There are several lessons to be learned from the demise of Sears Canada. Linda McQuaig writes that one of the biggest is that the legal principle of "limited liability" leaves loyal employees in the lurch:
Whatever competitive pressures Sears Canada faced along with other big retailers, its controlling shareholders almost certainly made the company’s demise more likely with their decision to pay out more than $2.7 billion in dividends since 2005 to themselves and other shareholders.
Those dividends went heavily to its largest shareholder, Sears Holding, controlled by [Eddie] Lampert, according to Bloomberg and the Globe and Mail.
Forbes currently estimates Lampert’s wealth at $1.65 billion U.S., and describes the source of his fortune as “Sears, self made.”
Sears Canada might well have survived if some of the $2.7 billion paid out in dividends had been redirected into updating and redesigning its more than 130 stores to attract a new generation of shoppers.
If the company felt unable to compete, it could have, at least, set aside enough money to pay its employees severance and fully fund the company pension plan.
Instead, it left some 12,000 workers without severance and a shortfall of $270 million in its pension fund, leaving 18,000 retirees uncertain about collecting future benefits.
There was a time when employers were held legally responsible for what bankruptcy did to their employees:
Wealthy capitalists used to be personally responsible for unpaid wages when their businesses went under. But capitalists fought hard in the late 19th and early 20th century to win the right to limit their liability.
At first they won only a partial limit, but over the years U.S. and Canadian courts have extended that limit.
The change was fiercely resisted on the grounds that it would leave vulnerable employees in dire situations — like the situations faced today by thousands of Sears ex-workers.
But for decades, government and the legal system has been tilted in favour of capital. Employees supposedly got what trickled down to them. And, over the years, what trickled down slowed down.
It's time to re-balance the interests of labour.
Image: slideplayer.com


