100%(6)6 out of 6 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 27 - 29 out of 37 pages.
stakeholders love IKEA, people want to work there, people want IKEA to come to their communities, ie stakeholders hate Walmart. Because Walmart closed down a unionized store for being “unprofitable” other stores ma not want unionization for fear of unemployment.•Caterpillar discovered that they couldn’t keep operating in Ontario plant because of the high wages. They also discovered in Indiana, the wages were significantly lower. They told the employees unless they take a huge wage cut, they’ll move to Indiana. Caterpillarended up moving to Indiana (those workers are out of jobs). Ironically, they had been unionized, ha they not been unionized, hey would have been entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal. Instead they were eligible only for a portion of the amounts in the Employment Standards Act. A wage cut would make it more difficult to attract new members and current members would question the need for a union.•Improving collaboration with workers and controlling labour costs can improve operations and remain competitive in an intense global competition27
•Even if workers and management were the same (plant owned by workers), don’t the workers need some proof about conditions getting better? Ie. Ensuring the “short term pain, long term gain” mantra will actually come true?•Based a reading of these articles, what role do unions play vis a vis Canadian businesses?•How does Canadian law structure or facilitate unionization through what laws?•What are the fact situations underlying the Walmart Canada, Magna and Caterpillar articles? •In what way have or could courts respond?•How do Wal-Mart’s, Magna’s and Caterpillar’s actions relate to CSR?•What role do or could unions play with respect to CSR by Canadian firms?