Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Supermarket Swindle: Grocery Workers' Labor Fight Is the Subject of New Documentary

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted July 3, 2007.


Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films take a look at those on the front-lines in the fight for economic justice.
Greenwald: Supermarkets
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Southern California grocery workers are poised for another round in their long and bitter battle with the three megachains -- Kroger, SuperValu and Safeway -- that dominate the market. Four years ago, ownership locked them out during a nasty contract dispute that dragged on for almost five months.

This time, their struggle will be televised -- by Brave News Films, the production company behind Wal-Mart: the High Costs of Low Prices. "When we learned that 20,000 California children had lost their health coverage under the contract the grocery workers agreed to in 2004, it made us angry in a very basic way," said Director Robert Greenwald. "As members of the community that care about these workers, we wanted to tell the story of their fight in human terms," he told reporters Monday. The result is a new film, Supermarket Swindle. Click on the image to the right to view a video clip. (Disclosure: Greenwald sits on the board of the Independent Media Institute, AlterNet's parent organization.)

The stories the film tells are increasingly common in the vaunted "new economy." The grocery workers say that they haven't had a raise in five years, and fewer and fewer have access to employer-paid healthcare and pensions. According to a study by researchers at U.C. Berkeley, 94 percent of grocery workers had employer-funded healthcare before the 2003 lockout, but only 54 percent enjoy that coverage today. Owners claim they're feeling the squeeze from discount chains like Wal-Mart, which has moved into the grocery business with its heavily promoted and controversial "Supercenters" in the last two decades.

But if management is being squeezed, it's not showing up on their balance sheets, which are looking as healthy as ever. Nonetheless, workers are being asked to make concessions on pay and benefits so that the grocery chains can remain "competitive." They're the only ones being asked to tighten their belts; while the average employee at the three chains made $497 per week in 2006, the CEOs -- David Dillon of Kroger Supermarkets, Albertson's Jeff Noodle and Safeway's Steve Burd -- each pulled in an average of $174,068 per week.

At the end of June, more than 95 percent of the United Food and Commercial Workers' (UFCW) members in Southern California voted to authorize a strike if it becomes necessary. Negotiations continue, and both sides say they hope to avert a walkout if possible.

But the Golden State's grocery workers have little reason to believe management is bargaining in good faith. During the lockout four years ago, the supermarkets' ownership group mounted a concerted attempt to break the union. Before the old contract even expired, they had hired thousands of replacement workers -- "scabs" -- flying some in from neighboring states. The owners locked out the grocery workers for 142 days in an attempt to make the union suffer for refusing a contract that called for dramatic reductions in employer contributions to workers' healthcare funds. The owners also tried to drive a wedge between older union workers and new hires by instituting a two-tiered pay scale that slashed earnings for less experienced workers and provided a powerful incentive for management to get rid of more experienced workers earning higher pay rates.

Even more dangerous in terms of the precedent it might have set was the grocery giants' push to deny affordable healthcare to California's grocery workers. The supermarkets argued that the healthcare concessions they sought were small, but an independent analysis by Richard Brown and Richard Kronick, two scholars at the University of California, concluded that the plan would have effectively spelled an end to affordable health coverage for California's grocers. "There is more to the employers' proposal than they have publicly acknowledged," they wrote, "and the proposal bodes ill for supermarket workers and, if adopted more widely, workers in other sectors."

In the end, the unions were able to fend off the worst of what management had proposed, but at a great cost. They ended up with a two-tiered pay scale and gave concessions on health benefits. While management lost an estimated $1.5 billion during the lockout -- and the good will of many shoppers -- most analysts agreed that they came out on top.

Ken Jacobs, director of the Center for Labor Research and Education at U.C. Berkeley, wrote that fewer than one in ten grocery workers hired since the new contract took effect in April 2004 have healthcare covered through their employer. Half are uninsured, and the rest are covered through a parent or spouse's plan or are recipients of public programs for the poor.

Now, negotiations on a new contract have been going on for more than six months with little progress. The workers' contract expired more than three months ago. "The negotiations were stuttering, and now they're completely stalled," Harley Shaiken, a labor expert at U.C. Berkeley told Reuters. He said the vote to authorize the strike was "meant to restart the negotiations in a serious way." Both sides appear reluctant to pull the trigger and cause a work stoppage after the acrimony of the 2003 lockout.

Labor experts consider this the most important fight since the UPS strike in 1997. Greenwald's new film might help people undertsand that these are not "labor" issues -- they are issues of human dignity and fundamental economic fairness that are everyone's fight. The 2003 lockout may well have succeeded in breaking the unions if not for the vital support of the community. According to UFCW estimates, "From the first day on, customers refused to cross the lines, with an average of 75 percent of customers shopping elsewhere. ..." Maybe this time, management will see the wisdom of offering employees a fair contract.

You can help California's grocery workers. Visit Brave New Film's new site, Supermarket Swindle and pledge not to shop at the Big Three's stores if they lock out their workers again.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: labor, activism, supermarket swindle, grocery workers

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wholefoods
Posted by: basinjasin on Jul 3, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wholefoods Market takes really good care of their team members. If you plan on working for a grocery store this is the best option out there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wholefoods Posted by: astudent
Maybe it is the cynic in me
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jul 3, 2007 1:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think employers, especially of retail/service workers, want universal health care.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. If we can cover folks with health care, independent of their employer. Then workers will have more freedom.

Think about it, many of the jobs in retail and service have a waiting time before they qualify for employer assistance on health care. Back in the day, I had a 6 month wait. I bet some families feel tied to less then ideal jobs because of the health coverage through the employer (regardless of the employer/employee contribution levels) and the evilness of 'pre-existing conditions'.

Now if someone working at McDonalds, Kinko's, Macy's, etc... knew that they had coverage no matter what. No waiting periods, no pre-existing conditions, etc... then that would put power in the employees hands. That disincentive of our massively screwed up health care system financing would not be a factor in whether they should endure the crap. It would free up our employees, and probably lead to better benefits, and wages.

And for the true believers of the 'free market' think about this, it would eliminate one glaring disparity in the CHOICES that workers make. It should make the wage and benefit packages that employers better connected to true market forces. Why shouldn't the free market principles apply to employee's choices.

I could be wrong, we won't know till we try it, but it sure makes a lot of sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Maybe it is the cynic in me Posted by: Progressive Citizen
» RE: Truth in numbers... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Truth in numbers... Posted by: Progressive Citizen
» RE: Truth in numbers... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Truth in numbers... Posted by: Progressive Citizen
» RE: Truth in numbers... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Truth in numbers... Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: Truth in numbers... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Truth in numbers... Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: Truth in numbers... Posted by: EagleMB
Their Biggest Threat Is Now A Convenient Excuse
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Jul 3, 2007 3:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Companies that have seen Wal-Mart as a looming threat to the grocery industry are now using that threat as a reason to pare down on wages, benefits and working conditions, citing a need to remain competitive with the giant retailer.

It has happened here in Canada. One of our largest grocery chains, Loblaws, recently cited Wal-Mart's plans to expand the Supercenter concept as proof that it needs to shed full-time workers, cut wages and benefits to stay competitive.

It's not just the floor-level workers feeling the pinch, Loblaws has cut 1000-1400 office jobs as well. The CEO got a 14% pay hike, by the way.



How They Got Union Bureaucracy Help

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Local stores. Only way to keep them around is to not improve roads.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jul 3, 2007 5:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some cities/towns/areas have passed anti-bigbox store legislation but these laws have proven to be tough to pass, hard to enforce, and -sometimes- illegal. Nice try. The best way is to NOT PASS ANY BOND MEASURES to improve roads in the area. In other words, keep your two-lane road, unpaved road, unimproved road, etc. Most States and municipalities already have rules about traffic congestion (based on vehical weight and frequency) on certain types of roads. Also, the big-box companies themselves and their trucking companies won't travel on small roads like this. Even when legal it impeads their 'turn around time', increases liability due to accidents, and causes them headaches. This is why they always are promoting smaller towns and counties to issue bonds to 'improve' roads. Ignore the advert campaigns about needing to 'solve traffic congestion'. These are a smoke screen for sweet-heart contracting jobs and big-box national stores seeking to take over all merchadising in the country.
Obviously, the ultimate solution is to not patronise these national chain stores and only buy from truely local shops. Or, if unable, at least shop at smaller/local stores that participate in national agreements (similiar to Co-ops in a way) to be able to get cheaper products.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Waaay back in the day...
Posted by: Madam Hatter on Jul 4, 2007 12:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was a grocery "checker" (as we were called then) when I was in high school: 1975-77. [This was way before UPC scanners. Back when you still when you had to punch in the "1," the "7," the "9," and the big button on the right if an item was $1.79. Remember that? Ah, the good old days.]

We were part of the meat cutters union and I made $6.50 per hour to start, part-time. When I quit after graduating, I was making $7.50. Being a teenager, and covered under my dad's extensive coverage, I don't recall what the benefits were, but the pay was great - especially for a kid like me. There were only a few full-time checkers - even back then, but they made something like $18 an hour! It was a great job back in the day...

But alas, here I am 30 years later, re-entering the workforce after taking time off with the kids, and guess what? I'm making minimum wage - which, here in Oregon, is just 30 cents more per hour than I made in high school: $7.80! And it seems being a grocery worker isn't what it used to be any more either.

I guess it could be worse. At least Oregon has one of the highest minimum wages in the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article sorta puts the 'union bends over/employer pitches soft ball' tactics of andy stern's
Posted by: ekipnrut on Jul 4, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SEIU in context of the reality of bare knuckle employer 'beat down' with scabs tactics..doesn't it ???.
I think that the article raises a basic..indeed fundamental...issue:
Namely what ,when it gets right down to it , is the purpose of the 'big box food store' , e.g. the 'supermarket'? Is it to provide ROI to corporate owner shareholders? Is it to provide (completely absurd) 200G/wk income to CEO's? How about providing SAFE and CLEAN food for a reasonable price , with workers paid a decent living wage with full health care ; is that even on the fucking RADAR. This situation speaks to the root
of what is wrong with capitalism. The commodification of an essential for life itself beyond a sequence of measured quid pro quo from field to store shelf is a notion that may merit reconsideration. Put another way, why should a very very few
be permitted to mega-engorge themselves on something we all require to sustain life in the most literal sense?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement