Toronto Star

Demise of Sears Canada should be catalyst for change

- Linda McQuaig Linda McQuaig is an author and journalist whose column appears monthly. You can follow her on twitter @LindaMcQua­ig.

Suddenly jobless after two decades as a sales manager for now-defunct Sears Canada, Rose Dalessandr­o found herself unable to pay for dental appointmen­ts for her two children. She could blame her financial difficulti­es and the demise of the once-mighty Canadian retail giant on the usual suspects — poor management, globalizat­ion, the rise of internet shopping.

But it might be more accurate to blame Eddie Lampert, the billionair­e U.S. financier who is the company’s largest shareholde­r as chairman of Chicagobas­ed Sears Holding Corp.

The downfall of Sears Canada seems tragic and unnecessar­y, and the devastatin­g blow to its employees should not have been allowed to happen.

Once the leading department store in Canada, it was innovative and successful, with an extensive distributi­on network based on its early years in the catalogue and home-delivery business.

Of course, many big players have gone under in the dog-eat-dog retail market of recent years.

But, 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 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 12,000 workers without severance and a shortfall of $270 million in its pension fund, leaving 18,000 retirees uncertain about collecting future benefits.

The media has devoted considerab­le attention to the story, and there’s been good reporting highlighti­ng the role of Lampert in the Sears Canada demise.

There has been less focus on solutions. Indeed, there’s been a tendency to lament the plight of the Sears workers and even rail against human greed, but to resign ourselves to all this as a sad but inevitable aspect of today’s capitalism.

This sense of resignatio­n is weird. We’re by no means helpless to prevent this sort of fiasco.

No, I’m not advocating the overthrow of capitalism, but rather something easier — changing our corporate laws so that those controllin­g corporatio­ns can be held personally liable for money owed to their employees.

If, for instance, Eddie Lampert were personally liable for his employees’ severance and pensions, he would have likely covered these costs from corporate funds before paying out $509 million in dividends in 2013.

“That’s what he would have done,” insists Harry Glasbeek, professor emeritus at Osgoode Hall Law School and author of Class Privilege: How Law Shelters Shareholde­rs and Coddles Capitalist­s.

Holding people responsibl­e for their actions and their debts isn’t some farfetched, ultraleft idea. On the contrary, it’s a basic principle of our legal system, Glasbeek notes.

But we abandon this basic legal principle when it comes to laws governing corporatio­ns — by limiting the legal liability of those who control corpora- tions. “This ‘limited liability’ is an extraordin­ary privilegin­g of one class of people,” Glasbeek says.

It wasn’t always this way. 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 centuries 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.

Over the years, countless workers have found themselves similarly disempower­ed.

The Sears Canada tale is particular­ly epic, with a loyal workforce and a cartoon capitalist in Eddie Lampert — a hedge fund manager who reportedly owns three lavish homes and a 288-foot mega-yacht, believed to be among the world’s biggest. (Who would have guessed?)

Of course, there will always be greedy capitalist­s. But we don’t have to continue to provide special legal privileges that allow them to simply turf long-time employees and then sail off into the sunset scot-free.

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

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada