Above:
Healthcare Battleground USA; a view from the front line.

error

Duration 3:53
note: event PA speakers were slightly blown, hence the sound “pops”.

Secretary treasurer of the United Food and Commercial Workers

“We didn’t ask for this fight, Steve Bryd struck us. So we’re going to continue this fight till we get fair and affordable healthcare… We are fighting for justice not just for UFCW worker and not just for workers in California, but we’re fighting for affordable healthcare all across the United States…”

error

Says he’s worked to have both sides come together, now he’ll throw his weight with workers.

We Will Never Forgive
We Will Never Forget
10-11-03

Just a bit of technical advice: encode as mono MP3, and you'll cut your file size in half.

This is Indymedia at its finest. Thanks for making this audio available for the world to hear!

...By making it mono, you can double your sample rate to 44,100 hz, which is much better quality, while maintaining the same file size.

Looks like the Union Bosses (Manipulators) have gotten control of the Union Members (Dupes).

That's nice Garaj Dohr, aka Bush Admirer. Kick a man when he's down.

There are a lot of strikers who are critical of the union and the leadership, especially after this strike. Their willingness to make a show of solidarity is not the same as an unquestioning obediance to the leadership.

What are the alternatives, after all? Taking a 60% cut in benefits, and adding a third tier to the compensation scales? That's what the bosses want.

It's a foregone conclusion that there will be a cut in compensation, and that the union leadership will try to sugarcoat the outcome. They've already offered concessions, but the bosses are after nothing short of a complete Wal-Martization of the work environment. Welcome to my dystopian vision.

It's a race to the bottom that will deal another blow to the service sector, and ultimately help destroy the affluent lifestyle in America. With more and more manufacturing, and soon, intellectual work being performed outside of America, we'll find that America's split into two classes: the owners, and the maids. A third class will emerge: the global military/police state apparatus to enforce property rights and maintain this condition of business, where the owners and accountants reside in Beverly Hills, the engineers in India, the factories in Indonesia, and the customers in the suburban slums of America.

This high tech future is in full effect at Fry's Electronics, where the gulag-like security monitors the premesis not to catch shoplifters, but to deter employee theft of high tech consumer goods that many of the clerks covet, but cannot really afford.

To all my brothers and sisters from the "middle class", welcome to the working week. I know it don't thrill you, I hope it don't kill you. You gotta do it, gotta do it, so you better get to it.

"This high tech future is in full effect at Fry's Electronics, where the gulag-like security monitors the premesis not to catch shoplifters, but to deter employee theft of high tech consumer goods that many of the clerks covet, but cannot really afford. "

More rational, this statement of yours is more than telling.

There is an undeniable implication here that there is something oppressive ("gulag-like") about Fryes having security to prevent theft from anyone INCLUDING the workers. What you are less clear about is whether you believe the oppression is the fact that these noble workers are forced to sell items they can't afford themselves ( imagine that!...the horror!) OR that they aren't "allowed by right" to steal?

Call or email the Vons, Ralphs and Albertsons CEOs and tell them to do what's right. Tell them to negotiate in good faith and provide workers with affortable health care

Safeway CEO Steven A. Burd
call: (925) 467-3000
steven.burd@safeway.com

Kroger President Dave Dillion
call: (513) 762-4000
david.dillion@kroger.com

Alberstsons CEO Larry Johnston
call: (208) 395-6200
larry.johnston@albertsons.com

The phrase was "gulag-like security". I mean that they have a lot of security, more than most retailers, and it's constantly watching the workers. Where did I say that the workers have a right to steal? I'm saying that they have a reasonable expectation to make enough money to afford what they sell.

Many workers want to steal, but workers paid nearly minimum wage to sell small goods like CPUs that cost $500 feel a greater temptation to steal, because the profit margin on one of these things is their daily wage. Moreover, they're probably selling that CPU to someone who makes $300 a day. The worker can't identify with the boss or the customer, and feels like a slave.

This scenario will become increasingly common. Fry's is an example, but you could say the same about Whole Foods, Border's Books, and a lot of other big retailers of expensive things.

The most popular oppsite example is Starbucks, where people are paid well, and feel taken care of. The coffee is expensive, but, if you work at Starbucks, you can afford to buy what you sell (and feel like you are peers with the customers).

You might want to think twice about people being paid well at starbucks. Everyone who works there to support themselves also has another job. As much as they talk about being a ¨responsible and responsive corporation¨ they´re just the same. They start out at a little above minimum wage and give you raises that barely cover inflation. Lots of people I knew there relied on tips (which is a good thing about working there, seeing as how the yuppies who come in there usually leave their change) to buy food for the week. Still though, we made way less than the union folk across the parking lot at albertsons.

Which is, by the way, why I support their strike wholeheartedly. I don´t want them to have to rely on tips to feed their kids.

"I'm saying that they have a reasonable expectation to make enough money to afford what they sell."

More rational...thanks for the reply, but I can only assume you're joking.

First of all why on Earth would you think that it's neccessary or even remotely reasonable for everyone to be able to afford evertything they sell. Thats utterly ridiculous. What about the guy selling Porsches. What about some guy sellings boats or houses or even CPU's for that matter. Hell, most people working at Starbucks can't afford to drink there if they are going completely out of pocket.

And as for the oppressive temptation to steal CPU's after having to sell them to people making "$300 dollars a day" because they can't relate to them...well, I don't even know what the hell to say to that.

You're still basically saying that either fryes should make sure that everyone working there can afford to buy anything that's sold there OR cut the "gulag like security" so that when one of the poor workers gets all bummed after not being able to relate to a customer making more money, they can rightly and fairly pocket one of those shiny new P4's.

Now, if I've misread you, please correct me, but it sure does sound like you're pissed that Fryes sells items above the means of some of its employees.

The irony is that you'll find more of the expensive, gaudy electronics crap like big screen TV's and Blinking and Flashing stereo towers in lower income households to begin with.

We live right up the street from not one, but two whole foods.

We call them "wholpaycheck" around here.

I'm not saying you should be able to afford *everything* you sell, but, if the main thing you sell are PCs, then a midrange $1200 PC should be within your budget. They sell midrange electronics, but pay close to minimum wage. (The same goes for CompUSA.)

I'm not "pissed" about this imbalance. I just think it's got a lot of problems. I don't work in retail.

I knew a Porsche salesperson once. He made around $60k a year in the mid 90s, which was enough to buy a nice used Porsche. He socialized with some of his customers. I heard that at Starbucks have a pay scale that goes up to around $30k a year, with full benefits and 401k, by four years. It's not great, but it's not the low 20s like a lot of jobs. The same goes for Trader Joe's and Gelson's; pay starts out pretty low, but there are raises, and your wages get high enough to afford the goods sold there. (Wal-Mart sucks, but you can't say the people there can't afford to shop there. Wal-Mart gives an employee discount too. But, they also have draconian security policies, like locking people into the store after hours.)

In a perfect right-wing dream world, the schmoe who's scanning your new P4 into the POS and earning $16k a year (full time pay) accepts their inferior status as part of the Darwinian reality of the free marketplace. In reality, they know that the security guards, security cameras, and the POS system cost millions of dollars. They know that the customers make a lot more than they do. Moreover, they *know* that they want the product, simply because they're selling it, and temptation to steal is there.

(Also in reality, the CPU margins are pretty slim. I should have used something like a car stereo as a better example.)

Once the security is installed, the conditions are created where the company *never* wants to raise the lowest wages, *never* want to skill their workers, and can tolerate high worker turnover. Over time, the service declines in quality, but until it's really horrible and people are repelled by the store, a smaller competitor cannot open in that market because it's dominated by the giant.

As for gaudy crap, you have to ask people what they make, and how much debt they carry. Most of the big screen TVs I've seen are owned by people who make a pretty good salary (like 40k or above) and the poor people have smaller TVs. The blinking stereos are the cheapest ones you can get. The nicer, less gaudy stuff is more expensive.

(Just in case anyone is wondering: I own a 19 inch TV, and two stereos. One is a newer one that cost $200, and the other is a really nice one I found at Salvation Army for $20, but it's hooked up to decent speakers.)

Just so you don't try to put words into my mouth, I'd better reiterate my basic point.

My argument is that if people were paid better, there would be less need for the expensive security.

If you keep wages low, you cannot get rid of the security, because theft will run rampant. Especially theft for the purpose of reselling the goods. The extreme security and low wages go hand-in hand.

Also regarding SB; I stand corrected. These are mid 90s wages, but they were a lower than I guessed.

http://www.caw.ca/whatwedo/bargaining/bycompany/starbucks/wage_index.asp

http://portland.indymedia.org/es/2004/01/278960.shtml

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum22/HTML/000023-3.html

I'm way too surly to work behind the cash register.

"Just so you don't try to put words into my mouth, I'd better reiterate my basic point.

My argument is that if people were paid better, there would be less need for the expensive security.
"

Look, contrary to what you might think, I'm not some extreme right wing guy who wants everyone to work for starvation wages. For instance, I often have the opportunity to hire freelance people to work for me. When I say "for" I mean under me as I am under others (Art Department for TV commercials). I always fight and argue for these people to get their rate. Everyone's always trying to get the guy at the bottom of the totem pole to sacrifice their rate so the guys at the top can keep their rate and stay under budget. That is bullshit. When possible I always raise the shit out of the rates for my assistants, even if it means keeping my rate low. Why? Because I know I'm paid plenty and it's not the responsibility of my guys to make up for budget shortfalls.

So I agree that it would be great for everyone to make more money.

I guess my problem is the idea that if the wages aren't very good, YET someone agrees to them and then decides they aren't fair enough and becomes disgruntled AFTER THE FACT then it's understandable that they might steal.

I think the sort of people who are going to steal from Fryes are going to do it no matter what the eages are. Most people are either theives or they aren't.

Most poor people don't steal.

Anyway, that's all I can give you right now.