I have never crossed a picket line and I can’t think of any circumstances where I would. Not only would I not shop at a store being picketed but if I was a truck driver I would refuse to deliver across a picket line. When I was a phone company technition I refused to cross a picket line to repair a phone line in a fred meyer store the was on strike.
My best friend didn’t have the same luck. He went into an Albertson’s tonight to use the ATM and when he came out, they shouted at him “Thanks for the support, you a**hole”. He told me he wouldn’t have crossed the picket line before, but will do so now.
Unions may have outlived their usefullness, but then again, maybe they have not. What people fail to consider is that many employers improved working conditions simply to circumvent their employees’ need / or desire for a union. True, the employers spent money improving things, but they didn’t have to pay union wages or union benefits. The employees didn’t need a union, because the employer had already improved conditions. But, without the threat of unionization, the employer’s would probably not have made improvements. Personally, I would not cross a picket line unless some really compelling reason made it necessary.
Sure, but on the other hand it’s also unfair that a non-striker will benefit from the advantages gained as a result of the strike. Only the strikers took the risks (for instance the management could from then on have a dim view of them) and lost their wages, but you too will get the raise if they succed. Now, if you agree to refuse to benefit from any advantage gained by the strikers, your moral position would stand. But though I’ve often seen people criticizing strikers or refusing to take part in a strike, I never ever seen someone refusing the higher wages which had been obtained at a cost for them by their striking colleagues they criticized so loudly. And you can be sure that the strikers strongly resent this.
As for crossing a picket line in a nearby business, I would do it only if I was really well informed about the issue at hand and strongly believed that the striker’s demands were illegitimate. IOW, I would essentially never do so, except if I absolutely needed to shop there (like in the above example of the grandmother needing her drugs). My assumption is that the striking workers are the most informed and the most able to state whether a strike is necessary or not, counter-productive or not, and that in all likehood they had good reasons to choose to go on strike. Lacking any good understanding of the sitution, I would always give them the benefit of the doubt.
Hijack : I must say that one of the rare thing I’m proud of concerning my country, as weird as it might seem, is our tradition of (sometimes massive) strikes and (sometimes huge) protests.
And don’t forget that the Los Angeles Sheriffs’ Deputies are now having a sick-out in their demands for higher wages. Hoo boy…
Charles Osgood makes the interesting observation that, while workers used to strike over salary, now it seems like the more important concern is health benefits (as with the case of the supermarket and transit mechanics). Is this another sign that the health care problem has gotten out of control in the US?
Necessary to whom? A strike may be in their best interest but as a customer of the store, I doubt it’s in mine. If the strike succeeds, I would probably have to pay higher grocery bills in order to cover their extravagant benefits and salaries.
If by “damn near the same” you mean “less than half”, you are correct. Or if by “people who bag groceries” you mean “a department manager who happens to be up front when the store is busy”, you might also be correct.
Most sackers are either stock persons or cashiers who aren’t currently busy. The national mean hourly wage for stock persons (SOC 43-5081) is $9.14 and for cashiers (SOC 41-2011), it’s $8.14. The national mean hourly wage for electricians (SOC 47-2111) is $19.27 and for plumbers (SOC 47-2152) is $20.01.
They are having a “fit” because not only are they being asked to start contributing to their own healthcare, but also because the healthcare they would be contributing to is actually less comprehensive than what they are currently receiving.
I’m sure you would, but at least do so with a knowledge of the facts.
I love the strikebreakers, they say it is unfair to be inconvenienced, but look around these boards for a week, two at most, and you will find the latest “Iwas fired/sacked/dismissed” thread either in the pit or MPSIMs.
We get directors awarding themselves huge bonuses and golden goodbyes and yet company profits have fallen, share value has fallen and the shopfloor has to put up with yet another year of less than inflation pay increases whilst being expected to deliver higher productivity.
We get directors awarding themselves huge bonuses when companies are succesful, but do not pass any of that reward to those who contributed.
We get staff poisoned by chemicals, asbestos, crushed by falling loads, sweating their nether regions off, or freezing in damp conditions and contracting arthritis, and the company will deny liability and make the injured party fight every last inch for their owed holiday pay and bonuses having been dismissed for being too frail.
I want my shopping, it is so much more important than being aware of why strikes are taking place.
Why do you imagine companies exploit labour in third world companies, they are not unionised, there is no-one to stand up for their rights, and we end up buying the products of such companies.
Without unions and organised labour, the bad employer will be undercut by the worse.
Right now software support services are being set up in India, Taiwan, Korea, and suddenly all those highly skilled and highly paid workers in the first world are finding they are competing directly against third world labour.
When your employer treats you bad you could walk away, but after your loyalty, just why should you accept an injustice ?
Employers will give as little as they can, and ask for as much as possible.
I can sympathise with those who see public servants as a bad example of unionised labour, having worked most of my life in such places, I see complacent , lazy, exploitive workers who are barely capable and frankly offensive to the public they purport to serve.
Their bad attitude give unions a bad reputation, and what goes around comes around, eventually most people get what they deserve, however these are workers in private industry, where job security can be poor, where holiday benefits can be poor, and often the wages can be poor.
They would not walk out and lose pay if they had any other option.
I’ve been following this dispute and it’s actually much more complicated than it first appears.
As you might expect, it’s actually Walmart’s fault. Walmart’s latest bid to grow its business involves putting “Super Centers” in major metropolitan areas. These Super Centers are combination Walmart/grocery stores. These stores are massive and have a massive selection of goods. A single Super Center requires 25 acres/10 hectares of vacant land to set up.
Walmart has enormous buying leverage which allows it to negotiate extremely low prices on the goods which it chooses to push out. This is, however, only half of their equation for success. They are also non-unionized and, therefore, have much lower labour costs than a unionized chain like Vons. A typical clerk at a Walmart makes near minimum wage. A typical clerk at a Vons in Southern California makes about 15 USD/hr + benefits.
The unions have had several tries at unionizing Walmart, so far, with no success. Walmart is viciously anti-union and will take whatever steps it legally can to prevent unions from getting a foothold.
The big California chains went to the unions and said, “Look, we don’t mind paying up if we’re all on a level playing field, but we’ll be damned if we’re going to let Walmart eat our lunch. Either get Walmart unionized and raise their labour costs or we’re going to have to start lowering ours.”
The unions, as noted above, have had, as yet, no luck with Walmart. They are painted into their own corner in the current dispute. If they give in to the supermarkets, they’re going to have a great deal of trouble convincing Walmart employees that the unions can deliver on their promises. On the other hand, the supermarkets are rightly sceptical regarding the unions’ ability to bring Walmart to heel. They aren’t likely to accept a contract gauranteeing them higher labour costs for the next several years, especially since Walmart is actively demonstrating that you can run a retail grocery operation with non-union employees who get lousy pay and few, if any, benefits.
I was in the UFCW in Detroit. I was hired at almost $8/hr. People who had been there awhile were making much more, just to be checkout clerks, bagboys, shelf-stockers, etc.
Now, that was Detroit, so perhaps we were making much more than they are where you’re at, I really don’t know. But that into whether you support the strike.
As for long-term, there’s a good point there. The UFCW has driven at least one company I know of (from personal experience) into bankruptcy with their demands. Some of their union leadership is really intransigent and refuses to give an inch, even when it means losing the whole kit-n-kaboodle. In that particular case, the company was sold off to other chains, employees ended up in a much worse position under the new management then they’d have been if they’d made a couple concessions.
Maybe it’s better off for the employees in the long run if people cross the line, keep the company going, and maybe the employees will lessen their demands. (Professor Rainsberger, I hope you aren’t on here to read me saying that 
) I don’t think this is going to end well.
(BTW, over in STL, there’s some allegations of fraud in the strike vote, supposedly the union allowed non-members to vote, so if you catch a whiff of that out there think about whether the strike really was the will of the workers.)
It has nothing to do with “fair” or “unfair”. Getting fired sucks but a company is not going to pay someone to sit around if there’s no work to do.
You seem to lump all “shopping” together. I’m not talking about a bunch of silly debutants giggling and laughing theit way through the Ann Taylor counter. I’m talking about essential items like food or clothes. For lower income families, keeping prices low is important and not just a matter of “convenience”.
And prices would go up. A typical supermarket operates on margins of only a few cents on the dollar. In my mind it is far more important for thousands of customers to afford cheap milk and eggs than a few dozen emploies to earn a few more dollars an hour.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m as self centered as the next guy. I want more money, more benefits, a safe work environment AND cheap products. I also understand that the company is not an endless money machine that can simply grant every wish. Crooked executives aside, companies have a lot of expenses and a finite amount of cash.
This is a distinctly American point of view because we grew up in a country where we have come to expect our employer to not only give us a check for performing some task but to provide every conceivable benefit under the sun. People in Third-World countries consider themselves lucky to have these jobs where they are “exploited” with higher salaries than they would receive weaving baskets or working a dirt farm. So it is not up to Western standards yet.
As anyone who is broke can tell you, a crappy job is better than no job at all.
The discussion seems to have veered off a very important train of thought that CurtC, akennett and others mentioned early on; that is the action of market forces. Let us not forget that the stores are also in the market for employees. Just as consumers are shopping for the best selection at the best price when buying produce, the stores are looking for the best employees at the best price when hiring cashiers. And I can tell you from my experience of running a retail store for seven years, that every person who walks through the door and puts on a smock is not of the same caliber.
As an employer you have to compete for good employees while competing with rival retailers for customers. It is one of the most pervasive myths that if employers will pay the lowest amount they can legally get away with. Employers understand, just as consumers do, that you get what you pay for. If you are offering the lowest wages in your market for a particular job, guess what you’re probably going to get the least qualified employees – which in turns means your business doesn’t operate as well and everyone looses.
Don’t strike, get another job, move to a different profession, better educate yourself, start your own business. It is the height of arrogance to say “I’m not getting what I want out of this job so I’m going to make things lousy for everyone around me; boss, coworkers, customers.” We call people like that a**holes where I come from.
quote:
“Employers will give as little as they can, and ask for as much as possible.” - casdave
Ah, so will employees.
Casdave is British.
Oh man, plenty to work with here. Where to start?..
Grocery store patrons and grocery store employees have a lot more interests in common than either of them have with the corporations that own and run grocery stores. It’s incorrect to blame price increases on a successful union strike mainly because there is no unbreakable connection between the two. Price rises occur because the corporation is compelled to keep its profits at a level they find acceptable. If the union loses, the employees will suffer a pay cut, having less money to take home. If the union wins, the corporation may raise prices, but that’s because of their own greed, not the “greed” of the unionized employees. Essentially, then, Von’s need for bigger profits compels the company to set grocery store patrons against the store employees, making it seem like either “we” win or “they” do. Meanwhile the grocery corporation rakes more money in no matter what the outcome.
Profits are gravely threatened, of course, when work stops. Strikes become an endurance contest to see which side can last one day longer than the other. Corporations will use all sorts of tricks to keep things running (like scab labor) and to break the union members’ spirit and willpower. What reinforces that willpower is solidarity - the support of the community and the people who’d ordinarily shop at the grocery store. That doesn’t mean just honking the horn as you drive by, but getting actively involved. For example, customers could walk the line as well, and argue that the demand for a price freeze be included - so that the union members get better pay, and nobody has to start pinching pennies.
Essentially, a strike is a fight between employees and employers, not between employees and customers. Since most customers are employees themselves and not employers, crossing picket lines only widens the rift between people who should be organizing together to fight the real opponent.
That having been said, there are several examples in this very thread of how not to conduct a strike. Calling someone an “asshole” instead of making the case to them as to why they shouldn’t patronize the store even just to use the ATM. Or yawndave’s example of sabotage and violence against scabs. There are non-violent ways of keeping scabs from crossing the line, and sabotaged equipment only makes it that much harder to get back to work once the strike ends. If you didn’t like what union members had to say, though, yawndave, you should have spoken up and spoken loud. There’s no excuse for having stayed silent.
Finally, to Pleonast’s original question - going to a non-union store is not in the union’s long-term interest only if said union doesn’t start trying to organize the workers in the non-union store. If a union leads a successful strike in one store and gets good results for its members, it should use that success as an example to non-union workers of what the union can do for them as well.
First of all a corporation is not just the guys at the top making all the money. Some corporations (Wallmart for example) have tens of thousands of employees. They have thousands of shareholders - not just millionares and institutional investors but regular people with personal investments and retirement funds, all who own a little piece of the company and want (and deserve) to see a return on their investment.
Why is the “greed” of a shareholder any more or less valid than the greed of the employees?
And the union doesn’t do the same thing? “Look how oppressed we are! Look at the big bad faceless corporation with deep pockets that won’t treat us right!”.
No, unions widen the rift between “employee” and “management” by creating an antagonistic environment. Regardless of your position in the company, your fate as employee is tied to that companies success or failure. Disrupting it’s business is essentially cutting off your nose to spite your face. Generally, the most successful companies are the ones where employees feel like they are a part of the organization and not in conflict with it.
Unless you are the owner, there is no legitimate way to prevent someone from gaining access to their workplace.
And take a good hard look at every “scab” who crosses the picket line. There is someone who wants or needs your job a lot more than you do and is willing to work that job for less .
Explain to me why you deserve to keep it? For that matter, why do you deserve to earn more than you’re making now without adding any additional value?
**
But as I’ve pointed out, the real “opponent” here is Walmart. The fact of the matter is that the supermarket employees are not demanding market wages. They’re not even setting market wages. They’re demanding that the three California supermarket chains pay their employess well in excess of market wages as determined by 800 lb. gorrilla Walmart.
I’m starting to think that the supermarkets have the better argument in this dispute. If the unions can’t do their jobs and unionize Walmart, why punish the employers who do have unionized employees? After all, this strike isn’t about some evil corporate cartel setting out to bust a union, it’s about an inneffectual union that can’t get its act together.
The idea that unions create an antagonisitc atmosphere is way too broad a stereotype.
Some unions are providers of employment training, right through to dgree level, unions can assit employers in meeting health and safety legislation, some companies are so small that they use these union resources themselves.
Ultimately it is the responsibility of management to manage, but they cannot be in every place all the time, things happens at all levels within a company that decision makers are not aware of, and some of these things may be mission critical.
Some companies, esepcially in Europe, consult widely with the trade union representatives, and this benefits both parties.
Workers can be motivated with responsisbility, the sense of having a shared vision with management and can induce a feeling of empowerment in workers that their input has some real meaning.
I have seen companies whose wages are not anything near the market leaders in tehir fields, but wages are not everything, staff need to feel valued, Union/management cooperation and consultation and trust can develop this.
I have seen one chemical factory just a few hundred yards from where I live that regularly hires and lays off employees as its sales wax and wane, and yet it is considered a good company to work for, because the folks around here know that when times are good, this company will take the time and trouble to seek out former employees and offer them good work for good wages.
You have to look at what makes a good employer, why are they in the trenches in adverse industrial relations with their staff ?
I have seen employees given something as simple as a new kit lockers and a title change and be happy with their lot, yet i have also seen employers who pay well and be considered to be rubbish.
True, but there’s still the fact that S. Robson Walton, chairman of Wal-Mart, has a personal net worth of $20 billion and has been in the top ten of Forbes’ “World’s Richest People” and “Forbes 400” since 1999. Can the same be said of every last person owning shares in Wal-Mart? Of course not. Let’s look at Enron for another stellar example. What was Ken Lay’s main concern when the company started to tank? Making sure all his employees had their retirement pensions safeguarded or bailing out with as much cash as he could stuff down his shirt? Corporations may not be just the guys at the top making all the money, but they’re run by those guys.
Employees want better wages so they can afford the things they and their families need in life. Employers want larger profits so they can have more money to invest elsewhere. Employers are willing to keep wages and benefits down in order to keep profits up. Raising workers’ wages doesn’t have the same effect on their employer’s life as maintaining the profit margin does on workers’ lives.
OK, what about the Chartist movement in 1840s Britain? How about the fight for an 8-hour day here in the States? Or the Lawrence, MA strike against child labor? There weren’t any union-organized workplaces then; where did the antagonistic environment come from? The antagonism between employers and employees is as old as capitalism itself and owes nothing to the existence of unions.
The economic history of the last century really shows what happens even to the most employee-friendly companies. With how much regard do you think even the most “inclusive” corporations treated their employees after the stock market tanked in 1929? How a company treats those who work for it is completely immaterial; it’s how large the profit margin is.
From the employer’s standpoint, no there isn’t. But “legitimacy” shouldn’t be the employees’ concern when the goal is to underscore the point that without them, no profits can be made.
And hand the bosses exactly what they want on a silver platter - a larger profit margin without having to concern themselves about the well-being of the people they hire. “The scab got critically injured on the job and can’t work anymore? No problem, we’ll hire another guy. And we don’t have to pay any of his hospital bills, either.” I have no sympathy for a person who’d work under those conditions because he’s so desperate for a job when he could walk alongside the people who are putting their own lives on the line to try to ensure he doesn’t have to work under those conditions.
So what exactly are you advocating? There aren’t any nonviolent ways to keep an absolutely determined scab from entering the workplace. Should the employees not be concerned about causing violence when the goal is to underscore the point that without them, no profits can be made?
The scab might not have been able to find a job at all if wages hadn’t been lowered enough to cause the strike. Without a job, the scab will definitely have a difficult time living above poverty - especially if he’s got a family. Who’re you to say that he can’t be the judge of whether the circumstances of accepting employment are favorable or not for him? Could having a wage at all be worth, to him, working under conditions unacceptable to some? Why should he care about giving that he’s giving the employer what he wants when, by taking the job, both the scab and the employer are coming to an agreement that’s mutually beneficial?