Walmart has a reputation for using a variety of legal means to prevent unionization of its stores by frustrating union organizers (Lichtenstein, 2008). Why would it make sense for Walmart to spend more trying to deter unionization at a given store than it would save by preventing unionization at that one store? (Hint: Walmart has thousands of stores in the United States alone and thousands more in other countries. Would the theory of repeated games apply?) Walmart might spend more trying to deter unionization at a given store than it would save by preventing unionization at that one store because this strategy A. makes Walmart a first-mover in a sequential game. B. discourages unionization at other stores. C. reveals Walmart's profit levels so rivals won't enter. D. is Walmart's dominant strategy for that particular store. E. makes unionization profitable at other stores.