Grocery workers strike

national | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis Thursday March 04, 2004 05:36 by john throne - labors militant voice loughfinn at aol dot com

With leaders like these who needs......?????

The Grocery workers strike/lock out in Southern California came up against the refusal of the union leaders to mobilize the power of the working class. Read some comments and reports from California.

Workers let down again.

As predicted by those of us that have walked a few picket lines over
the 25 years, the UFCW and AFL-CIO leadership orchestrate another
demoralizing defeat for organized labor despite tremendous heroism
from the rank and file. There will be increased anger now at the
trade union movement as workers sacrificed so much for so little and
new hires find themselves working alongside their brothers and
sisters doing the same work for less money and benefits and blaming
the Union for it.

"We don't really have a choice. We have to go back to work,", says
one striker. How many times has this scenario played out? The
employers knew they had no choice because they knew that the union
leaders would offer their members no choice.

"They should have got more for us, but they are saying this is the
best they can do,", says another. This is not true of course. The
Union leadership refused to spread the strike keeping it isolated to
southern California, a strategy that has been played out time after
time in defeat after defeat at terrible cost to the dues paying
member.

The Union leadership refused to shut down the chains nationally
clinging instead to the boycott which has failed miserably in the
past. They demonized Safeway CEO Byrd in childish attempt to portray
him, and not the employers as a whole, as the problem. They kept
their members in the dark and made no attempt to involve them in the
struggle other than on picket lines. They are obsessed with "good
faith" in the hope they can keep their friendly relatiuonss with the
employers as a whole and their politicians.

"Basically, for all those months that we were out there on strike, we
should've got a better deal," says another striker, This feeling will
intensify as anger grows toward the union. This defeat will
strengthen the employers and will make workers even more cautious
than we are now about taking on the boss and going out on strike, it
will condemn Walmart workers to further misery.

And the labor leaders and many of their well educated and trained
young staffers who they draw in to the bureaucracy will continue to
tell us how workers need educating. How workers need to be taught
about solidarity etc. etc. What a sham the AFL-CIO's organizing
institute is. They've just educated thousands of workers alright,
taught them that you can stay out for months, that you can lose your
home, that you can make great sacrifices, but you still lose. That
there's "nothing you can do". What happens when they make unions
illegal. Oh, yes, the officials and their staff will run around
jobsites getting us to sign opt out cards?

But many workers will also come to understand that the fault lies
with those at the helm of the ship.Yes, the companies won, but why.
It is a painful process this, but many of us have been through it.
Many "progressive" thinkers will blame the members for this defeat
which is what the union officials do in one way or another. But it
is inevitable that the correct conclusions will be drawn by many
union members, that a struggle against the policies of the union
leadership is unavoidable. They will not leave voluntarily. But the
history of the labor movement in the U.S. is rich with such lessons,
we can learn from them.

Richard AFSCME Oakland . California.

STATEMENT From Labors Militant Voice.

On the day that the grocery contract was accepted by the rank and
file, a striker left a calmly spoken message on the answering machine
of a strike supporter in Oakland. He said:

Hey Richard,

This is B. I apologize, I'm so sorry for what this contract gave us.
I didn't vote for it. I didn't like it. I've said my piece. But,
uh, I guess a lot of people were broken down or whatever.

I feel that the company won. I feel that the union didn't fight hard
enough. But I definitely voiced my opinion at the meeting. So I
guess I got to go with the flow.

But I apologize for anybody else who is going to have their contract
coming up. Thank you for the coffee. Thank you for the
encouragement. And thank you for being on my side.

Take care, Rich.

'Bye.

This brother, and all the other strikers, have nothing to apologize
for. They stayed out for nearly five months. Hundreds of them lost
their homes. Others had to turn to such measures as pawning basic
items like computers. One striker reported that he was sleeping in
his car with his girlfriend. Another reported that his home had been
repossessed and he and his wife and children were forced to move in
with his mother. Despite these enormous hardships, very very few
allowed themselves to be starved into returning to work.

It must be said at this point that their resolve and determination
was not matched by the union leadership - both that of the UFCW as
well as the rest of the AFL-CIO.

This strike was crucial for all workers. For the first time, a major
employer was seeking to effectively deny affordable health care to
employees covered by a major contract. This, in other words, was one
of the main the opening salvos in the corporate drive to make workers
pay for the escalating costs of health care in the United States.

The union leadership distributed a "Fact Sheet" on the new contract
which paints everything in a rosy light. It claimed that "All seven
California UFCW locals unanimously recommend a 'YES' vote on proposed
contract." This despite the fact that the locals had not had time to
meet and consider it. What they probably meant was that the
leadership of the locals supported it - something entirely different.

Nevertheless, it does appear from the "Fact Sheet" that the employers
did not achieve everything that they had originally demanded. This is
almost always the case; the employers make pie-in-the-sky demands,
knowing that they will not win it all. Then they accept somewhat
lesser cuts, which also serves to help the official leadership look
better, as if their policies had helped save something.

Some of the main points of the new contract that are clear. The main
hit is taken by the new hires who will:

*accrue pension credits at 35% of the rate of present employees.
*work under a vastly reduced, second-tier wage
*receive inferior benefits


*The new contract will allow increased use of outside vendors to stock stores.
*The new contract changes some work from "grocery clerk"
classification to "general merchandise" classification (which is at a
lower pay rate).

One side issue that those outside the industry should realize is that
although the number of hours are supposed to be assigned by
seniority, the work times are up to management. Thus, managers pets
(as well as lower paid new hires) can be assigned the better hours
while others will get late night hours, etc. In addition, management
is free to train whomever they like; it is not done by seniority.
Thus they can give training to lower paid new hires and then when
work is required for this type of work, it will go to the new hire
over the longer term worker who is paid more, but hasn't had the
"training" for this work. This will be a way of cutting the total
wages paid also.

As one striker put it, this contract "sold out the new hires, which
will screw the current part timers."

Also, people should realize that grocery workers in Southern
California haven't had a pay raise in close to ten years. All the
money was supposedly going to pay for increased health care costs.
Now, they are having to pay for those increased costs anyway!

Why was this strike unable to ward of these concessions? Was it
simply that the leadership crumbled, or were these concessions the
inevitable result of a failed strike strategy?

It is true that the union leadership failed to do some of the most
simple things. For instance, the leaflet they had pickets distribute
in Northern California did not change over the course of the strike.
This leaflet was not effective; all it was was a reprint of a letter
from a US congressman. It didn't deal with the issues as they arose.
Another basic failing was the failure to act on a key opportunity: At
a rally for striking workers, a speaker from ILWU Local 10 made the
following offer: He said that if the UFCW were to picket the ships
bringing supplies to Safeway (and, by extension also Albertson), then
the Union workers would honor those lines and would not unload those
ships. This would have put a massive hit on the grocery chains'
supplies. But this offer went ignored for the duration of the strike.

In addition, there was the issue of financial support for strikers.
As an example of what would have been possible, three people in the
San Francisco Bay area organized a support meeting at which over
$2000 was collected. If these three people could do this, it does not
take much to imagine how much could have been raised on a weekly
basis through regular appeals at union locals, work places, etc. In
this way, the worst of the financial hardships could have been
significantly eased.

Also, it was not realistic to think that one individual, Steve Burd
of Safeway, was responsible for this entire battle. The stroes were
all in this together, including sharing profits. Yet no strategy was
put in place for seriously going after all of them.

This was because from the outset the Union leadership had applied the
same strategy as was applied in other struggles, such as Greyhound,
Staley, Hormel, Detroit newspaper strike, and others.This includes
the ILWU longshore contract dispute of some two years ago. This
strategy amounts to limiting the struggle, ensuring that the Union
will not confront the courts or any other arm of the government, and
ensuring that at the end of the day the entire struggle can be
controlled. In all these cases, the union leaderships relied on the
"reasonableness" and "good will" of a wing of the employers as well
as their representatives in the Democratic Party.

Throughout the country, and in fact globally, the corporations cry
that they must have help in competing. What this inevitably means is
that workers in one country, or of one sector of employers, must
compete with other workers for who will work cheapest. Inevitably,
the union leadership has accepted this argument in principle.

In this particular case, the grocery chains said that they needed to
be in a position to compete with WalMart. The southern California
grocery chains are not in general in competition with WalMart because
WalMart doesn't generally carry groceries there. However, this factor
cannot be totally ignored. Wherever a different sector of the same
industry (retail in this case) gets vastly lower wages, it is a
threat to all workers in the industry. In the last analysis, it is
not possible to win and to keep first class wages and benefits in the
unionized chains when the likes of WalMart remain non union and at
vastly lower wages. But the union leadership in general has yet to
put forward a serious, militant campaign to organize the unorganized
and help them raise their pay to the level of the organized workers.
As a result, there is a strong trend to drive down the unionized
workers' wages to the lower levels instead.

It must be stressed that it is extremely difficult to defeat
nation-wide companies like these major grocery chains on a regional
basis. In other words, it would have been necessary to shut down
these chains nation-wide. Instead of this, the union leadership
instituted a consumer boycott against just one of these chains -
Safeway.

A key weakness in this struggle was that the Union leadership
expected shoppers to honor a picket line at Safeway while the union
workers inside the stores continued working. Many customers commented
on this in one way or another. The leadership claimed that this was
because these workers would be fired if they honored the picket line.

Admittedly, this may have been a potential threat. However, if the
union simply gives up every time a problem arises, then there is
little reason to even have a union. There was a way to prevent this:
Spread the struggle, build mass support and mass pickets.

How could this have been done?

This goes to another issue: Many shoppers crossed the lines in
Northern California saying that they, too, had to pay large amounts
for their health care. Others said that they didn't have any health
care at all. The union leadership did not deal with this issue. What
they should have done, together with the rest of the AFL-CIO, was to
announce a nation-wide campaign for guaranteed, free health care for
all. They should have announced that this strike was but the first
blow in this battle. In this way, other workers (shoppers) could have
seen how this strike was directly in their interests.

A massive publicity campaign could have been developed, with ads on
tv and radio. Flyers could have been carried into every working class
community, into every work place and union hall, into the high
schools and junior colleges and colleges. They could have explained
how this strike was part of a struggle to ensure decent, free health
care for all. On this basis, mass pickets could have been organized
at these chains nation-wide. These pickets could have been included
the workers inside the stores and under these conditions the chains
would not have dared consider firing them.

In fact, such mass pickets could have gone even further: They could
have taken the protests inside the stores.

These were the methods of the 1930s - the mass pickets, the work
place occupations, the refusal to bow down to court orders and the
police. These were the methods that worked then and would work now.

It is most likely that many of the strikers will feel somewhat
disheartened after this struggle. However, this will not last
forever. At the same time, there is a new, increasingly
anti-corporate mood sweeping the country. It is impossible to say
when and where this mood will make itself felt next. Later this year
workers at these same grocery chains in other parts of California
will be facing new contracts. Who knows what sorts of battles will
erupt there?

The other aspect to be considered is that there appears to be a new
mood developing within the unions. This is a mood of increased
impatience with the conservative, timid leadership and their
policies. Up until now, that mood has been kept in check by a feeling
that nothing can be done about the policies of the leadership. At
some point, this will change into a determination to find something
to do about it.

It should be pointed out that the last time that a rebellion in the
ranks of the unions took on a mass scale was in the 1930s. At that
time, several large anti-capitalist forces had a mass base among US
workers, including a sector of the union membership. These forces
played the key role in helping the rank and file to oranize to
transform the unions, especially in the break from narrow, craft
unionism and the building of the industrial unions. It is vital that
today's anti-capitalist movement come together to help a similar
rebellion.

A first step would be holding public forums on the lessons of this
strike. From there, the aim should be to build groups of
anti-capitalists and union militants to start the difficult task of
organizing from within - organizing to change the unions. An
important start should be attempting to make contact with northern
California grocery workers to help them organize and prepare for
their upcoming contract. Although the focus would probably be
primarily on fighting to transform the existing unions, actions
outside the existing unions cannot be ruled out. This could include
wildcat strikes.

It would seem that there should be several basic issues that should
be demanded. Most important is what the unions should fight for. This
should include:

*A minimum pay in all contracts of $15 per hour.
*Fully paid health care for all workers and retirees.
*Full pension (including benefits) after a maximum 25 years.
*Minimum four weeks fully paid vacation.
*A 32 hour work week with no loss in pay.
*A crash campaign to organize the unorganized around these same demands.

Research could be done showing the reasonableness of these demands.
The facts and figures could be produced showing the massive increase
in productivity of US workers, the massive increase in wealth of the
richest ten percent of the poopulation, the massive profits the
corporations get.

In order to win these demands, it must be made clear that the unions
will have to return to the methods of the '30s. This would
necessitate a break with the Democratic Party. In order to do so
effectively, workers will insist that there be an alternative - in
other words, the building of a mass, radical party based on the
working class and their unions.

A campaign to transform the unions must also take into account that
we are living in the era of "global capitalism". It is no longer
possible to win and keep decent wages and conditions when workers
around the world are suffering under starvation pay. The labor
movement in this country must unite with workers internationally to
raise wages and conditions around the world. This cannot be done as
long as the labor movement here supports US corporate-controlled
foreign policy. (The latest example of this is the events in Haiti.)

This cannot be done on the basis of accepting the dictatorship of
capital and the "free market" - in other words, global capitalism. As
long as we accept this, we must accept that we have to compete for
jobs, which means the "race to the bottom." A powerful, international
working class movement would have to reject this and fight for an
economic system in which capital and investment is socially
controlled, under the democratic decision-making of the workers
themselves.

In addition, there needs to be some fundamental changes in how the
unions operate. This movement to transform the unions must insist
that all officials be elected by those workers they represent and
that they be paid the same average wage as those they represent. It
should also make clear that it is not possible to fight for these
changes from within the existing union establishment. In other words,
those who want to be part of such a campaign cannot seek or accept
staff positions in this establishment.

In this way we can learn the lessons of and build on the grocery
strike. In this way, the suffering and the sacrifices of the striking
grocery workers - and that of the tens of thousands and millions who
came before them - will not have been in vain.



Grocery Pact Is Put to a Vote
Union members weigh in on a contract to end their long strike. Some
criticize the deal but are eager to work again.
By John O'Dell, Debora Vrana and Ronald D. White, Times Staff Writers

Grocery workers began voting Saturday on a labor pact that offered no
raises but would put them back on the job after nearly five months on
picket lines.

At polling places in Los Angeles and Orange counties, union members'
support for the contract appeared widespread - if not enthusiastic.

"We don't really have a choice. We have to go back to work," said
Larry Clow, 38, who hopes to return soon to his position as night
manager of a Vons in south Orange County.

A majority vote for ratification would end the strike and lockout,
which began Oct. 11, idling 59,000 workers at 852 stores in Central
and Southern California. The proposed contract was drafted by
negotiators for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and
Albertsons Inc.; Kroger Co., which owns Ralphs; and Safeway Inc., the
parent of Vons and Pavilions.

Union leaders urged members to approve the contract. The thousands
who voted Saturday received fact sheets and summaries explaining the
dozens of provisions in the pact.

Overall, it would lower the supermarkets' labor costs, most notably
by instituting a two-tier system in which new hires would receive
substantially less in wages and benefits than veteran workers. The
UFCW initially opposed the system but conceded when the supermarkets
wouldn't budge.

Veterans covered under the last contract, which expired Oct. 6,
wouldn't get raises and the companies' contributions toward their
healthcare coverage would be capped at $4.60 an hour in the third
year of the contract, according to a copy of the proposed changes
obtained by The Times.

Current workers wouldn't have to pitch in for healthcare coverage in
the first two years, and perhaps not the third year if the healthcare
contributions from the store and reserves are sufficient to cover the
costs. If they do have to contribute in the final year, the cost
would be an estimated $5 a week for a single worker and $15 a week
for a family.

"I'm really disappointed in the terms," said Lori Friend, a
45-year-old single mother who has worked for Ralphs for 27 years. "We
got a reduced pension plan, no raises and less benefits."

She said she had voted "no" at a polling place in Anaheim but
acknowledged she was in the minority. "We fought as long as we
could," Friend said.

Under the proposed contract, veterans would receive two lump-sum
payments totaling 60 cents an hour for each hour they had logged in
the 12 months before the last contract's expiration. For the average
worker, that would total about $1,000.

Some said that wasn't fair. "Basically, for all those months that we
were out there on strike, we should've got a better deal," said
Armando Montes, 42, who was voting in Hollywood.

Montes' wife was on the picket lines with him, making it especially
tough on them at a time when they have a 19-year-old daughter in
college.

"They should have got more for us, but they are saying this is the
best they can do," Montes said. "They told us you can go out for
another four months and the employers are not going to move. This is
not what we hoped."

Also voting in Hollywood was Ken Oxford, a 20-year veteran union
employee at an Alhambra Ralphs. He said he would be glad to go back
to work but was unhappy with the contract - and would be counting the
days until he could retire.

In Van Nuys, Ron Inouye and others waited in line for an hour or more
to cast ballots. Inouye said he wanted to vote against the contract
but had been told by union officials that " 'if we vote it down, it
will only get worse.' What kind of choice is that?"

Concluded Sheryl Speer, a general merchandise clerk at a Vons in
Agoura Hills who halfheartedly voted for ratification: "The companies
won."

Times Staff Writer James F. Peltz contributed to this report.

--
Check out our website at: http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com