Always Low Wages. Always.

Saying Wal-Mart is antiunion is slightly less shocking than calling Tom DeLay unethical, or noting that I have an elbow*. Nothing could be better known. But I think most are confused, like I was for a long time, over how Wal-Mart can actually stop the unions. So one day, I called up an organizer buddy of mine and asked. The answer was so simple that it barely qualified as an answer at all. If workers unionize, or threaten to unionize, or feint at unionizing, or think about unionizing, or see a union hall on their way to work one day, Wal-Mart shuts down the store.

Oh.

Nevertheless. it seemed a bit odd to me. Pretty drastic measure, knocking down a whole store because they formed a union, can they really do that? Indeedy-do, they can and they have. In fact, they just did it in Canada. The workers in Jonquiere, Quebec, signed the cards creating a union and, immediately thereafter, everyone lost their jobs and the town lost its Wal-Mart. Now the city's got deep divisions between those who wanted the union and those who blame the union-wanters for destroying their jobs, Quebec's other Wal-Marts -- which are a focal point for the union movement there -- are rejecting the organizers because some job is better than no job, and every Wal-Mart manager can, if their employees try to organize, sit them down in a coercive meeting and go through the sad case of Jonquiere, Quebec, where the union would have just been too expensive and Wal-Mart simply had to close the store.

And they don't want that, do they?

That's the beauty of the Wal-Mart strategy. They don't have to stop employees from organizing. Make an example out of a few stores and employees will vote down the unions on their own, which gives Wal-Mart more ammo to paint future organizers as unwanted, alien influences disrupting the loving societies that are their stores. Well-played, Walton, well-played. And following Charles Morris's strategy (which Nathan Newman likes) of simply organizing individual sets of workers (meaning you could unionize 30% of a Wal-Mart and the store would have to bargain with them, you don't need a majority of the workforce) seems to play into their hands. Then they can just fire individual employees entering the union** and make an even clearer example of what befalls those who want a pay raise.

After all, it's much easier to fire an employee than close a store, and I have a feeling no manager will forget to mention that to workers sporting that starry-gaze that comes only from a vision of labor standards. Further, why should Wal-Mart negotiate with a 30% union? Why not ignore all their demands and let them quit? It's not as if Wal-mart enters many tight labor markets or requires a specific skill set. Turnover is life for them, and so is foiling unions -- seems like Morris's strategy would just let Wal-mart indulge its hobbies.

* Actually, I have two elbows!
** Technically, they can't do that. They'll get fined. And if you want to know why that doesn't matter, read this.