California Grocery Clerks Go on Strike

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Baggers don't get paid $15 an hour.

I think they get paid $7 to $8 an hour. I have seen the signs in the stores for the temp workers, the low end of the scale is $7.50 an hour, the high end said it was $19.18 an hour. But they also get tripple or double pay on Sundays and holidays.

So the baggers would make arround $8 an hour while the checkers get around $17 an hour.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher
MrFun: $15/hour is low, but good as a second income in a two-income family, which many of the workers have.

With the cost of housing in SoCal, plus the fact that "full time" is around 30 hours a week, with shifts subject to change unless you're way on top of the seniority list (the making a second job more of a scheduling hassle), $15 an hour isn't that great even as second income.

Personally, I think this strike is BS. With health care rising these days many companies are being FORCED to cancel health care if the currently cover it. All the store is asking is that the employee help carry the cost. I pay for my health care! My wives company canceled it all together, can't even pay for it!... They need to stop their whinning and start bagging Oerdin's Vodka! (I buy mine at the liquor store)

The grocery chains in question have a lot more market power to control their pricing than most companies. But I suppose all workers everywhere should just make whatever concessions management wants - after all, those executive level managers have everyone's best interests in mind, they're the pinnacle of fairness, honesty, accountability and transparency, and they're simply smarter. That's why they need those big golden parachutes, stock options, and other indirect compensation to go along with their six and seven figure salaries.

[Japher]

I calculated it at 40 hours a week --> 31,200. Which can easily approach 40k with holidays, weekends, off shifts, and any over time the union might allow.

30-40k/year as a second income isn't that bad IMO.

MtG you are being very Robin Hood-ish about this. Large chain management probably isn't as easy as saying give 'em what they want and we'll just take it out of our pocket. With the rising Health Care costs it would be nearly impossible to do so without cutting profits, which will cause investors to pull out, which would cost all them their jobs. Granted that upper management gets paid too much, but what are they to do? Pay less? Those who have the jobs will just go somewhere else and they will be left with second hand managers who could care less about the company. It is called "compensation" for a reason... Sometimes it should be called sit-on-your-ass money, but not in all cases... at least not enough to cover the cost of health care for everyone.

I just don't understand what the deal is? What is $15/month or even per week when it is before taxes? $7? Many companies require employees to help with the payments, and with the economy the way it is here in Cali I am not suprised this happened. I pay $80 a month for my health care and I work for one the largest health care product manufacturers in the world.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin
Lets go burn all the Wal-Mart stores. Who's with me?

Keep the stores. Burn the Waltons.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Two of the three aren't strikes, they're lockouts.

That's the way I see it.

[Arrian]

It's a mostly pointless job in the first place. I bag my own grocies most of the time when I go to Stop & Shop. Most of the time, there is no "bag boy" at the end of the checkout. I prefer it, actually, because then I can pack the bags the way I want 'em packed.

The self-checkout is pretty good. I use that a lot too.

-Arrian

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's a mostly pointless job in the first place. I bag my own grocies most of the time when I go to Stop & Shop. Most of the time, there is no "bag boy" at the end of the checkout. I prefer it, actually, because then I can pack the bags the way I want 'em packed.

The self-checkout is pretty good. I use that a lot too.

-Arrian

At Food 4 Less they do the same thing too, you get to bag your own stuff.

[Dinner]

Well, the strike has entered it's 5th day and the news is reporting that the stores are slashing prices in order to get people to buy the food on the shelves before it goes bad. Steaks are being sold for $1.50 per pound, Lobsters for $7.50 (normally sells for around $12-$15), fresh fish is 2/3 off and produce (fruits and veggies) is 50% off.

I'm thinking about buying all the streaks and stuff I can fit in my freezer and then eatting like a kingpin for the next month.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher
I calculated it at 40 hours a week --> 31,200. Which can easily approach 40k with holidays, weekends, off shifts, and any over time the union might allow.

30-40k/year as a second income isn't that bad IMO.

But you've been jacking it up. Most work 30 hours, not 40, and generally, from the clerks I've talked to over the years, the senior ones take Sundays and Holidays so they get most of the OT. So the "average" checker without seniority is grossing around 450-500 a week, with baggers and warehouse workers making less.

MtG you are being very Robin Hood-ish about this. Large chain management probably isn't as easy as saying give 'em what they want and we'll just take it out of our pocket. With the rising Health Care costs it would be nearly impossible to do so without cutting profits, which will cause investors to pull out, which would cost all them their jobs.

These aren't development limited partnerships, they're stock companies. For an investor to "pull out" he has to sell, to someone, and if one investor loses his ass, another buys at what is a bargain price. The other side of things is that with a majority market share in southern California, and with 70,000 employees involved (not all of whom receive benefits), the stores have both a high degree of market power to raise prices to keep up with costs, and to exert leverage on their benefit providers to contain costs.

The other side of the coin is that all of these chains under this strike are subsidiaries of other companies - who in each case, paid an inflated price at the time of acquisition, in the expectation that future growth or increases in margins, or increase in market share or penetration would make the acquisitions a better deal in the future. Excuse me if I'm not overly sympathetic to the strategic miscalculations of some multi-billion dollar companies.

One of the big arguments for moving to a service based economy from a manufacturing based economy was that the service based economy could produce enough jobs with enough diversity in wages that standards of living (and consumer spending ) would continue to grow. Continuously playing the management game of "pound the peasant" as a means of increasing short term margins to cover shareholder's prior "irrational exuberance" isn't particularly constructive for the majority of the populace, or for the large number of businesses who benefit from consumer spending and disposable income. There's a balancing act between restraining wages to control costs, and pushing wages down to the point where consumer spending related businesses lose more from the loss of spending power than they save from reduction of wages.

The checkers in the UFCW aren't suffering that much, especially those with seniority, but the lower end and less senior workers are on the downside of the average pay range everyone talks about. It's not necessarily the best fight (nobody in their right minds would have the slightest sympathy for the Longshoremen), but at some point, there has to be resistance to the notion that solution to all management problems and to poor shareholder decisions is to force workers to take cuts or make other concessions to keep their jobs.

Granted that upper management gets paid too much, but what are they to do? Pay less? Those who have the jobs will just go somewhere else and they will be left with second hand managers who could care less about the company.

The closer you are to executive management, the more your pay should be based on (and should vary with) performance. If these stores are underperforming, and all that senior management can think of is making union employees suck up more benefit costs and freezing wages, then senior management has some problems. What exactly is the market demand going to be for an unimaginative, non-innovative, grocery store chain executive that just bailed from a chain that underperformed shareholder expectations? Most senior execs aren't wedded to their companies unless they're insiders. All three of these grocery chains are subsidiaries of larger chains, so you're not likely to find many insider executive managers.

It is called "compensation" for a reason... Sometimes it should be called sit-on-your-ass money, but not in all cases... at least not enough to cover the cost of health care for everyone.

It's called "compensation" no matter where you are on the scale. The point is, why should the line workers be the ones to suck up most of the hit that results from underperformance by management, and overpayment by the acquiring companies? "We paid too much, because we just had to add an 1400 store chain in southern California to our portfolio, and our management hasn't done enough to deliver what we think is adequate value for our paying too much, so now it's your job to suck it up, union scum!"

I just don't understand what the deal is? What is $15/month or even per week when it is before taxes? $7? Many companies require employees to help with the payments, and with the economy the way it is here in Cali I am not suprised this happened. I pay $80 a month for my health care and I work for one the largest health care product manufacturers in the world.

One of the deals is that the numbers are cooked. If you take the number of involved workers, the number of weeks in a year, and the Von's guy's statement, you come up way short of the $500,000,000 that's in dispute, as reported (repeatedly) by several area newspapers, none of whom are union-friendly.

As for what you or I pay in healthcare costs, it's irrelevant, because we also have totally different compensation packages - if I have to "pay more healthcare costs" but also "get paid more salary" - I don't care about the word games, I only care about the gross, the net, and the overall benefit package. Give me "personal holidays" or "vacation days" - why do I care what you call it? I only care about the net effect.

And for me to support a union Ask Zkribbler or chegitz or some of those other commies about my previously expressed views of unions.

[Japher]

Well, someone picked apart my post...

Most work 30 hours, not 40, and generally, from the clerks I've talked to over the years, the senior ones take Sundays and Holidays so they get most of the OT. So the "average" checker without seniority is grossing around 450-500 a week, with baggers and warehouse workers making less.

Well, uh,

the stores have both a high degree of market power to raise prices to keep up with costs, and to exert leverage on their benefit providers to contain costs.

That's a very good point Yet, couldn't the union also place leverage on the benefit providers? Also, the benefit provider is not wholey dependent on the 70,000 workers at this one company. It may take their buisness to leave for that provider to manage their costs more effectively, but then, what does that have to do with the grocery store?

there has to be resistance to the notion that solution to all management problems and to poor shareholder decisions is to force workers to take cuts or make other concessions to keep their jobs.

What if the choice is cuts or lay-offs? I think in these economic times such options need to be weighed more heavily by the workers and their union instead of shouting foul at the first sign of troule. What do union dues go to? Is it, or would it not be, plausible for the union to aquire health care benefits for members at costs lower or equal to that of the employeer? Management is first responsible to their shareholders, for without investors there would be no jobs.

The closer you are to executive management, the more your pay should be based on (and should vary with) performance.

I whole heartedly agree.

Yet, you still attribute the economic burdens on the management. Granted it should not fall on the employees who do not have a say in how the money is spent. Recessions are recessions, and those in control generally do not have to tighten their belts as tight as the rest. That's just the way it is, fair or unfair...

The point is, why should the line workers be the ones to suck up most of the hit that results from underperformance by management, and overpayment by the acquiring companies?

Uh, because management runs the store? They, not a union, decide what is done the VC. If they sink the store than so be it. Yet, the union is sacrificing not only the career of a stupid exec. but their own jobs as well.

you take the number of involved workers, the number of weeks in a year, and the Von's guy's statement, you come up way short of the $500,000,000 that's in dispute, as reported (repeatedly) by several area newspapers, none of whom are union-friendly.

Wow! So is this 500 mil. headed to investors or is to cover costs? Or do we just like to through out big numbers saying it will cost the employees and/or consumers because "the man" wants a new yacht?

As for what you or I pay in healthcare costs, it's irrelevant, because we also have totally different compensation packages - if I have to "pay more healthcare costs" but also "get paid more salary" - I don't care about the word games, I only care about the gross, the net, and the overall benefit package. Give me "personal holidays" or "vacation days" - why do I care what you call it? I only care about the net effect.

True. The package is the package.

[Ramo]

There’s a better world a-coming
I’ll tell you why, why, why
There’s a better world a-coming
I’ll tell you why.

We'll beat 'em in the land
On the sea and in the sky
There’s a better world a-coming
I’ll tell you why.

There’s a better world a-coming
Don’t you see, see, see?
There’s a better world a-coming
And don’t you see?

When we'll all be union
And we'll be all be free
There's a better world a-coming
Don't you see?

There’s a better world a-coming
Don’t you know, know, know?
There’s a better world a-coming
And don’t you know?

I'm a union man in a union war
It's a union world we're fighting for
There's a better world a-coming
And don't you know?

There’s a better world a-coming
There’s a better world a-coming
There’s a better world a-coming
Don’t you see, see, see?
Don't you know, know, know?
There’s a better world a-coming
I'll tell you why, why, why
There’s a better world a-coming
I'll tell you why.

There’s a better world a-coming
I’ll tell you why, why, why
There’s a better world a-coming
I’ll tell you why.

Out of marching, out of battling
Out of rusty chains a-rattling
There’s a better world a-coming
I’ll tell you why.

There’s a better world a-coming
I’ll tell you why, why, why
There’s a better world a-coming
I’ll tell you why.

We'll beat 'em in the land
On the sea and in the sky
There’s a better world a-coming
I’ll tell you why.

There’s a better world a-coming
Don’t you see, see, see?
There’s a better world a-coming
And don’t you see?

When we'll all be union
And we'll be all be free
There's a better world a-coming
Don't you see?

There’s a better world a-coming
Don’t you see, see, see?
There’s a better world a-coming
And don’t you see?

When we'll all be union
And we'll be all be free
There's a better world a-coming
Don't you see?

Go strikers.

[Ted Striker]

Some of these muthur****ers are really starting to piss me off. They are just outright being rude bastards.

Like it makes me have sympathy for you when you're out being a dickhead.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin
Lets go burn all the Wal-Mart stores. Who's with me?

You go on ahead, I'll arrange a police escort.