The LA Daily News seems to agree with me on the two strikes: an editorial today supports the grocery clerks, and has this to say about the MTA mechanics:
For too long, our elected officials have taken money and campaign support from public employees unions, then paid them back out of the public treasury with inflated salaries, benefits and pensions without even expecting high productivity.But, as they say, read the whole thing.
The result is that in these difficult economic times, our government agencies are cutting back in public services, and our elected officials are looking for new ways to raise taxes.
The unions, in turn, are acting like spoiled brats. The MTA mechanics -- who average $50,000 a year with 21 making $100,000 -- are among the worst examples. They have gone on strike because they want the public to make good on their union leaders' mismanagement of their health benefit funds without accounting for where the money went.
Shame on them, holding the public hostage for their own mistakes......
Enough is enough. The time has come for our leaders to decide which side they are on -- the side of the public they took an oath to serve, or the public employees who have wrapped them around their fingers with political campaign support.
Actually I'm kinda surprised to see you supporting the UFCW. In essence you've got part-time workers who make $15 an hour doing non-skilled labor and who get a free ride on health care. As I pointed out on Friday, since health care costs are doubling about every 8 years now, it's just not reasonable for the UFCW to expect to get free health insurance as part-timers.
God knows that no other part-timers in the country do.
And it's hard to see how the companies can afford it either. Yeah, you can talk about how much better it's be to computerize the inventory system, or what have you, but the bottom line is that labor costs are the largest fixed cost of any business.
Moreover, I don't trust what the UFCW is saying about the contract. Their talking point is that it will require employees to pay 1/2 the cost of their medical care. Funny though, I can't find a copy of the proposed contract on their web site to confirm that.
But the Northern California UFCW, who is not on strike, has posted a copy of the contract proposal. And as far as I can tell, the UFCW down here is lying about what the health care clause contains.
That doesn't make me especially willing to trust them on anything else they say.
That aside, it does make me worry about the bigger issue: Health Care. As I posted here, the MTA and UFCW strikes point out that the constant rises in the cost of health care, and hence, health care insurance, are going to provoke a serious crisis sooner or later.
I think the strikes down here, whatever else their merits may be, are just the tip of the iceberg that's floating our way.
Posted by: Dale Franks at October 18, 2003 09:09 PMThere are lots of things that are involved here besides "health care." If all it was was a few deductables and co-pays, this strike would never have happened.
The Stores however, have several other proposals which are deal-killers. There is a new two-tier wage scale that is SUBSTANTIALLY lower for new hires -- especially Sunday & Holiday pay. Only an idiot would expect that the Stores would not move heaven and earth to get as many "new hires" and as few "old hires" as possible, should this contract go into effect.
The Stores also want the right to open non-union stores and ignore the (now-lower) union payscales at such stores.
There are also work-rule changes, such as split shifts and longer periods in "apprenticeship" positions.
To say it's about "part-timers medical benefits" -- especially after reading the contract you linked, is at best, misleading.
Now, do I think the unions should get everything they want? No. But I'm utterly unsurprised they are striking, as the contract offered stinks.
You say that the Northern Cal local is not striking. Are you asserting they *signed* this thing? Or are they just waiting to see what happens in SoCal?
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 18, 2003 09:36 PMI'm not asserting anything about the UFCW up North. I just know they aren't striking.
But, look, while I'm sure the Union itself doesn't like a lot of things you cited in the contract, that's not what I'm hearing. What I'm hearing is that employees will have to pay 1/2 of their health care, and it's just not true. So, don't lie to me right out of the gate and then expect my unqualified support.
Nobody's talking about all that other stuff you mentioned. And frankly, I doubt if the guys on the picket line care all that much about the two tier wage deal. It won't affect them, after all.
And frankly, I don't think doing price checks on aisle 5 is worth $15 an hour, either. I probably wouldn't want to pay an employee that much for doing it if I owned a store. Even under the new contract, a General Merchandise Clerk starts as an apprentice at $11.33, with a rise to $18.26 after a 2-year apprenticeship. That's a pretty good wage for a job that requires essentially no education or special skills.
And for which you only have to work 25 hours a week.
Posted by: Dale Franks at October 18, 2003 10:10 PMI note that the strike vote was 97% in favor, so there is substantial unanimity in the union.
As for 2-tier not affecting the current employees: nonsense. Not only will the employer be tempted to find a reason to get rid of the more expensive workers, but the workplace (and union) will quickly be split by this wedge. At some point the union is going to have to choose who to negotiate for -- my betting is they eventually average out pay and benefits.
Kevin,
I addressed my health care comments in a post above, but yours here raises another question --
of the two other major issues; two-tier and the right to open non-union stores, I would guess that the latter would be the first concession the union would make. The non-union store issue would really be problematic. But I don't know. Your guess?
Dave, see my comments in the main section
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 21, 2003 10:51 AMKevin,
Here is your post and a comment regarding it....
"As for 2-tier not affecting the current employees: nonsense. Not only will the employer be tempted to find a reason to get rid of the more expensive workers, but the workplace (and union) will quickly be split by this wedge"
It won't affect the current employees. There are Federal and State laws protecting workers from such abuse. Employees can not indiscriminately fire employees without cause. If they do, that's what the labor board is for. And guess what....it's free. Every American is entitled to this priviledge and they don't have to pay monthly Union dues!
You know what I don't understand? The union raises their members dues and you don't bat an eye. But let the employer ask for you to pay a small portion of your medical premiums and you start crying.
Cindy--
Sure they cannot be fired without cause, but a cause is usually available.
But that is not the main problem with "two-tier." The problem is that it creates impossible work-place tensions, with some employees making much more for the same work as others. This happens everywhere two-tier has been tried. At the Post Office it has led to violence.
And resentment is only the start of it. The employees will quickly break into two groups -- old and new. The union will utterly fracture trying to keep both groups happy when they have very different agendas.
The end result -- the next contract will see the union having to merge the payscales, with the "old" workers averaging down.
This is not lost on management, of course. This is part of their goal. Divide and conquer.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at November 29, 2003 10:02 AMKevin,
The union creates friction between management and the employees. An employee, even if making more than the new hires, who is an asset to the company, will have little to worry about losing his job. The union protects the lazy.
Posted by: Cindy Price at December 29, 2003 10:36 AM