California Union A Grocery Store Clerk Strike: - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

TinniT · 10-15-2003, 10:21 PM

So they have to pay a copayment now... 20 dollars total..

they have to pay roughly 1,000 dollars for extreme hospitalization (total).

They have to pay more for prescriptions drugs whether preferred or generic scripts.

Some of my favored acquaintences are those on strike. But I just don't agree.

Could anyone on Union A explain your side better for me? the news just isn't cutting it.

lt1s10 · 10-16-2003, 04:23 AM

I was a part of this same union before in another state. We almost went out on strike once while I was on that job.

From my view as an employee and union member it seemed as if they were asking a alot when negotiations broke down and we were threatening to strike.

What the union was telling us in that situation was that sales were up, customers were happy, and gross income was up. Therefore we deserved both raises and increases in benefits. And the union leadership wanted more then the store/corporation was willing to offer.

I got as much information as I could from both sides and what I saw was the union was telling the truth to a point. Sales, income, and customers were all good. But at the same time the fixed costs had increased. Rent, utilities, raw/wholesale products, etc were also up. So it seemed like a wash to me. Numbers were up but no one was in any better a position.

They conceded raises which I thought was fair but the sticking point that remained was benefits. I was willing to contribute for my medical and dental benefits etc. For what I'd pay for the package to me it was well worth it. I've always looked at it as I earn my wages. And then benefits are just that benefits. Things an employer adds on to retain, motivate, further compensate their employees. I've taken the value of benefits and added them to my salary to find out my total compensation and decide about jobs before. I've even taken lower paying jobs because of the benefits which made it worth more to me.

But others thought that it was their due just because of time on the job and senority. If they could make it performance based I thought that would be even better but reviews meant nothing. No matter how good or bad it didn't affect your pay scale or position. I've never agreed with that position.

I've got benefits and it's always something that I consider when selecting a job. I know many people who have little or no benefits or contribute more to get those benefits. If they are so unhappy with their jobs why not move on to something else. Someone else will probably be more then happy with those benefits.

I view both unions and corporations as both 800 pound gorillas fighting it out. I don't see it anymore as the little guy vs. the big company. They both are trying to screw each other more. I wish there was a way to change the way things are but it doesn't look like it will ever change.

Sorry about the long post that doesn't really address your topic directly. I just felt I had to get this out there.

splck · 10-16-2003, 05:59 AM

I worked in a union shop sixteen years ago and don't miss it a bit. Bunch of lazy fucks that whine about everything under the sun. The hard working newbies were told to 'slow down, you're making the rest of us look bad'. I guess I just never understood the union mentality.
I've been a self-employed contractor all these years and I abosolutly love it.
I know this post doesn't address your issue, but I feel better

LewisCouch · 10-16-2003, 07:26 AM

Consumers vote with their dollars. Being encouraged by striking union members to shop at non-union stores and avoiding confrontation, consumers may continue to shop at those stores, possibly on a permanent basis. Non union stores most likely are offering incentives to consumers as well. I see layoffs looming in the near future.

Halx · 10-16-2003, 09:14 AM

I talked with one of the people on strike yesterday and they basically said that their health coverage was being cut in half and that it was being made harder for new hires to get benefits. They want to work right now, but they are being locked out, and that means if this goes on for any longer, a lot of people are going to have to find new jobs.

TinniT · 10-16-2003, 09:58 AM

Halx, you seem to point out what an acquaintance of mine who is on strike told me. That they would only be covered 50% for hospitalization. Thats insane!

When I went to www.saveourhealthcare.org I coudln't see anything that showed that. However, I did see that there would be increased yearly spending that would be equal to my own.

Its all very confusing for me. Not that I don't understand any of the facts, why people are striking, or why they're decreasing the value of benefits, but because I don't even know any of the worker's there names, but I know them by face and they know me. The entire Midnight/graveyard crew all recognize me, and all know me because of how few people come in at that time of night.

When I was about to walk into the grocery store, the first thing I noticed was the cashier whose line I always go to who looked up at me and said, "do us a favor brother"... I couldn't shop there knowing the guilt of harming the friendship in kindly acquaintance.

::shrug::

Its difficult.

punx1325 · 10-16-2003, 10:10 AM

I worked at a union grocery store around 3 or 4 years ago. I have to admit, it was the easiest job in the world. The people don't really need awesome benefits, but the job pays really shitty, so it has to even out somewhere. Most of these cashiers support their families with their healthcare. It doesn't really matter for the companies anyways, the customer pays for benefits through the food. If you shop at the expensive grocery stores, you are paying that little extra for better customer support.

Peryn · 10-16-2003, 12:09 PM

Well, first off i find it VERY hard to feel sympathy for someone who gets paid entirely too much.$17.50 / hour for an experienced cashier. That is plain and simply excessive. Name another unskilled entry level trade that requires no skill, education or training really and pays that much. First bussiness that comes to mind when i think of entry level and no knowledge/skill required is McDonalds or other fast food. They pay minumum, (somewhere around 6.75-7.00 per hour). Good places that work really hard ALL the time such as In N Out, get payed upwards of $10.00 per hour, and get some minimal benefits. They work 100% harder than a checker any day. That checker is getting payed a few dollars less and hour than , for instance, an RN (nurse) whos been working for 20 years. That nurse holds people lives in her hands, deals with the risks of HIV everyday, and requires extensive schooling, and skill. Is her time, risk, and benefit to society really worth only $5 or so an hour more than the skillset of a checker (basically no skillset to speak of)? Also i hear from people working their during the strike, that the strikers are making $300/week just for striking. Frankly, thats almost as much as they should be making for doing their work.

Also, i get very annoyed by their mindset. I was in line at a grocery store a week or so ago, right before the strike. The checker was talking to a customer in fron of me, and rather loudly asked why anyone would take her job if she striked, and commented on how bad/mean/rude of a person they must be. I found this really made me angry. They are not happy with an entry level position paying twice the market value, so they strike. But they also seem to think that I, the consumer, should stay away from teh store and sacrifice my time, money, and need for food for them. They are asking that i should pay the price because they are not happy. And that if i wanted to take their job, that *I* should sacrifice my family's need, and my ability to make money so that they will have a bargaining advantage. I find it absolutely selfish and rediculous that they EXPECT(!!!) others to pay the price for them because they aren't happy. Arg, it makes me so friggin pissed that other people can be that self-centered.

Again, if they think that they are being treated so unfairly, they could quit their job. But why dont they? Because with their skillset there isn't a job in the world that would hire them for anywhere near the benefits and income they are making now.

Now, most of the people at our local VONS know my family by name, because we are in their so often. A lot of them also dont agree with the strike, but the union requires it else they get fined very heavily. So out of respect for those few, i dont go to that vons. Instead, i head down the road another minute or two to teh Albertsons. I shop their for now, thisway i can protest the strike and voice my objection without hurting those people at my local store (at least not directly).

i also think that unions these days are to the point where they are bullying the parent companies. They are no longer protecting the workers and making fair working conditions a must like they used to. I find that i believe they are abusing the power of striking, and most people dont realise, that they are taking a risk when tehy walk out of their job. You are gambling that you are more valuable to teh company than the replacements they can get hired at a lower cost to the company. you are hoping you cost them more money than they save by not paying you. I think the workers and the unions need to realize this. I think they need to be on strike several weeks and have the union realise that maybe striking isn't the only way to get things done, and that they might not be treated as badly as they think. They need for employees to figure out they are taking a risk, and that to begin to vote against a strike, reserving that action for the most dire of circumstances.

Anyway, thats just my rant. And as i told the striker that asked me why i was shopping their "I'm not going to starve because you dont like your job."

hilbert25 · 10-16-2003, 06:39 PM

Having spoken to one of the more vocal of the picketers outside my Von's, I am fully convinced that this strike is completely stupid. Upon being asked "why are you striking" he came up with an answer like "the CEO makes millions, and profits are up over the last few years, we deserve more."

This kinda threw me for a loop that he didn't mention healthcare, benefits, etc...

Then I asked, "well what do you expect to do about Walmart moving in?" (the cause for Von's to lower costs) He replied something along the lines of "well I hope people go there to send Von's a message."

I almost smacked him. Driving customers away to a company that has far less costs and pays it's employees close to half what your store pays with less benefits is a really bad idea when trying to prevent your company from cutting costs.

If San Diego becomes unprofitable, and Von's can't compete with Walmart, it will close some stores, the stockholders will lose some money. The workers on the other hand, will lose a great job, with great benefits and be forced to compete with countless other interchangeable people for jobs at Walmart, Costco, etc.

Halx · 10-16-2003, 11:11 PM

Peryn...

those pay rates are for scabs

actual employees run from 6 to 15 bucks depending on YEARS of seniority

poot · 10-17-2003, 12:25 AM

My two best friends have been working at Vons for almost two years now, and I can offer you a bit of their perspective.

Having been there for a while, they've worked up to a pretty decent position, working at the in-store Deli for about $9 an hour. Their general position on the strike? "We just want what we've been having."

They agree that the strike is a bit extreme, and is most likely just a collision of two very stubborn forces. The union, however, was not trying to ask for higher pay or whatnot because of increased profits; they just wanted the same contract as before. Corporate is trying to get workers to pay more for medical because of the lower economy, etc, as well as increase work hours and lower pay for new hires.

On a side note, anyone hear about Ralph's trying to sidestep the union truck driver issue by shipping milk to their stores in U-Hauls? UNREFRIGERATED U-HAULS. Shudder.

vermin · 10-17-2003, 04:48 AM

Quote:

those pay rates are for scabs

So where does one go to apply for a lucrative career as a scab? That's what I was making two jobs ago as an electrical designer (Associate degree) with 10 years experience.

Dano069 · 10-17-2003, 05:19 AM

Von's is owned by Safeway. Dominick's, in the Chicago area, is also owned by Safeway. They tried this crap in Chicago but, Jewel employees had already signed their contract so, no lockout. Isn't it collusion when different employers band together to set prices, work environment, and pay scale?

Here's a link to a Safeway employees site. Check it out if you have the time.

http://www.slaveway.org/page518566.htm

mvassek · 10-18-2003, 08:10 PM

All the members of the Union want is a living wage with affordable health care. Do not try to demonize these workers by bickering about how much they earn. 70,000 of them are fighting for the right to live and work with dignity. Anyone who works for a living deserves a living wage and health care.
The profits of these stores have tripled in the last 2 years, while the wages and benefits of the workers have remained stagnant.
Please support these workers. They are only trying to provide a decent life for their families.

Fire · 10-20-2003, 03:19 AM

The older i get, the more i believe that we are just bricks in a huge wall- the union is selfish, the corps are selfish- and on a good day you might just be able to trust yourself....

KeyserSoze · 10-20-2003, 06:30 AM

What I noticed at the two Ralphs I shop at is that I have only seen one person that I recognize that worked there. I have shopped at these two same stores for over 9 years and only see one striker I recognize........Hmmmmmm....who are these other people??

Yep...........I crossed it.

I'm not going to go out of my way to support ANYONE........I mean ANYONE who is not grateful for what they have at this time in our economy with so many people out of work.

I would like to see a Union for once to cut their dues to help offset the other costs the employess will have to pay...........yea right........that will never happen.

You hear so many different stories on how much they will have to pay for their health care you don't know who to believe anymore.

Sorry but with all the people that have no health care or let alone no job at all for anyone to strike is just plain bullshit because the stores will just replace them and say FUCK YOU and your Union.....and this is what I see happening especially since there are no negotiations going on.

Oh....and to the MTA strikers who's lazy fat asses drive a bus all day and make double and triple what a cashier makes.......you fucks are WORTHLESS and I hope all of you get replaced, lose your car and have to wait in line for a bus that has it's passengers packed in like sardines.

Tabasco · 10-20-2003, 03:38 PM

Here's a link that spells out the Workers/Unions position in black and white. If you think the Workers position is unreasonable, you must not work for a living:

http://www.unionworker.org/files/ufcw.pdf

Tabasco · 10-20-2003, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KeyserSoze
What I noticed at the two Ralphs I shop at is that I have only seen one person that I recognize that worked there. I have shopped at these two same stores for over 9 years and only see one striker I recognize........Hmmmmmm....who are these other people??

Yep...........I crossed it.

I'm not going to go out of my way to support ANYONE........I mean ANYONE who is not grateful for what they have at this time in our economy with so many people out of work.

I would like to see a Union for once to cut their dues to help offset the other costs the employess will have to pay...........yea right........that will never happen.

You hear so many different stories on how much they will have to pay for their health care you don't know who to believe anymore.

Sorry but with all the people that have no health care or let alone no job at all for anyone to strike is just plain bullshit because the stores will just replace them and say FUCK YOU and your Union.....and this is what I see happening especially since there are no negotiations going on.

Oh....and to the MTA strikers who's lazy fat asses drive a bus all day and make double and triple what a cashier makes.......you fucks are WORTHLESS and I hope all of you get replaced, lose your car and have to wait in line for a bus that has it's passengers packed in like sardines.

You obviously don't understand Unions or Workers. They are ONE. To read what you just said, it looks like there are three groups involved here. The Employer, Employee and the Union.

There are only two groups involved here. The Employer and the Employee.

mvassek · 10-20-2003, 05:47 PM

http://www.solbaram.org/articles/whoexp.html

Democratically elected governments
Would have had to allow multinationals access to the country.

Would have been prevented from discriminating against foreign firms, would not be able to refuse any form of investment in any sector apart from defence.

Would have been prevented from reducing or controlling a multinationals profits, say by minimum-wage or anti-pollution legislation, or by legislation to ensure local employment.

Multinationals would have the right to

Sue national governments for any profits lost through laws which discriminated against the multinational, and which harmed a multinational's interests.

Sue national governments in an international court which would have been closed to public scrutiny.

We saw that multinationals can legally avoid paying corporation tax by transfer pricing {5} and that unitary taxation {3, 5} can overcome this tax avoidance by assessing the actual profits being generated by a multinational in a particular country. Multinationals could, under MAI, have refused to be taxed by a system of unitary taxation.

PROFIT MAXIMISING
In practice directors are generally required by owner-serving laws to act first and foremost in the interests of the owners, so that it is profit which is maximised. Short-term and long-term profits can be and are being maximised. {1}

When profit becomes an overriding or sole objective to owners, directors or managers, they concentrate on maximising profits regardless of cost to others. Profits are then maximised regardless of the cost and consequences to the community, limited only by the likelihood of unpleasant consequences such as restraining fines, punitive legal punishment or adverse publicity. {1, 2}

One of the requirements for the free-market economic system to work, is that profit margins and prices need to be controlled effectively so as to protect the community from exploitation. But they are not. {2}

To owners and employers the worth of a job is what has to be paid to get it done. They want work to be done at the lowest rate at which they can get it done as profits can be increased by reducing labour costs, by exploiting employees.

Owners and employers use inflation as an excuse for reducing real wages and salaries of the working population so as to increase profits. Employees are then not compensated for increased skill, experience and responsibility, do not receive their share of the increasing national income and wealth. UK pensions have now to be increased by 34 percent just to reach the level at which they should be now. And pensioners still have to be compensated for the moneys withheld from them without good reason by the government since 1980. This attack on the living standards of the working population is misleadingly called a 'fight (or battle) against inflation' to persuade the working population to tighten its belts, to reduce its standard of living, so as to increase profits. {1}

TOP-LEVEL LEADERSHIP TAKING OVER DECISION-TAKING FROM THE POPULATION

Participative Organisation: The Meaning of 'Democracy' <2>

Participative (democratic) organisation {4} rests on the population electing representatives, on the basis of each person having one vote. Representatives are responsible to, and accountable to, the population for putting into effect policies decided by the population.

What underlies participative organisation (democracy) is decision-taking by the people at the level of the people.

And representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to reduce or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population.

What needs to be stressed is that in a participative (democratic) organisation policies are decided by a well-informed population at the level of the population and that policies then become binding on management or government. <3>

In an authoritarian organisation the policy decisions are taken at the top or near the top by the hierarchy (establishment) and are binding on the organisation's members. Decision-taking at the top is sometimes referred to as 'deciding centrally'. Authoritarian organisation is the opposite of democracy and underlies dictatorship.

And what we see is conflict between authoritarian minds wishing to dominate, control and exploit on the one hand and, on the other hand, citizens wishing to maintain and improve the standard of living and quality of life for the population as a whole by democratic (grassroots level) decision-taking.

So the real struggle is not between political left and right, but is a struggle for participation (the right to take decisions).

Decision-taking and Policy-setting within Political Party and by Government
We are looking at recent and ongoing events {4} and it is difficult to separate facts from opinions. However, an overall pattern emerges which appears to reinforce and strengthen what is said here about top-level leadership attempting to take over decision-taking from the grassroots population, about the consequent struggle in all organisations and at all levels.

The UKs Labour party's annual conference took binding decisions on policy proposals brought up by grassroots membership. They decided policy which the executive had to follow and put into effect.

Under a new party leadership some fundamental changes were introduced and by 1998 the party's annual conference had ceased to decide policies, had ceased to decide what had to be done. Instead of deciding mandatory policies based on direct policy proposals from local branches, the annual conference became a talking-shop, discussing and expressing views on subjects selected and approved by the leadership.

In September 1998 an opinion poll reported that the majority of people felt that the leader of the Labour government was closer to big business than to ordinary people.

So owners and employers will, when they can, pressurise the working population into accepting even lower rates of pay by increasing the working population's needs. Doing so by advocating greater unemployment, reducing social security, reducing national health service provisions, weakening the quality of education (knowledge, clear thinking, understanding, objective evaluation). {1}

And, as said already, moneys saved by government by spending less on social security for those in need and moneys gained by collecting more tax from the working population, are apparently being used by owner-serving governments to reduce the taxes collected from the rich and from companies. {3}

http://iresist.com/cbg/bankruptcy.html

"...The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)

"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn?t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country."

santafe5000 · 10-20-2003, 05:56 PM

If the srtike is over loss of Medical benefit's, then I would understand it. If it is just a rise in co-pay, then join the crowd.

Hot-About-It · 10-20-2003, 06:32 PM

It is about more than just rising healthcare costs. It's about fighting slavery, resisting exploitation and standing firm in our belief in the America we once knew. The country to which we were born in. The one that our parents believed in, to be the best in the world. It's about making this thing work for the common good of all citizens of the United States of America. If you think it's about selfish concerns of union members, not only are you wrong, but your missing the whole point of our cause. That being the cause of "Justice".

[QUOTE "The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System."[/QUOTE]

Most of the corporations that own these food chains are foreign based (multinational), and pay very little, if any, corporate taxes. What that means is all taxpaying workers, both union and non-union are burden to paying the taxes they don't. Inflation is their tool, and they use it to beat us back when we get too close to the truth.

We are in a battle for the very existence of community as we know it, and you can either help or hinder, the choice is yours.

lt1s10 · 10-21-2003, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot-About-It
[B]It is about more than just rising healthcare costs. It's about fighting slavery, resisting exploitation and standing firm in our belief in the America we once knew. The country to which we were born in. The one that our parents believed in, to be the best in the world. It's about making this thing work for the common good of all citizens of the United States of America. If you think it's about selfish concerns of union members, not only are you wrong, but your missing the whole point of our cause. That being the cause of "Justice".

It is about more then healthcare costs. If it's fighting slavery and exploitation then how about moving on. I knew working for a company with the UFCW union wasn't for me. It may be for others. What I wanted from life I knew I wouldn't find there. I felt exploited by the union and maybe not enslaved but definitely confined. I was fine with the way management conducted themselves and company policies (I know that both of these were part of union input).

People with seniority were promoted solely on that single criteria. Performance and merit played no part in anything. There were minimum time frames before you could be considered for promotions or even lateral moves within the company. Even if you were chronically late or showed poor performance there wasn't much that could be done. On numerous occasions they simply waited it out. And hoped that eventually that person would leave or quit.

The America that my parents believe to be the best in world may or may not still exist. I think the American dream still does exist. One person working hard can obtain their dreams. I know it's what drove me then and still drives me now. To do the things that make me happy. To help those people I'm around as much as I can because they help me.

No matter what side you believe or if you don't believe any side America is a very different place today then 50 years ago. Then even 3 years ago. Change is inevitable. Some changes are good some are bad. You must adapt and continue. There are always other options.

If the union obtains some or all of their demands I don't think that is working towards the common good. Neither would it be so if the corporations obtained all of their demands/concessions from the union. What if the union obtains all they want. Then that corporation is at a disadvantage in that market. If that continues then there will be store closings or layoff in the worst case scenario. Where then do those employees go? Probably to a non-union store. Then the union and their employees lose. The corporation also loses because they were in a losing scenario while they continued to operate that store at a loss.

I don't have a solution. But I do think what's happening now is not a solution either. I'm not attacking you (Hot-About-It) or anyone. It's just that while passion is good it can also blind and I think all parties should step back forget the rhetoric and consider working together not trying to screw the other side.

Tabasco · 10-21-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lt1s10
It is about more then healthcare costs. If it's fighting slavery and exploitation then how about moving on. I knew working for a company with the UFCW union wasn't for me. It may be for others. What I wanted from life I knew I wouldn't find there. I felt exploited by the union and maybe not enslaved but definitely confined. I was fine with the way management conducted themselves and company policies (I know that both of these were part of union input).

People with seniority were promoted solely on that single criteria. Performance and merit played no part in anything. There were minimum time frames before you could be considered for promotions or even lateral moves within the company. Even if you were chronically late or showed poor performance there wasn't much that could be done. On numerous occasions they simply waited it out. And hoped that eventually that person would leave or quit.

The America that my parents believe to be the best in world may or may not still exist. I think the American dream still does exist. One person working hard can obtain their dreams. I know it's what drove me then and still drives me now. To do the things that make me happy. To help those people I'm around as much as I can because they help me.

No matter what side you believe or if you don't believe any side America is a very different place today then 50 years ago. Then even 3 years ago. Change is inevitable. Some changes are good some are bad. You must adapt and continue. There are always other options.

If the union obtains some or all of their demands I don't think that is working towards the common good. Neither would it be so if the corporations obtained all of their demands/concessions from the union. What if the union obtains all they want. Then that corporation is at a disadvantage in that market. If that continues then there will be store closings or layoff in the worst case scenario. Where then do those employees go? Probably to a non-union store. Then the union and their employees lose. The corporation also loses because they were in a losing scenario while they continued to operate that store at a loss.

I don't have a solution. But I do think what's happening now is not a solution either. I'm not attacking you (Hot-About-It) or anyone. It's just that while passion is good it can also blind and I think all parties should step back forget the rhetoric and consider working together not trying to screw the other side.

So what you are saying is:

An Employee should do what their Employer ask? They know best?

Ignorance is bliss?

10-15-2003, 10:21 PM	#1 (permalink)
TinniT Crazy	California Union A Grocery Store Clerk Strike: So they have to pay a copayment now... 20 dollars total.. they have to pay roughly 1,000 dollars for extreme hospitalization (total). They have to pay more for prescriptions drugs whether preferred or generic scripts. Some of my favored acquaintences are those on strike. But I just don't agree. Could anyone on Union A explain your side better for me? the news just isn't cutting it.

10-16-2003, 05:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
splck it's jam Location: Lowerainland BC	I worked in a union shop sixteen years ago and don't miss it a bit. Bunch of lazy fucks that whine about everything under the sun. The hard working newbies were told to 'slow down, you're making the rest of us look bad'. I guess I just never understood the union mentality. I've been a self-employed contractor all these years and I abosolutly love it. I know this post doesn't address your issue, but I feel better __________________ nice line eh?

10-16-2003, 07:26 AM	#4 (permalink)
LewisCouch Insane Location: Pacific NW	Consumers vote with their dollars. Being encouraged by striking union members to shop at non-union stores and avoiding confrontation, consumers may continue to shop at those stores, possibly on a permanent basis. Non union stores most likely are offering incentives to consumers as well. I see layoffs looming in the near future. __________________ "The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk." -- Massimo d'Azeglio

10-16-2003, 09:14 AM	#5 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	I talked with one of the people on strike yesterday and they basically said that their health coverage was being cut in half and that it was being made harder for new hires to get benefits. They want to work right now, but they are being locked out, and that means if this goes on for any longer, a lot of people are going to have to find new jobs. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-16-2003, 10:10 AM	#7 (permalink)
punx1325 Junkie Location: San Diego	I worked at a union grocery store around 3 or 4 years ago. I have to admit, it was the easiest job in the world. The people don't really need awesome benefits, but the job pays really shitty, so it has to even out somewhere. Most of these cashiers support their families with their healthcare. It doesn't really matter for the companies anyways, the customer pays for benefits through the food. If you shop at the expensive grocery stores, you are paying that little extra for better customer support. __________________ If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is....

10-16-2003, 04:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
lt1s10 Crazy	I was a part of this same union before in another state. We almost went out on strike once while I was on that job. From my view as an employee and union member it seemed as if they were asking a alot when negotiations broke down and we were threatening to strike. What the union was telling us in that situation was that sales were up, customers were happy, and gross income was up. Therefore we deserved both raises and increases in benefits. And the union leadership wanted more then the store/corporation was willing to offer. I got as much information as I could from both sides and what I saw was the union was telling the truth to a point. Sales, income, and customers were all good. But at the same time the fixed costs had increased. Rent, utilities, raw/wholesale products, etc were also up. So it seemed like a wash to me. Numbers were up but no one was in any better a position. They conceded raises which I thought was fair but the sticking point that remained was benefits. I was willing to contribute for my medical and dental benefits etc. For what I'd pay for the package to me it was well worth it. I've always looked at it as I earn my wages. And then benefits are just that benefits. Things an employer adds on to retain, motivate, further compensate their employees. I've taken the value of benefits and added them to my salary to find out my total compensation and decide about jobs before. I've even taken lower paying jobs because of the benefits which made it worth more to me. But others thought that it was their due just because of time on the job and senority. If they could make it performance based I thought that would be even better but reviews meant nothing. No matter how good or bad it didn't affect your pay scale or position. I've never agreed with that position. I've got benefits and it's always something that I consider when selecting a job. I know many people who have little or no benefits or contribute more to get those benefits. If they are so unhappy with their jobs why not move on to something else. Someone else will probably be more then happy with those benefits. I view both unions and corporations as both 800 pound gorillas fighting it out. I don't see it anymore as the little guy vs. the big company. They both are trying to screw each other more. I wish there was a way to change the way things are but it doesn't look like it will ever change. Sorry about the long post that doesn't really address your topic directly. I just felt I had to get this out there.

10-16-2003, 09:58 AM	#6 (permalink)
TinniT Crazy	Halx, you seem to point out what an acquaintance of mine who is on strike told me. That they would only be covered 50% for hospitalization. Thats insane! When I went to www.saveourhealthcare.org I coudln't see anything that showed that. However, I did see that there would be increased yearly spending that would be equal to my own. Its all very confusing for me. Not that I don't understand any of the facts, why people are striking, or why they're decreasing the value of benefits, but because I don't even know any of the worker's there names, but I know them by face and they know me. The entire Midnight/graveyard crew all recognize me, and all know me because of how few people come in at that time of night. When I was about to walk into the grocery store, the first thing I noticed was the cashier whose line I always go to who looked up at me and said, "do us a favor brother"... I couldn't shop there knowing the guilt of harming the friendship in kindly acquaintance. ::shrug:: Its difficult.

10-16-2003, 12:09 PM	#8 (permalink)
Peryn Junkie Location: San Diego, CA.	Well, first off i find it VERY hard to feel sympathy for someone who gets paid entirely too much.$17.50 / hour for an experienced cashier. That is plain and simply excessive. Name another unskilled entry level trade that requires no skill, education or training really and pays that much. First bussiness that comes to mind when i think of entry level and no knowledge/skill required is McDonalds or other fast food. They pay minumum, (somewhere around 6.75-7.00 per hour). Good places that work really hard ALL the time such as In N Out, get payed upwards of $10.00 per hour, and get some minimal benefits. They work 100% harder than a checker any day. That checker is getting payed a few dollars less and hour than , for instance, an RN (nurse) whos been working for 20 years. That nurse holds people lives in her hands, deals with the risks of HIV everyday, and requires extensive schooling, and skill. Is her time, risk, and benefit to society really worth only $5 or so an hour more than the skillset of a checker (basically no skillset to speak of)? Also i hear from people working their during the strike, that the strikers are making $300/week just for striking. Frankly, thats almost as much as they should be making for doing their work. Also, i get very annoyed by their mindset. I was in line at a grocery store a week or so ago, right before the strike. The checker was talking to a customer in fron of me, and rather loudly asked why anyone would take her job if she striked, and commented on how bad/mean/rude of a person they must be. I found this really made me angry. They are not happy with an entry level position paying twice the market value, so they strike. But they also seem to think that I, the consumer, should stay away from teh store and sacrifice my time, money, and need for food for them. They are asking that i should pay the price because they are not happy. And that if i wanted to take their job, that I should sacrifice my family's need, and my ability to make money so that they will have a bargaining advantage. I find it absolutely selfish and rediculous that they EXPECT(!!!) others to pay the price for them because they aren't happy. Arg, it makes me so friggin pissed that other people can be that self-centered. Again, if they think that they are being treated so unfairly, they could quit their job. But why dont they? Because with their skillset there isn't a job in the world that would hire them for anywhere near the benefits and income they are making now. Now, most of the people at our local VONS know my family by name, because we are in their so often. A lot of them also dont agree with the strike, but the union requires it else they get fined very heavily. So out of respect for those few, i dont go to that vons. Instead, i head down the road another minute or two to teh Albertsons. I shop their for now, thisway i can protest the strike and voice my objection without hurting those people at my local store (at least not directly). i also think that unions these days are to the point where they are bullying the parent companies. They are no longer protecting the workers and making fair working conditions a must like they used to. I find that i believe they are abusing the power of striking, and most people dont realise, that they are taking a risk when tehy walk out of their job. You are gambling that you are more valuable to teh company than the replacements they can get hired at a lower cost to the company. you are hoping you cost them more money than they save by not paying you. I think the workers and the unions need to realize this. I think they need to be on strike several weeks and have the union realise that maybe striking isn't the only way to get things done, and that they might not be treated as badly as they think. They need for employees to figure out they are taking a risk, and that to begin to vote against a strike, reserving that action for the most dire of circumstances. Anyway, thats just my rant. And as i told the striker that asked me why i was shopping their "I'm not going to starve because you dont like your job." __________________ Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

10-16-2003, 06:39 PM	#9 (permalink)
hilbert25 Psycho Location: nOvA	Having spoken to one of the more vocal of the picketers outside my Von's, I am fully convinced that this strike is completely stupid. Upon being asked "why are you striking" he came up with an answer like "the CEO makes millions, and profits are up over the last few years, we deserve more." This kinda threw me for a loop that he didn't mention healthcare, benefits, etc... Then I asked, "well what do you expect to do about Walmart moving in?" (the cause for Von's to lower costs) He replied something along the lines of "well I hope people go there to send Von's a message." I almost smacked him. Driving customers away to a company that has far less costs and pays it's employees close to half what your store pays with less benefits is a really bad idea when trying to prevent your company from cutting costs. If San Diego becomes unprofitable, and Von's can't compete with Walmart, it will close some stores, the stockholders will lose some money. The workers on the other hand, will lose a great job, with great benefits and be forced to compete with countless other interchangeable people for jobs at Walmart, Costco, etc.

10-16-2003, 11:11 PM	#10 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Peryn... those pay rates are for scabs actual employees run from 6 to 15 bucks depending on YEARS of seniority __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-17-2003, 12:25 AM	#11 (permalink)
poot Upright	My two best friends have been working at Vons for almost two years now, and I can offer you a bit of their perspective. Having been there for a while, they've worked up to a pretty decent position, working at the in-store Deli for about $9 an hour. Their general position on the strike? "We just want what we've been having." They agree that the strike is a bit extreme, and is most likely just a collision of two very stubborn forces. The union, however, was not trying to ask for higher pay or whatnot because of increased profits; they just wanted the same contract as before. Corporate is trying to get workers to pay more for medical because of the lower economy, etc, as well as increase work hours and lower pay for new hires. On a side note, anyone hear about Ralph's trying to sidestep the union truck driver issue by shipping milk to their stores in U-Hauls? UNREFRIGERATED U-HAULS. Shudder.

10-17-2003, 05:19 AM	#13 (permalink)
Dano069 is Nucking Futs! Location: On the edge of sanity	Von's is owned by Safeway. Dominick's, in the Chicago area, is also owned by Safeway. They tried this crap in Chicago but, Jewel employees had already signed their contract so, no lockout. Isn't it collusion when different employers band together to set prices, work environment, and pay scale? Here's a link to a Safeway employees site. Check it out if you have the time. http://www.slaveway.org/page518566.htm __________________ I may look attentive, but I'm taking peeks down your blouse faster than the human eye can follow.

10-18-2003, 08:10 PM	#14 (permalink)
mvassek Crazy Location: East Tennessee	The Union is not our enemy All the members of the Union want is a living wage with affordable health care. Do not try to demonize these workers by bickering about how much they earn. 70,000 of them are fighting for the right to live and work with dignity. Anyone who works for a living deserves a living wage and health care. The profits of these stores have tripled in the last 2 years, while the wages and benefits of the workers have remained stagnant. Please support these workers. They are only trying to provide a decent life for their families.

10-20-2003, 03:19 AM	#15 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	The older i get, the more i believe that we are just bricks in a huge wall- the union is selfish, the corps are selfish- and on a good day you might just be able to trust yourself.... __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

10-20-2003, 06:30 AM	#16 (permalink)
KeyserSoze Psycho Location: Lost Angeles	What I noticed at the two Ralphs I shop at is that I have only seen one person that I recognize that worked there. I have shopped at these two same stores for over 9 years and only see one striker I recognize........Hmmmmmm....who are these other people?? Yep...........I crossed it. I'm not going to go out of my way to support ANYONE........I mean ANYONE who is not grateful for what they have at this time in our economy with so many people out of work. I would like to see a Union for once to cut their dues to help offset the other costs the employess will have to pay...........yea right........that will never happen. You hear so many different stories on how much they will have to pay for their health care you don't know who to believe anymore. Sorry but with all the people that have no health care or let alone no job at all for anyone to strike is just plain bullshit because the stores will just replace them and say FUCK YOU and your Union.....and this is what I see happening especially since there are no negotiations going on. Oh....and to the MTA strikers who's lazy fat asses drive a bus all day and make double and triple what a cashier makes.......you fucks are WORTHLESS and I hope all of you get replaced, lose your car and have to wait in line for a bus that has it's passengers packed in like sardines. __________________ THERE IS NO KEYSER SOZE!!

10-20-2003, 03:38 PM	#17 (permalink)
Tabasco Upright	Here's a link that spells out the Workers/Unions position in black and white. If you think the Workers position is unreasonable, you must not work for a living: http://www.unionworker.org/files/ufcw.pdf

10-20-2003, 05:47 PM	#19 (permalink)
mvassek Crazy Location: East Tennessee	Owners and employers use inflation... http://www.solbaram.org/articles/whoexp.html Democratically elected governments Would have had to allow multinationals access to the country. Would have been prevented from discriminating against foreign firms, would not be able to refuse any form of investment in any sector apart from defence. Would have been prevented from reducing or controlling a multinationals profits, say by minimum-wage or anti-pollution legislation, or by legislation to ensure local employment. Multinationals would have the right to Sue national governments for any profits lost through laws which discriminated against the multinational, and which harmed a multinational's interests. Sue national governments in an international court which would have been closed to public scrutiny. We saw that multinationals can legally avoid paying corporation tax by transfer pricing {5} and that unitary taxation {3, 5} can overcome this tax avoidance by assessing the actual profits being generated by a multinational in a particular country. Multinationals could, under MAI, have refused to be taxed by a system of unitary taxation. PROFIT MAXIMISING In practice directors are generally required by owner-serving laws to act first and foremost in the interests of the owners, so that it is profit which is maximised. Short-term and long-term profits can be and are being maximised. {1} When profit becomes an overriding or sole objective to owners, directors or managers, they concentrate on maximising profits regardless of cost to others. Profits are then maximised regardless of the cost and consequences to the community, limited only by the likelihood of unpleasant consequences such as restraining fines, punitive legal punishment or adverse publicity. {1, 2} One of the requirements for the free-market economic system to work, is that profit margins and prices need to be controlled effectively so as to protect the community from exploitation. But they are not. {2} To owners and employers the worth of a job is what has to be paid to get it done. They want work to be done at the lowest rate at which they can get it done as profits can be increased by reducing labour costs, by exploiting employees. Owners and employers use inflation as an excuse for reducing real wages and salaries of the working population so as to increase profits. Employees are then not compensated for increased skill, experience and responsibility, do not receive their share of the increasing national income and wealth. UK pensions have now to be increased by 34 percent just to reach the level at which they should be now. And pensioners still have to be compensated for the moneys withheld from them without good reason by the government since 1980. This attack on the living standards of the working population is misleadingly called a 'fight (or battle) against inflation' to persuade the working population to tighten its belts, to reduce its standard of living, so as to increase profits. {1} TOP-LEVEL LEADERSHIP TAKING OVER DECISION-TAKING FROM THE POPULATION Participative Organisation: The Meaning of 'Democracy' <2> Participative (democratic) organisation {4} rests on the population electing representatives, on the basis of each person having one vote. Representatives are responsible to, and accountable to, the population for putting into effect policies decided by the population. What underlies participative organisation (democracy) is decision-taking by the people at the level of the people. And representatives, governments or government officials do not have the authority or right to reduce or sign away the participative (democratic) rights of the electors, of the population. What needs to be stressed is that in a participative (democratic) organisation policies are decided by a well-informed population at the level of the population and that policies then become binding on management or government. <3> In an authoritarian organisation the policy decisions are taken at the top or near the top by the hierarchy (establishment) and are binding on the organisation's members. Decision-taking at the top is sometimes referred to as 'deciding centrally'. Authoritarian organisation is the opposite of democracy and underlies dictatorship. And what we see is conflict between authoritarian minds wishing to dominate, control and exploit on the one hand and, on the other hand, citizens wishing to maintain and improve the standard of living and quality of life for the population as a whole by democratic (grassroots level) decision-taking. So the real struggle is not between political left and right, but is a struggle for participation (the right to take decisions). Decision-taking and Policy-setting within Political Party and by Government We are looking at recent and ongoing events {4} and it is difficult to separate facts from opinions. However, an overall pattern emerges which appears to reinforce and strengthen what is said here about top-level leadership attempting to take over decision-taking from the grassroots population, about the consequent struggle in all organisations and at all levels. The UKs Labour party's annual conference took binding decisions on policy proposals brought up by grassroots membership. They decided policy which the executive had to follow and put into effect. Under a new party leadership some fundamental changes were introduced and by 1998 the party's annual conference had ceased to decide policies, had ceased to decide what had to be done. Instead of deciding mandatory policies based on direct policy proposals from local branches, the annual conference became a talking-shop, discussing and expressing views on subjects selected and approved by the leadership. In September 1998 an opinion poll reported that the majority of people felt that the leader of the Labour government was closer to big business than to ordinary people. So owners and employers will, when they can, pressurise the working population into accepting even lower rates of pay by increasing the working population's needs. Doing so by advocating greater unemployment, reducing social security, reducing national health service provisions, weakening the quality of education (knowledge, clear thinking, understanding, objective evaluation). {1} And, as said already, moneys saved by government by spending less on social security for those in need and moneys gained by collecting more tax from the working population, are apparently being used by owner-serving governments to reduce the taxes collected from the rich and from companies. {3} http://iresist.com/cbg/bankruptcy.html "...The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle. Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn?t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers. Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another. America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country."

10-20-2003, 05:56 PM	#20 (permalink)
santafe5000 EVIL! Location: Southwest of nowhere	If the srtike is over loss of Medical benefit's, then I would understand it. If it is just a rise in co-pay, then join the crowd. __________________ When all else fails, QUIT.

10-20-2003, 06:32 PM	#21 (permalink)
Hot-About-It Upright Location: CHICAGOLAND	It is about more than just rising healthcare costs. It's about fighting slavery, resisting exploitation and standing firm in our belief in the America we once knew. The country to which we were born in. The one that our parents believed in, to be the best in the world. It's about making this thing work for the common good of all citizens of the United States of America. If you think it's about selfish concerns of union members, not only are you wrong, but your missing the whole point of our cause. That being the cause of "Justice". [QUOTE "The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System."[/QUOTE] Most of the corporations that own these food chains are foreign based (multinational), and pay very little, if any, corporate taxes. What that means is all taxpaying workers, both union and non-union are burden to paying the taxes they don't. Inflation is their tool, and they use it to beat us back when we get too close to the truth. We are in a battle for the very existence of community as we know it, and you can either help or hinder, the choice is yours. __________________ Attempts to take over and control decision-taking processes are far more one-sided and widespread than would be the case if we were looking at unrelated chance events, at unrelated local struggles. At times the pattern seems progressive as if it were planned. We can see struggle in all organisations and at all levels. It is a struggle against authoritarian management or government for the right to take decisions. And in all democratic organisations it is a struggle against the authoritarian mind taking over the decision-taking.