[electromagnetic]

I honestly think most companies keep production out of North America simply because factory workers have a tendency to go Union, and factory workers will always get the backing of other unionised factory workers.

This is like the Walmart Union situation in which the workers don't realise that Walmart makes money because these people are willing to work at minimum wage so walmart can undercut local competition. If walmart starts paying above-market-rate for wages, then it can no longer undercut local competition, meaning a lot of stores will close because they don't have a high enough profit margin, meaning mass lay offs.

IMO unionising isn't worth it if I have a 1 in 5 chance of getting laid off, especially if it means I won't have luck at finding another job.

[Rastafarian]

I honestly think you're simply an awful person.

No, people in 21st century US should not live in misery and fear of losing their job.

Walmart obviously has many other advantages over smaller competition other than the wages. It won't close because of say 20% wages increase.

If a Walmart store closes, local people obviously will continue to buy food. I.e. there will be many new stores open, ex-Walmart employees will be in a good position to take advantage of that, as they know the local customers.

IMO unionizing is the only sensible strategy for any employee, that is easy to replace. Especially for employees of not so ethical corporations like Walmart and Zynda.

[learc83]

I don't think anyone is really talking about 20% wage increases. Unionize Walmart/living wage types are usualy talking somewhere around $15 per hour which would be closer to 100% wage increase. Even if we're talking about moving workers from 8 to 12 thats a 50% increase.

Some back of the envelope math shows that if Walmart gave an across the board 50% raise to every employee it would consume it's entire operating profit.

If they were forced to pay $15 per hour I think they would make a few changes.

1. They would accelerate the deployment of rfid inventory control, vastly reducing the number of stockers, and completely eliminating cashiers--all those employees would now be unemployed.

2. They would squeeze their suppliers even more, and the suppliers would be forced to cut their employees salaries.

[tatsuke95]

Yeah, exactly what we need to remain competitive is a bunch of people with anti-corporate sentiment who can't be laid off or fired. That will turn out great.

You contradict yourself in your statement: "IMO unionizing is the only sensible strategy for any employee, that is easy to replace."

So what about that person who wants to replace that other worker? He doesn't get to have a job, I guess, because there are no openings. Unless you create more by decree. Eventually you're Greece.

As an entrepreneur (and I thought this site was full of them), these kind of laws and regulations hinder what products and services you can bring to market. Costs are too high. So what do I do? I'll either shelf the idea, or figure out how to build a machine that's cheaper than labour. Both result in more unemployment.

[electromagnetic]

> I honestly think you're simply an awful person.

Thanks, I could say something complimentary about you too.

As for the rest, the two other commenter's have illustrated you're naive on the issue.

Unions have been bad for business since labour laws took their place some thirty years ago. Way too many workers here in Canada are union, and it isn't helping the US Steel workers who got themselves out of jobs for a year cause they were stupid enough to strike for a wage hike in a recession.