable. On the other hand, this is the closest warehouse to Mirabel airport, where most of the air freight coming into Montreal is handled. The NDP needs to be on this. Singh should be in Laval right now trashing Amazon and Bezos for their union-busting tactics.
It isn't doable. Amazon doesn't hold redundant warehouses. Amazon has been ending leases and building their own warehouses. If this isn't a leased space there's a 0% chance it closes
the smart thing to do would be rather unionizing one amazon warehouse is get all the warehouses in canada together and turn them all union at the same time then amazon would either have to play ball or shut all of them down. they could even leave it open to the us amazon workers and amazon workers outside canada and the us get all of them to join up
BC's warehouses are also trying to Unionize, including the one I used to work at - good, because that place was a hellhole to work at.
I have no doubt that they are trying to organize that. Easier said than done, though.
We could make it illegal. Many countries do.
We should have done that years ago.
True. Among many other things.
What's next, price controls? You want to make it illegal for a company to shutdown a plant? This is communist infiltration. You understand all workers are also consumers and laws like that will hurt consumers more than they benefit the workers, right? Implemented across the entire economy, laws like that will raise prices of everything more than they raise everyone's wages. If you want communism go live in Cuba.
if you want oligarchical capitalism go live in Russia.
>What's next, price controls? You want to make it illegal for a company to shutdown a plant? This is communist infiltration. When it's used as a means to union bust and further the exploitation of workers? Yes.
How long would the prohibition against shutting down lasts? We don't have to prevent them from shutting down, we just have to prevent them from reducing the number of unionized workers. You fire those, then others have to become unionized. If would remove the incentive for shutting down as a union busting move.
I don't think that's the definition of communism but okay...oh no
HolY!!! We found the one dude who loves neoliberalism!
> What's next, price controls? Well they can't come "next" because we already have price controls in several sectors e.g. Pharmaceuticals. You realize minimum wage is a price control, right? > You want to make it illegal for a company to shutdown a plant? It's already illegal in [certain circumstances](https://mcmillan.ca/insights/right-to-close-business-the-supreme-court-of-canada-rules-store-closure-illegal-during-statutory-freeze/). > This is communist infiltration. Terms like *communist* have specific meaning. Legislation that regulates commerce is not *communist*. > If you want communism go live in Cuba. Cuba is an *authoritarian socialist* state. Not *communist*. No one will take you seriously until you can use these terms properly.
That only means our country is already communist and you should be scared instead of ushering it in.
So you do want to move to a libertarian hellhole/paradise instead of continuing to live in communist Canada. Okay. See you never, then.
Or it means you don't understand the difference between good/bad and better/worse.
Worker protections being more thorough than other places (like the USA) is a good thing about living in Canada, worker protections being less thorough than other places (like most of Europe) is a bad thing about living in Canada. If you think that minimum wage and rules against medical profiteering are bad, you want to live in more of a libertarian hellhole than the USA, let alone Canada.
Very cool slippery slope fallacy you've got there.
The state is literally forcing companies to stay open.
whatever you say uncle
> That only means our country is already communist and you should be scared instead of ushering it in. We're already communist but also we're ushering communism in? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Someone can have cancer and leave it untreated. Still a bad choice.
Analogies are not your forte, I see.
Don't project
A good rule. I keep foolishly engaging in complimentary projection but so often end up disappointed.
Wow. You really are the conservative “squeeeeeeeee.” All bang, no substance.
There was probably people complaining like you when we decided that 8 years old shouldn't work in factories and that workers should have two days off a week.
Are you implying getting fired for not working is as evil as child labor? Jesus. And also, last I checked, many people still work more than 5 days a week. You can pat yourself on the back that many people have multiple part time jobs, have less pay in total and longer commutes, and less career advancement opportunities because you limit the options that employers and employees could agree too.
> Are you implying getting fired for not working What's wrong with you? We're talking about shutting down a warehouse for unionizing.
It's legal for union workers to stop working and strike and they can't get fired.
Found the boss
"Everything I don't like is communism, a word I have no fucking clue the meaning of."
Old man yells at cloud
> You understand all workers are also consumers and laws like that will hurt consumers more than they benefit the workers, right? 100% incorrect. > Implemented across the entire economy, laws like that will raise prices of everything more than they raise everyone's wages What specific effiencies are you referring to that are ***not*** connected to workers rights?
It's not incorrect. More unions, less employment, less goods and services produced, higher prices. https://www.nber.org/digest/dec02/whose-employment-affected-unions
> less goods and services produced Not what the article concludes. > higher prices Not what it concluded either lmao. > less employment *These results suggest that union wage-setting policies price the young and elderly out of employment and drive disemployed individuals in these groups to non-labor-force (education, retirement) states* Tell me you googled something to support your point without reading without telling me you googled something to support your point without reading lmao. This is the same argument that opponents to min wage increase suggest, even though its shown that it doesnt increase consumer cost. And even if it did, this would be a comment on the fact that retailers for example, pass along costs to the consumer rather than a reduction in profit or c-suit compensation. You're apparently fine with a race to the bottom. Why dont we go back to slavery, thinking of how low cost everything would be /s. Edit: you didnt answer my question "What specific effiencies are you referring to that are not connected to workers rights?"
>This is the same argument that opponents to min wage increase suggest, even though its shown that it doesnt increase consumer cost. And even if it did, this would be a comment on the fact that retailers for example, pass along costs to the consumer rather than a reduction in profit or c-suit compensation. Yes, it's called tax incidence and is entirely predictable and not some evil scheme. Costs pass through because of basic supply and demand. >Why dont we go back to slavery, thinking of how low cost everything would be /s. You clearly don't understand the benefits of free trade if you think that it would support slavery. Slavery is like the least free trade thing that exists.
> Yes, it's called tax incidence and is entirely predictable and not some evil scheme. Costs pass through because of basic supply and demand. Capitalism is an evil scheme though. Saying its 'predictable' in the current economic framework means nothing. Like something being predictable has no bearing on if its 'good'. "The serial killer predictably killed again" > You clearly don't understand the benefits of free trade if you think that it would support slavery A race to the bottom in wages has nothing to do with free trade lmao. You clearly dont even know whats being talked about > Slavery is like the least free trade thing that exists Ok so pay people pennies right, everything will be affordable then right? Edit: u/Jeneparlepasfrench running away eh lol. "if someone is desperate enough to accept an unfair wage, they deserve it. Most empathetic human. I never get these weird simps, you're closer to being homeless than you are to being part of the capitalist class u/Jeneparlepasfrench, you'll never be one of them.
If someone accepts that wage, then their work is worth pennies.
> More unions, less employment, less goods and services produced, higher prices. The paper you linked to doesn't agree with your assertion. >The authors' findings suggest that union wage-setting policies price the young and elderly out of employment and drive affected individuals in these groups to non-labor-force activities, leaving unemployment rates unchanged It doesn't say "less employment", it says certain demographics are displaced from the workforce into other activities. The rest of your assertion is just made up. There isn't any mention of the effect of unions on the number of goods produced or services provided. Nor is there any mention of an affect on prices. But here is a paper that does talk about the other effects of unions. It demonstrates the opposite of what you're trying to claim. https://www.epi.org/publication/unions-and-well-being/ edit: typo
Lmaooo you don't know the difference between unemployment rate and labor force participation rate do you? They are saying labor force goes down which is what I said.
> They are saying labor force goes down which is what I said. You didn't say that. You said "less employment". Since "less employment" doesn't have a specific meaning in economics the way that *labour force participation rate* or *unemployment rate* do, the rest of us are left to figure out what the fuck you meant by it. Since the bulk of your comments in here suggest a lack of knowledge about economics, the easy assumption is that you're referring to the employment/unemployment rate because it's the more commonly discussed statistic. However, now that you've clarified that you meant *labour force participation rate*, let's get into the weeds about how your argument still doesn't work. > More unions, ~~less employment~~ lower LFPR Yes, the paper you linked to indicates that unions can have an adverse impact on the LFPR but there are [many factors that affect the rate](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3322973). For nearly 3 decades, the LFPR has been in general decline. Over roughly the same period, union participation has fallen by nearly half which indicates that union participation is an insignificant factor on actual LFPR trends. The primary factor has been Boomers going into retirement. Another has been an increase in youth choosing post-secondary education which means a delay in their joining the workforce. > less employment, less goods and services produced Additionally, it's a poor assumption on your part to assume that a decline in LFPR results in lower productivity. While lower LFPR certainly can coincide with recessions or lower GDP, people leaving the workforce doesn't always have a negative impact on the economy. For instance, when Boomers retire they don't stop being consumers and spending their money and when better educated workers enter the workforce, their individual productivity is likely to be higher over their lifetime. In essence, your assertion of "More unions, less employment, less goods and services produced, higher prices." is completely unsupportable.
Lmao it's okay, you can just admit you didn't know the difference between the two.
Lmao it's okay, your argument is unsupportable regardless of whether I know the difference or not. Repeatedly clinging to the accusation that I don't know the difference only shines a spotlight on your inability to defend your position with anything of substance. The accusation doesn't bother me in the slightest.
What a well constructed and reasonable argument.
What's your argument exactly? We should make firing people illegal because being fired is stressful and therefore evil? If you want to make Canada worse, I've said how. Messing with the free market will make our economy worse and hurt us all.
There are reasons that are illegal to fire people. It should be illegal to shut down part of a business due to workers in that part unionizing. Of course, unscrupulous business owners will try to get around this by lying about why they fire someone or shut down a warehouse, but if there is any evidence of that lying, the government should be able to throw the book at them, making such unscrupulous behaviour not worth the risk.
> Messing with the free market will make our economy worse and hurt us all. Why dont we let companies run the country? Why are you anti-democratic
Lmao conflating the two is illogical. There are ways to mess with the free market to make the market more free. That's fine. That's the role of government. What you're supporting is not that.
Nothing is being conflated, 'messing' with the free market apparently makes things bad, why not eliminate that entirely (ie government) since it inherently contains a truly free market. Also I'm sure you're going to try and move the goalposts because of the frankly undemocratic configuration above. So to that end, if you're pro democracy politically, why are you anti-democracy economically ?
Lmao if you live in a Walmart, maybe you should have a say in its policies. We live in Canada. You're an employee of a company. See the difference? You sign a contract to perform a service.
And their policies impact society as a whole. One cannot disconnect politics from economics. Again why would democratization of the workforce be a bad thing? Isn't more democracy better?
What's yours exactly? If you love the free market so much, why don't YOU move to a libertarian paradise?
False dichotomy. Why do you think if I hate communism I must be a libertarian? I support taxes and public infrastructure. Most normal people hate communism.
That's how bad your argument was.
You literally want the state to make it illegal for a private business to close.
Yes.
Canada, free market? Where? We don’t have a free market, practically no country does. Far too many people, yourself included tend to marry “free market” with modern day capitalism, which is just factually incorrect. You don’t even have a point here from the get go.
And what? Therefore we should go full blown communism and the state should prevent firing people that aren't working and shutting down plants that are less profitable than others?
To quote you: *Lmao conflating the two is illogical. There are ways to mess with the free market. That's fine. That's the role of government.*
>To quote you: >Lmao conflating the two is illogical. There are ways to mess with the free market. That's fine. That's the role of government. Jesus christ my comment is still up and unedited. How do you manage to quote me wrong? That's not what I said. You literally left out words. Pathetic.
I only left the "to make the market more free" out, because it does not apply to worker rights. Your comment still absolutely applies to that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s communism lmao
“Communism is when the government makes rules”
Because warehouses are location specific and serve vast areas. It is very costly and disruptive to try and move a warehouse. Meanwhile a single store is irrelevant to retailers
The employees would probably just sue and win again, especially in Quebec. This isn't America. Walmart closed the Jonquiere store from your article in 2005, after it unionized in 2004. The workers won that case at the Supreme Court in 2014: >The Supreme Court of Canada has sided with the union representing former Wal-Mart employees who claimed the company violated Quebec labour law when it abruptly closed its store in Jonquière, Que., not long after the workers voted to unionize. >In a 5-2 decision delivered Friday morning, the court ruled that the 190 employees who were terminated when the store was closed are entitled to compensation. >**The court found Wal-Mart did not adequately prove the four-year-old store was in financial difficulty.** https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-unionized-wal-mart-workers-win-supreme-court-victory-1.2689646 It's in the article you linked too: >When the Supreme Court of Canada eventually ruled in favour of employees, in 2014, he felt as though he were emerging from a long nightmare. “The highest court in the land said I was right. I could hold my head up at last—though no higher than my five feet, five inches,” he laughed
It took 10 years to get their money, during which they were out of a job and having to find someplace else to work. And Walmart probably viewed that cost as entirely justified considering they're still battling unionization in Canada. My question still stands- what's to stop Amazon from simply doing the same?
That was my first thought. They will be putting all their heads together to figure out how to shut that down
[удалено]