Have we established, by an actual source other than “I saw it on some news show”, that retaliation is actually happening? It seems to me that retaliatory demotion or termination would be legally actionable.
Also, the quote from the article is interesting, but it doesn’t say how the union “failed to capitalize” on the public sympathy. My take on the matter was that the stores just had such vast amounts of capital that they could take a multi-billion dollar hit on their profits and still hang tough. I’m curious what it is that the union supposedly could have done in the face of such resolve by management. If cutting into their profits by billions of dollars didn’t persuade management, what would have?
I’m irritated that after honoring the strike for four months, I still don’t know what the strike was about. As rick pointed out, everyone pays something for healthcare. I’m “fully-insured,” but I still end up paying about $4k per year out of pocket. What were the actual costs? (Before the strike, as proposed initially, and final). What does the compensation package look like? The union wanted support, so I went out of my way to honor the strike, paying more (by shopping at Bristol Farms) or standing in endless lines (at Stater Bros), but I kept waiting to see details, and I never saw them.
Other than the actual arguments between management and labor, I’m really teed-off about their tactics. Albertson’s locked out workers, as did another one of the stores (I only paid attention to Albertson’s because that was “my” store.) And the Attorney General is looking into the “share-the-pain” agreement between the three companies, which makes me even angrier than I was over the lockouts.
I’d gravitated to Albertson’s over the years because they had “honest” prices (i.e., no customer loyalty cards). But I’m not going to shop at a store that locks their workers out as their first action.
(Note: To me, “never shopping at XX” again means, “about six to twelve months, excepting emergency coffee and/or TP purchases, until my mad-on wears off.”)
So, now I’m probably going to split my time between Brisol Farms, Trader Joe’s and Ralphs, meaning that the net result for my local Albertson’s is that they lost my business, which will end up hurting their employees.
Yes, I am a “professional” and work for the goddam Government and I don’t get fully paid health care- and i get 0 Dental, so you know the Union here didn’t really have my sympathies.
Never strike when they can replace you easily and you’re getting better than 2/3rds of the dudes out there in your job. Also- they went on strike up here in NoCal- when the stores here aren’t the same (related, yes, I know) AND the workers here have no current problems with their contract. This was a damn silly strike.
I work for a small family owned chain of grocery stores. UCFW has been trying to get us to unionize for years. They’ve kind of let up on us now that WalMart has come into town. I live in a very pro-union area and people are constantly suprised that we aren’t.
Their people make a little bit more money than we do. However, we have a good health care program that we don’t have to pay much on, a great 401k program with profit sharing and a good vacation set up.
I’m not anti-union, my dad is UAW, but these guys are total wankers. The union got their people basically nothing. I can’t wait to see what happens when the Kroger contract comes up.
Benevolent management is nice. The problem for workers is being able to count on “benevolent” management. Your benefits etc are not rights, but rather are something that flow to you from management largesse.
The grocery workers weren’t asking for health care, they were only asking for it not to be taken away. In fact, the way I understood the issue, they had even offered to shoulder part of the burden, but drew the line at management’s insistence that the workers be subject to possible unlimited increases in health care costs in the future.
The fact that you don’t get health care shouldn’t mean that nobody ought to. Do we really want the lowest common denominator to the the standard?
Where are you getting that idea? The public was overwhelmingly on the side of the strikers. The stores lost over a billion dollars in sales from customers who refused to cross the picket lines. There seems to be a LOT of public ignorance of the actual issues. Among the misconceptions I’m seeing:
-The strikers were asking for an increase in health-care coverage to 100%. (totally untrue).
-They didn’t want to strike. (Also untrue - the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the strike and in favor of the settlement.)
-Grocery workers have better jobs than the average American. (That’s ridiculous; they make on average less than 20K, which anyone who lives in L.A. knows isn’t even a living wage.)
-The stores are failing due to competition from WalMart (Profits are extremely strong for the big 3).
I’m going to post the union’s pre-settlement “fact sheet”, and I’d like all you grousers to explain exactly what was false about their claims, especially the parts I have bolded.
I always shopped at Albertson’s due to the lack of savings cards. I preferred not having to worry about having a card handy. Those days are apparently over however. When I walked into the store yesterday, they had a table set up so that you could get their new Albertson’s Saving Card.
Trader Joe’s gets more of my business from now on.
Good. Hopefully, those inroads will discourage pampered princesses, like the grocery store unions, who already have cushions that are softer than most everyone else’s, from demanding cushions that are softer still.
Man, I remember when the strike started. Phil Hendrie was having a field day. One woman that called in (a real woman, not one of his characters) said that she was a checker that pulled in ~$20 per hour (I think she said $25, but whatever). She said that, A: she deserved that wage, and B: the only time she REALLY made what she was worth was when she worked on Holidays and got the triple overtime.
Yeah. Some woman, doing completely uneducated work, believing that she deserves $60/hr for “scanning bananas”, as Phil was fond of saying.
Good riddance to stupid strikes, I say. Crap like this is what hurts Labor, not the government or management.
They have better jobs than the average UN-EDUCATED American. Where else can you pull in 20K a year, on average, with only a High School diploma? Hell, WITHOUT a High School diploma! Since when do you need a degree in physics to put boxes of cereal back on the counter? Or to put a barcode through a scanner?
Not to say that grocery store workers are stupid, but c’mon… they do monkey work. Manual labor with a smile. And you want to compare that to brain surgeons and rocket scientists?
That’s not fair, SPOOFE. They have to, like, tell the difference between an orange and a tangerine at a glance. If they screw up enough they could get fired. Oops, my bad. They work for the Union. They can’t get fired.
I used to work in grocery. Started as a bagger, ended as an Asst. Manager. The money is there. Safeway was a pretty good company to work for as either management or not. I was making almost 35k as a checker at one point. That was at 40 hours a week. I paid no money for my insurance and union dues were pretty cheap. The average given of 20k is skewed I think because of a few facts.
Most Courtesy Clerks (baggers) are in high school. They work between 15-30 hours a week at just above minimum wage. The number of CC’s far outweighs the number of checkers or any other position.
Many of the positions are low paying. Deli workers, bakery helpers… that’s just the way it is.
They’ve been working on cutting butchers (Meat Cutters and Wrappers) one of the highest paid positions in the store. They’ve been succesfull in cutting the total number of hours by quite a bit. If you look around you’ll notice a lot more pre-pack meat in the case. This cuts into the average.
Safeway (and the other 2) have to do what they can to prepare for the future competing against WM, who can sell cheaper and pay their employees less. In Oregon and SW Washington (the Portland Division) they plan to try and break the union next time the contract comes up, at least that’s the talk around the Division Office (obviously I don’t have a cite). They’ll offer something so low that the union will have no choice but to strike…
I’ve saw this thrown around in another thread though -
This is from a Union fact sheet and so obviously, it is biased. I’d love to see a cite that agrees with it (that isn’t from the Union). Wal-Mart is the largest grocery retailer in the US. Untill this year they had zero SuperCenters in California (they have plans to open 40 in 2004). As a dedicated WM hater I’d love to believe that they won’t take more than 1% of the business from the big 3. I’d be deluding myself though, and I think you are too.
I can see both sides of the strike. The employees can’t afford to give up too much but Management has to make some cuts to try and stay competitive. It’s a crappy position, especially for the store managers, most of whom want to give their employees all the money they’re allowed.
Ohh, and SPOOFE
You don’t scan bananas… you have to weigh them and key in the PLU.
Some grocery worker you’d make
UFCW has no political power… at all. All they managed to accomplish with this strike was to waste my union dues, and further degrade the pay for new hires. As such, I will be leaving the union ASAP, and moving to a non-unionized store.
I’d really like to know the salaries of the top union officials…
You obviously didn’t read what I wrote. I asked for you to explain exactly what is false about the claims. Saying that anything from the Union is automatically wrong proves nothing. If it’s wrong, tell us why. I think you are the one with the bias. I’m not here to defend the union; I’m just asking for you people who keep bitching about the strike to back up your invective with some actual facts. Is that too much trouble for you? I notice that nobody seems to be able to do so.
Actually, all we need is ONE cite that disagrees with it, but nobody has come up with one.
40 in California? Do you have any idea how big California is? I wouldn’t even hazard a guess as to how many Ralphs, Vons, and Albertsons there are. I’m asking you to disprove what the union says. You cannot do so by comparing absolute numbers to percentages, and especially not by taking the total number for all of California, when the issue is confined to Southern California.
I don’t think you’ve shown that to be true at all. They are in fact making record profits. If they were having trouble staying competitive, it might be an issue, but they are not. It’s funny that you rail against the union for being biased, yet you take everything the management says at face value. Surely you don’t believe everything they say?
Uh, pretty much anywhere. Seriously, dude - try living in Los Angeles on 20K a year, then get back to us.
Who the fuck said anything about physics degrees?
Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m doing; comparing them to brain surgeons and rocket scientists. :rolleyes: Apparently you think a brain surgeon only makes 20K a year. Not sure which planet you live on.
I guess that’s what I should expect from someone who thinks Phil Hendrie is a real show.
Actually, you asserted the fact so it’s up to you to back it up, but I’ll see what I can do.
It’s tough to say exactly what percentage WM could take. They don’t break down their grocery sales anywhere for us to find. It’s lumped in with their WM stores. This story from USA Today has a blurb of a story that says
OF course, that’s nation wide. I suppose it’s theoretically possible that the nations #1 grocery retailer, with 35% of the market share might only get 1% of the sales in California… possible, but not likely.
Safeway has 536 stores in CA. Safeway had total sales last year (of all stores) of just under 33 Billion dollars. This averages out to just under 19.5 million per store. If we take that average than Safeway had CA sales of 10.43 billion (almost a third of total their sales). Assume that Albertsons and Ralphs have equal sales even though Safeway is the leader in CA. That means total CA sales of 30 billion. 1% of that is 300 million (right?). So if Wal-Mart can manage to generate grocery revenues of just 300 million they would have taken 1%. Since the average WM Superstore generates around 120 million is sales a year and they plan 40 for the next 3 years they would have approximately 4.8 billion in Total sales from WM supercenters (after the three years). According to this (page 9) a supercenter gerts about 33% of their sales from groceries and the pharmacy. 33% of 4.8 billion is 1.54 billion in sales that has to come from somewhere. 1.5 billion is well above (5 times) the given amount WM would have to make to take 1% of the market share.
I was wrong here. It’s not 40 in 2004. It’s 40 by 2007, so that would definitely slow down their growth a little bit.
Look, I’m not bitching about the strike. I’m way the hell up in Oregon and don’t shop at any of those stores. I use a local Thriftway which, to tell you the truth, I don’t know if it’s union or not. Their prices are a bit higher but the meat can’t be beat and the produce is all local when possible.
All I’m saying is that the Union saying WM won’t get more than 1% of the share is absolutely rediculous. How can they not be afraid when the largest company in the world, and the largest grocer in the US moves into an as yet untapped region. 15 Years ago WM wasn’t really in the grocery business and now they rule it.
The real problem is that the cost of health insurance is going up. This may be where the grocers are justified in being wary of inroads by Wal-Mart and other non-union stores. If a Wal-Mart employee wants health care, they have to pay through the nose. 25% isn’t unheard-of. Some get coverage through a relative, others simply go without. The grocers know this and it scares them.
I think they just want to maintain their high profits; they’re exaggerating the threat. Obviously, in a strike situation, labor and management are going to take opposite stances. You want to take a certain stance that leaves room for negotiation. So management is going to say that they are in grave danger of going out of business due to competition from WalMart, and the union is going to say that there is no danger. I don’t blame the public, because they saw through the management’s obvious exaggerations, and were overwhelmingly on the side of the strikers. The ones I am blaming are the grousers who are bitching about how great the workers have it, bitching about how people without college educations are stupid and don’t deserve to make a living wage or have health insurance, and taking the management’s exaggerated claims of impending doom at face value without questioning whether it was simply a negotiating tactic.
Uh, actually, I did back it up. If you disagree with the cite, then you need a cite to contradict it. It is insufficient to say “It’s from the union therefore it is a lie”. I would be perfectly happy to see a valid cite that proves the “impending doom” argument, but you don’t just get to say, “I’m right - prove me wrong.”
Listen, are you aware that WalMart doesn’t sell groceries in the Los Angeles area right now? Comparing other places in the U.S. where they do sell groceries to supposed future sales in Los Angeles is disingenous at best. They sell a lot of rice in China, too. It’s not really the point.
You’re gonna go with that, huh? I’ve never seen so many assumptions piled on top of one another before. I don’t even know where to start. The most glaring error is that the union fact sheet says 1% of the CALIFORNIA MARKET, not 1% of Safeway times 3, or whatever your nonsense calculation is. You do realize there are more than 3 companies, right?
It may very well be wrong, but you sure haven’t proven it.
I just don’t see the fear of something that may happen in the future to be sufficient justification for gutting health benefits all of a sudden. The “big 3” are doing fine; how do you justify screwing over the employees because of some “what if” scenario. So WalMart doesn’t give health benefits, does that mean all other stores should have to go with the lowest common denominator? I understand that the big 3 want to do it in order to maximize their profits for the shareholders, but if they’re going to do that, why weren’t the workers justified in striking?
