Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

Southern California Supermarket Strike: A Missed Opportunity

by The Spark Wednesday, Mar. 03, 2004 at 12:54 PM
webmaster@the-spark.net

Article written before the vote about the outcome of the grocery workers' strike.

Southern California supermarket strike: A missed opportunity

  On February 26, the companies and the union involved in the Southern California supermarket strike reached an agreement. The result of the ratification vote was not known at the time this article was written. If the 59,000 strikers vote to end the strike, it will certainly be because of the financial hardship these workers have had to endure, and not because they are happy with the terms of the settlement.

The companies -- Kroger, which owns Ralphs; Safeway, which owns Vons; and Albertsons -- imposed one of their most important goals, a two-tier wage scale. Newly-hired clerks and cashiers will begin at $8.90 an hour, down from $9.80 in the old contract. Their top pay will also be reduced, from $17.90 to $15.10 an hour. In addition, new hires will have to pay, on average, $450 a year for health insurance and will have a worse pension plan than current workers have.

As for current workers, they will not get a raise for the next three years -- only two lump-sum payments instead.

In return for these concessions, the companies agreed to keep the current workers' health care benefits at the present level for the next two years.

Even this, however, is not the "gain" that the union, UFCW, makes it out to be. While not all the details of the agreement have been revealed yet, it seems that it includes a cap on the companies' contributions to the health care fund. In other words, the issue of premiums will soon be raised for current workers as well as for new hires.

A picketer summed up the outcome of the strike as: "We get squeezed, the big shots make more money and Wall Street likes it."

The big shame is that this strike actually stood a good chance of succeeding. There was certainly no lack of enthusiasm and dedication on the part of the strikers, at least in the beginning of the strike. And despite its length, the strike enjoyed the support of other workers throughout the area. Only days before the settlement, a Los Angeles Times poll found that, among people who shopped at the three chains before the strike, 60 per cent had never crossed the picket lines. These people certainly were not "intimidated" by picketers, as the companies claimed -- they were expressing their support for the strike.

This sentiment of solidarity might have been tapped to strengthen and extend the fight, to carry it out into the streets of Los Angeles, to make the fight a broader fight of all workers whose health care is endangered. But no real attempt was made to organize the strike in such a way that other workers could actively participate in it.

In fact, even the strikers themselves were not really mobilized by the union. Strike activities were limited almost entirely to picketing. Over time, the strikers' energy and enthusiasm wore down and this reinforced the sense that it was "a David versus Goliath thing," as a striker put it. The same striker added: "It was local workers versus national companies. They could have stayed out all year. We couldn't."

It didn't have to be like that. Of course the companies had all the means to outlast the workers in this waiting game. But who said it had to be a waiting game? Who said the fight had to be fought on this basis alone, that is, exactly the way the companies wanted to fight it?

Despite all this, however, the fact that the workers put up a fight, the fact that they took a stand and gained the solidarity and respect of the community, has meant that the companies were not able to impose all of their demands on the workers -- at least not fully and immediately.

That's important in view of future fights, which are certain to come in many sectors of the economy. For the big corporations and Wall Street will not stop pushing for ever more take-aways and cuts in a drive to increase their profits even more. And the workers will have to put up a fight to defend themselves against these attacks.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


victories

by more rational Wednesday, Mar. 03, 2004 at 8:04 PM

1. We found out there's a lot of community support for mid-level service workers going on strike for health benefits.

2. They aren't going getting the same deal that the more cooperative unions are getting. (Victories are relative.)

3. These days, any strike that ends with people going back to their jobs is pretty good. Sad but true.

4. Five months of striking retail workers is something new under the sun.

See you at the next strike!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


wrong

by sfres Thursday, Mar. 04, 2004 at 9:15 AM

You are wrong. There may be a next strike, but it won't work, either. The only reason people avoided the picket lines ( as you say 60% did - what source, please?) is because they had lots of other choices. This is LA, it's big and has lots of competition. If this strike had taken place in an area with only two or three grocers, it would have fizzled after a week. Now I hear the same union "leaders" are going to bring the road show up to the Bay Area. Fine, but it won't work here either. Just like LA, we have lots of stores, not counting ethnic markets, farmers' markets, corner stores, etc. You are getting nothing for all your hassle. Ordinary working families with two jobs, kids, school, kids' activities simply will not waste energy over this. Sorry, but the days of the "big strikes" are over. Union labor is less than 13% of the workforce, and that includes govt workers. The support is just not there.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


labor rights for all

by Monica Friday, Mar. 05, 2004 at 4:52 PM

In the Central Valley it seems as if labor groups are only concerned about their own struggle, except the United Farm Workers. I've talked to a laid off teacher who crossed the picket lines because the grocery workers weren't there for her when she lost her job. I also talked to some grocery store workers who shop at Wal-Mart and who don't think they'll lose their jobs when a Super Wal-Mart opens near their store. If organized labor is ever going to suceed in the Central Valley then people must be concerned with everybody's struggle and not only there own.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Lynn

by Jervik Saturday, Mar. 06, 2004 at 12:42 PM

What was the real reason for the strike? I've heard on talk radio that the union duped it's membership into striking over benefits when the real reason was the union's desire to stop its declining membership. Apparently the union wanted all new hires to be required to join the union and tried to slip this into the new contract. It appears this strike is like many of the wars that has taken place in history where the people are given some nobel cause and their leaders have a cause more closely tied their personal ambition and private agenda.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


1918

by MadMaxim Saturday, Mar. 06, 2004 at 8:16 PM

Please describe, for the benefit of the class, the difference between the pre-revolutionary Russian Bolshevik "workers movement" of 1918 and present day "labor unions"?

Would Hitler have been able to come to power without anarchy?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy