Wal-mart lost revenue from that location, and lost the money spent maintaining the building, but it was their choice.

I think there are pros and cons to unionizing, just as there are to employing union members. If Walmart wants to close their entire store, so be it. They lost QUITE a bit in doing that, but at the end of the day it is their prerogative.

I guess that is the Libertarian in me crying out.

First off, I expect when you say ‘managed to unionize’ what really happened was that they managed to get the Canadian or a provincial government (I am unclear about Canadian labor laws) to enfoce a union monopoly.

In that environment, Walmart would be forced to negotiate with the union without having an option of going outside the union for employment, and it makes good sense to simply refuse to negotiate in that environment, even if it means closing the store.

In my opinion, Walmart employees should be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain, but Walmart should not be forced to bargain with them, they can instead offer jobs to non-union people if they are unable to strike a contract with the ‘Walmart union’ that they like.

The Walmart unions negotiating position should be based upon getting enough employees to join in on the union effort, not by getting a government to enforce a monopoly on labor. The difference between the two is signifigant, mostly in that to be effective at the former, you have to take into account the actual labor market in the locality you are working in. If you demand signifigantly more than the labor market does, the employer will be able to undercut your position and fill their employment needs through non-union employment. If on the other hand your demands are reasonable, and in line with what the market will bear, you have a chance to establish a decent union that an employer can do business with.