The union representing more than 65,000 Southern California grocery workers has voted to authorize a region-wide strike against the giant Vons and Ralphs supermarket chains. A few months ago the same union authorized a strike against the Albertsons chain.

The new vote comes after an impasse was reached in contract talks last week. More than 90% of members approved the possible strike action.

At central issue, no surprise, are wages and health care benefits. Only 3 1/2 years ago the union went out on a bitterly fought 142 day strike that ended in a disappointing manner. The markets were able to impose a new two-tier contract, severely cutting back wage rates and insurance benefits for newer employees.

The United Food and Commercial Workers union is currently trying to win back some of those concessions it was forced to accept. The two-tier system hasn't met the expectations of the employers either, helping to create a less stable and less professional work force. The unions are hopeful that this time around they can gain the upper hand.

The actual walkout could begin anytime after a required 72 hour advance notice if offered.

Comments (9)

1. "The United Food and Commercial Workers union is currently trying to win back some of those concessions it was forced to accept."

   Mr Cooper, it might be enlightening for you to explain WHY this happened back in 2003....and WHO screwed over the UFCW.

   "Although the UFCW seemed well poised to capitalize upon that support and retain much of their benefits, many argue that their potential was sabotaged by the AFL-CIO bosses. The AFL-CIO's primary goal was supporting the Democrats and the Democrats were beneficiaries of campaign contributions from several companies that the UFCW was striking against.

   The AFL-CIO helped to settle or discourage the sympathy strikes before they escalated, even at the cost of significantly reduced health benefits. Also, the AFL-CIO did not mobilize their national resources to aid the UFCW even though it would have made a difference at crucial points in the campaign. Ending up, the AFL-CIO convinced the UFCW to call off the strike since elections were coming up that year.

   It was also rapidly becoming clear that employees, many of whom lived from paycheck to paycheck, simply could not hold out much longer and desperately wanted to go back to work, even under less favorable terms, whereas the chains could afford to hold out for much longer with only moderate loss in profit. This is demonstrated by the chains' refusal to enter into binding arbitration with the union.

   The UFCW and the companies reached an agreement on February 26, 2004, at about 5:30pm. Although it contained steep cuts to benefits, essentially meeting all the grocery chains' demands, the UFCW members voted overwhelmingly because many could not afford to continue the strike. As a result of the failed California grocery strike, many UFCW members harboured a deep resentment at the AFL-CIO for "selling them out". This was a major reason for the UFCW leaving the AFL-CIO in 2005."----wikipedia.com

   Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 1:22pm

2. "PS everyone the Democrats in the House just voted to keep the School of the Americas open. 42 Democrats voted to keep it open and certain others chose "no vote" (such as Charles Rangel).

   And Nanci Pelosi? The shining heart of San Francisco "liberalism"?

   Couldn't even be troubled to show up to vote "present". She didn't even show up to vote."---Posted by ZERO 06/25/2007 @ 2:05pm

   (BTW, he puts me on Ignore...for the ZEROian reason, that I have disagreed with him...but I haven't reciprocated)

   Anyway...wonder how DARLADOON, our resident Pelosi apologist, will excuse this? On the Iraq supplement, it was "Nancy voted against it, what more could she do???"

   But on keeping the SOTA open (a PETER ROTHBERG issue some weeks back), how will DD explain that away?!?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 2:14pm

3. ----wikipedia.com via MASK: "....whereas the chains could afford to hold out for much longer with only moderate loss in profit. This is demonstrated by the chains' refusal to enter into binding arbitration with the union.

   The claim that the chains suffered only "loss in profit" is simply NOT TRUE. The chain I'm most familiar with is Safeway (ex-stock owner)....and it, along with the other chains battling the UFCW at the time, were desperately fighting off rapidly expanding and non-union Sam's Club and Cotsco. The unionized chains, while mostly able to stay open through the strikes, suffered far more than just "loss in profit"! Go look at Safeway's (SWY) 10-year stock chart and one can clearly its stock lows coincided with that period.....It has since doubled in approx. 3 years (another one I sold too early, drats)!

   The retail food sector, especially in immigrant-heavy California, is absolutely the perfect example of the effect of (mostly) illegal immigration in creating a huge oversupply of low-skilled labor.

   Posted by Happy at 06/25/2007 @ 2:39pm

4. HAPPY, my main point was WHO was primarily responsible for the 2003 UFCW strike collapse....

   "many argue that their potential was sabotaged by the AFL-CIO bosses. The AFL-CIO's primary goal was supporting the Democrats and the Democrats were beneficiaries of campaign contributions from several companies that the UFCW was striking against."

   Which is tremendously IRONIC...it was the AFL-CIO and the Democrats who screwed over the union, not management (as was implied by Mr Cooper).

   Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 3:00pm

5. Posted by MASK 06/25/2007 @ 3:00pm

   I wasn't disputing your main point! In fact, I welcome it since I didn't follow the inter-union & intertwined w/politics aspects of the strike at the time.

   Note I cited "----wikipedia.com via MASK:". Still, I can see where less careful readers (that's me sometimes) may think you were the target (this time)! Some of them will be disappointed that I wasn't taking out a piece of your hide! LOL!

   Posted by Happy at 06/25/2007 @ 3:23pm

6. Posted by HAPPY 06/25/2007 @ 3:23pm

   No, no...just pointing out my point. Oddly, with the early California primary next year, be interesting to see (if the strike continues to February 5th) how the Dem nominees handle it....

   A. sidestep the issue to not piss off the chains (or even not to incur the wrath of California shoppers who may not be all that happy with a grocery strike by then)...

   B. support the UFCW and alienate the others.

   Posted by Mask at 06/25/2007 @ 3:35pm

7. Great news! Now I can look forward as I did in 2003 to eagerly making a point to cross their picket lines as often as possible!

   Posted by antiliberal at 06/25/2007 @ 3:36pm

8. Now I can look forward as I did in 2003 to eagerly making a point to cross their picket lines as often as possible!

   Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/25/2007 @ 3:36pm

   They will need you! Safeway lost money in 2003, returned to a samll profit in 2004 and really got it going in 2005 & 2006!

   I will be watching this too! If Safeway stock takes another nosedive, this HAPPY vulture will start circling!

   Posted by Happy at 06/25/2007 @ 3:48pm

9. UPDATE 1-California grocery workers authorize strike option

   Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:36pm ET

   (Updates with quotes from union, companies and analyst)

   By Dana Ford

   LOS ANGELES, June 25 (Reuters) - Grocery workers in Southern California voted overwhelmingly to give their union the power to call a strike if contract talks with three major supermarket chains fail, a union spokesman said on Monday.

   "Preliminary results show us that we are well in excess of the two-thirds vote needed to authorize a strike," spokesman Mike Shimpock said on a conference call.

   He added that more than 50 percent of eligible voters turned out at the polls -- a figure Shimpock characterized as well above the national average for this type of voting.....

   "We just want what's fair," said Erica Bentzen, a union member and a 22-year employee of Ralphs in Calabasas, outside Los Angeles. "What they've (the supermarkets) offered is not good enough."

   A major sticking point in negotiations is health coverage. Less than half of grocery workers in Southern California have health coverage, a significant decline from the 94 percent that had coverage before the 2003-04 work stoppage, Jacobs said.

   "The workers will hold out very hard for a contract that goes a long way toward restoring what was lost," Jacobs said, though he added that no one wants a strike.....

   -----------------------------------------------------

   Cali's economy today is much stronger than 2003-2004 and with lower unemployment rate (~5%).....it would seem the UFCW SHOULD BE in a better bargaining situation.....however, ALL affected public supermarket chains' stocks went UP today, in an overall down market day! Seems investors are betting that grocery workers are adequately paid and won't get much more!

   Posted by Happy at 06/25/2007 @ 5:14pm