|
We
Lost: thoughts on the
supermarket strike
by Mark Maier, 1st Vice President, GCC Guild
At the request of the Guild Executive Board, we note that this article
does not reflect an official position taken by the Guild Executive
Board.
“Both
sides lost in important ways,
but the union did lose more.”
That’s the verdict on the supermarket strike by my favorite labor
analyst, UCLA sociologist Ruth Milkman. After five months on the picket
line, 70,000 southern California supermarket workers settled for a
two-tier contract in which there were no raises for current employees
and a $4 reduction in pay and benefits for future employees. Because
current supermarket workers already average only $25,000 per year, the
pay cuts will push new employees toward the poverty line.
Current supermarket employees won a little, including no out-of-pocket
health care contributions until the third year of the contract and two
one-time payments averaging $500 per year in 2005 and 2006. Meanwhile,
Safeway, Albertsons, and Kroger (owner of Ralphs) lost billions in local
sales. However, their stock price jumped up at the end of the strike
because investors thought the supermarket chains would be able to push
down wages and benefits in other parts of the country where contracts
have yet to be negotiated. Occidental College political scientist Peter
Dreier, my other favorite local commentator, argues that the union
should have fought a national campaign because the supermarket chains
could withstand reduced southern California profits as long as they
could stay open elsewhere.
In my view, our Guild monetary contribution to the United Food and
Commercial Workers and the refusal by many of us to cross the picket
line was worthwhile even if the supermarket workers lost their strike.
Corporate interests, backed by Wall Street investors, and sadly our
elected national and California political leaders, supported the
supermarket chains in their effort to roll back pay and health benefits.
Whenever I waved to the brave supermarket pickets, I wondered—would I
have walked the line for five months?
I feel fortunate that my pay is far above that of supermarket workers.
However, we at GCC also faced a demand from management that we pay
hundreds of dollars out of pocket for our health care. Like the
supermarket workers, we won on this principle, although we too took a
cut in pay when full-timers loaned one percent to the District, and our
part-timers lost their health care because the state suddenly reneged on
its promise to pay 50 percent of health care premiums for part-timers.
The most important parallel between our situation and the supermarket
strike is the management argument that “there simply is no money.” The
supermarket chains claimed that lower pay and benefits were needed so
that Vons, Ralphs and Albertsons could compete with Wal-Mart that pays
its workers even less and thus can charge lower prices for its
merchandise. Similarly, our new governor claims there are insufficient
funds in the state budget, so he must cut community college programs and
raise fees.
The supermarket chains vastly exaggerated their financial woes.
Nationally, they are quite profitable and able to raise executive pay at
the same time they claimed poverty when it came to worker benefits. In
the same way, Governor Schwarzenegger conveniently overlooks recent tax
cuts for high income households that, if reinstated, would immediately
and completely cover both the deficit and programs he wants to cut.
Looking at the big picture, both the supermarket workers and GCC
employees are fighting the same battle. Our country as a whole can
afford to pay all workers a living wage along with health benefits. We
also can afford social programs including a well-funded community
college education that pays its providers well without charging higher
fees to students. Here the economics aren’t complicated: reversing just
one of President Bush’s tax cuts for the rich would provide funding for
basic health care covering all Americans as well as support for all of
higher education.
I don’t expect a sudden shift in national priorities. However, in the
same way we chose to support the supermarket strike, we can continue to
work against other efforts to roll back social programs and reduce
take-home pay for the poor and middle class. We can begin by signing a
petition to overturn the Bush administration decision to reduce overtime
pay at www.saveovertimepay.org. Even though the supermarket workers
face a setback, the struggle for justice continues.
&
Back to top |