The Interocitor

I don't think you're nuts. I just don't agree with you. I think they make a heck of a lot of money for unskilled, part-time labor, and, since most part-timers in this country don't even have health care benefits, I think they're being a bit greedy.

But, I don't shop at The Store™, so it really doesn't affect me.

My job requires either a degree or minimum of 5 years experience. Currently, I pay almost $500/month for my insurance premiums. I receive no pension. My only retirement option is a 401K which I must invest my own money. I only receive overtime pay if I work over 8 hours per day or over 40 hours per week. My employer offers no optical or dental plan. I must be a full-time employee to receive any benefits at all. I believe the grocery workers' contract is generous for existing employees. The effect would be felt by new hires....but if new hires accept a position offered by the employer, they have agreed to their offer. It seems to me, the existing employers are minimally affected by the new contract. Welcome to the real world.

My job requires either a degree or minimum of 5 years experience. Currently, I pay almost $500/month for my insurance premiums. I receive no pension. My only retirement option is a 401K which I must invest my own money. I only receive overtime pay if I work over 8 hours per day or over 40 hours per week. My employer offers no optical or dental plan. I must be a full-time employee to receive any benefits at all.

Not sure what your story has to do with the supermarket story. Are you a supermarket worker?

Re: Dale & Cindy,

So the fact more and more Americans are getting screwed out of insurance makes it OK? This country is becoming a third world country with the support of a great many of its own people. Maybe today you think you're on the "screwing" end, but just wait till they start downsizing and exporting your line of work. See you on the streets - don't forget your cardboard box!

- michael, unemployed for 15 months

Not sure what your story has to do with the supermarket story. Are you a supermarket worker?

No supermarket worker needs a degree or 5 years of experience. I think her post can be summarized like this:

"I'm shit out of luck, and nobody should have it better than me."

Goodbye, post WWII middle class! Nice knowing you.

No supermarket worker needs a degree or 5 years of experience.

Yeah, I knew that...

I think her post can be summarized like this:

"I'm shit out of luck, and nobody should have it better than me."

Hey, she didn't mention her wages, so who's to say she's SOL.

OK, I stand corrected. Here is a more accurate summary:

"My job sucks, which makes *me* an authority on sacrifice and hardship. My job requires a degree or 5 years experience, and I don't get health benefits, so unless you have a degree or 5 years experience you shouldn't be getting them either. If new hires sign up under these conditions, they get what they deserve because they were free to remain unemployed."

And if all employees offered this - which is where we're headed - then isn't that something to fight against?

Also you should make it clear that your $500 is for your whole family. But if it's just for you - well, you really are getting screwed. I work in newspapers. I only have to pay about $75 a month for M/V/D.

In the last year it has gotten worse for new hires who are no longer offered dental.

Andrew, etc.

Almost no one outside of very large companies get dental insurance anymore. It is actually unavailable to groups under, say, 50. The reason: dental work is postponable and planable for the most part, and so small groups often have huge initial costs after signup, as several new members have a pile of pending work.

Same thing with vision and other side plans. But again, you guys are missing the whole point (or at least my point). If this was just about holding on to every last item from the old contract, regardless of its cost or utility, I and lots of others would think the UFCW was as out-of-it as the MTA mechanics. There's lots more here than a few medical line items.

"Almost no one outside of very large companies get dental insurance anymore."

This is not completely true. It should read, "almost no one outside of companies with little competition from non-union shops get dental insurance anymore."

If you have skills to walk, or you work in a unionized industry, especially one that can't "outsource", you're very likely to get dental insurance. I know. I've worked in such an industry for a while, and in pretty small companies at that. Although to be sure, the pressure from "outsourcing" is increasing.

For the woman who complains about working a white-collar job that requires here to pay $500 for insurance coverage, there are solutions.
1. If she's a Republican-leaner, or DLC-type Democrat, believing in the wonderfulness of capitalism -- fine. Go find another job.
2. Stop denigrating unions and find out how to start a white-collar union in your profession.

anon--

I don't count plans that offer two free teeth cleanings, a free toothbrush and 10% off root-canals to be "dental insurance." And I've got skills that pay me well into six figures, so walking is always an option. When I've worked for small companies, we go through the dental isnurance thing. Currently I work for a company I partly own, and we still don't have dental insurance. NOBODY will insure a small company for major dental. Too many times they try to sign up because one or two people has pressing $20,000 problems.

I have a comment to make to this. My husband is a manager for one of the Kroger stores and he has had to leave his wife and child to to work for one of these stores on strike to keep it open. My husband and myself used to be a regular employee at Kroger and have had the "free" ins. Now we have to pay for it because we aren't union. We have to pay at least $300 a month for ins and I feel lucky that is all it is cause most people I know have to pay a lot more. So, whay the complaint? I think you should feel lucky you even have ins offered to you. And to add to that, $5 to $15 a week is really good. If you went out to actually compare your "new" insurance to other companies insurance, you'll feel thankful let me tell you! It isn't as bad as you think. I would like for them to make a decision soon so we can get our families back home!!

Holy Cow! You aren't eligible for coverage for 13 months (19 if you are a clerk, and 37 if you are a dependant). Did you guys even bother to read the lack of coverage? You don't have any coverage for the first year of employment. Period. Every company I have worked for, I was eligible for coverage in 3 months or less (and the ones with long lead times only allowed folks to join plans at certain calendar dates, like Jan. 1st, Apr. 1st, etc.).

I have not been covered by a funded pension plan since 1989. But since some past employers had plans that were in place, but not getting funded, I would get zapped trying to sock away money in my IRA.

My question for the commenters here: if you could not get coverage for your spouse and children for 3 years, would you still think that what you had was insurance?

Just a few general comments on the situation the chains are facing:
- until now, the three chains have only competed with each other for the bulk of the retail food dollar. Since all are unionized, and all are under the same contract, their labor costs are roughly the same. This works great for the companies and the workforce, as long as their cost structure doesn't create an opportunity for a well-capitalized competitor to enter the market. Folks, that's what is about to change. It is really not an issue of what the companies "should" be willing to concede. The richer the contract, the more jobs will be lost to competitors.

- health care costs are the biggest uncapped and unknown costs in the contract. Premiums nationwide are up astronomically in recent years, and there is nothing on the horizon that suggests that's going to change anytime soon. Incidentally, to the stores, a dollar per hour paid in wages is the same thing as a dollar per hour paid into the union health plan. The bottom line is the total hourly cost of labor, and the ability to forecast what that is going to be over time. If the unions insist on an uncapped cost for the chains, that means the chains don't really know what their total costs are going to be. As an example, health insurance costs were up about 13.5% last year. That is the equivalent of a 13.5% raise to the employees, without even having to go to the bargaining table, since in this case the chains are writing the check for the whole amount.

- I would guess that the unions will accept the two tier structure, but a lot depends on how real they think the potential Wal-Mart, etc. threat is. If they think it's really going to happen in a big way, then the union stores' market share will start to shrink pretty quickly, leading to workforce reductions. New hires would probably be the first sacrificed under those conditions.

- finally, grocery clerking is not easy work, but it isn't skilled work. I know from firsthand experience during college. I don't begrudge the unions their right to try for whatever they can get, but the marketplace will be the final arbiter of how viable their deal will be.

As an example, health insurance costs were up about 13.5% last year. That is the equivalent of a 13.5% raise to the employees ...

A 13.5 percent rise in health insurance cost, even accepting your number and assuming uniform application, is not a remotely comparable dollar figure to 13.5 percent more base pay.

A comment made to Tara--
I am glad to hear that your husband is a full-time employee especially "A MANAGER"(as you know less that 30% of employees are full time...since you have worked in a grocery store.) The grocery store is required to have employees work 24 hours which is stated in the Union Contract,if these hours are not worked then you loose your benefits for that month or pay the 600+ that is reqired. These hours are vigorous 8pm-2:00am or even split shifts working 5 days a week, working days and mixure of nights or if you do not have the 13+ more years invested in your company you may be one of the unfortunate ones that become laid off. What the public does not is the systemic ways the grocery stores run their system...with no stability of knowing whether you will be working or not that week oR even traveling 30+miles for another store. As you know when there are lay off many managers will fill in the position of a checker with a lower paid courtesy clerk in place of a checker(who is laid off, with many years experience) The contact is an advocate for those employees who are not as fortunate to have a full time position and benefits such as quarterly bonus that are given to managers in some sums up to $15,000. If my husband brought home such bonuses I wouldn't mind paying extra for health insurance too. Since he is only working 24 hours, I cannot agree with this contract of spending a large portion of his check on benefits when he doesn't make that much himself.

Funny how my post was taken like a was complaining. I am not complaining, just speaking factually. I have been "in the real world" for quite sometime now. I believe it was about 15-20 years ago that I did not have to pay any monthly insurance premiums. Times have changed and employers can no longer stay in business if they were to pay 100% of their employees' medical benefits.

One post above wondered how much I was paid. I make $45,000 annually. I do accounts payable for a large law firm. I see each month what the firm pays for their employees insurance premiums. I think you would be surprised at how expensive it is. I am happy for the amount they pay towards my monthly premiums.

Here is a quote from a post above:

"My job sucks, which makes *me* an authority on sacrifice and hardship." This was in response to my post. Please look at my original post. I never stated that my job sucks. On the contrary, I enjoy my job and I am THANKFUL I have one. When my monthly insurance premiums increased in June 2003, I accepted it. I did not go and take it out on others who aren't even responsible for the increase.

I learned a long time ago, the only one who cares about me is me and my family. When it comes down to it, my employer doesn't care about me. If I belonged to a Union, that would just be another entity that wouldn't care about me. I don't expect anyone to take care of me. I have to take care of myself. Again, I'm not complaining about my job, nor am I complaining about my employer. What I say is reality! That being said,

As a consumer, I resent being put in the middle of the dispute between the grocery workers and their employers. I also resent being directly affected by the strike. Now that the teamsters refuse to deliver to the supermarkets, once again, it is the consumer who suffers.

Also, I know grocery workers have the choice to change their status and go back to work instead of picketing. Yes, they can be a "scab" as you call it. They have the choice to cross the picket lines, keep their current benefits and get the same pay as before. Why don't they? They have to "support" their union brothers. Well if I worked in a grocery store, I honestly couldn't give a rats ass about my union brother. The only people I support is my family. When push comes to shove, I'd be going back to work to put food on my family's table and pay my monthly mortgage. I'm also aware my "union brothers" would give me a hard time for crossing the picket line. Well, this is what I'd say to my "union brother" if they did give me a hard time. "If you're willing to pay my mortgage and feed my family, I will pick up a picket sign and help support the cause....if not, keep your mouth shut!" My alliance is with my family. Definitely not a Union or my "union brother"!

This whole strike is a joke. It is time that Americans stop whining and learn one thing. You have a job for one reason and one reason alone, to make the owners profits. If you don't help them make money, you don't have a job. Companies don't hire people out of the goodness of their hearts unless you work for a charity. Plain and simple. I keep hearing about corporate greed. Corporations are there to make money for their owners. That isn't greed it is capitalism. If you don't like what your boss is giving you QUIT and get another job. If you don't think their is any jobs that will give you what you want START YOUR OWN COMPANY. The problem is we have a bunch of people with little to no ambition or will to take risks who start at a grocery store when they are young and never leave. Before you start blasting me about not knowing what I am talking about, I have lived it. I grew up in a grocery store, literally. My dad worked in one for 25 years. I would spend the morning with him almost every summer day when I was in High School. I got to know the people, the managers and the customers. I have a very good understanding of what goes on and who the people are. I am sick of people thinking they are owed something. People who make big salaries and get great benefits in the real world do so because of the value they bring to the company. In a grocery store they think it is their right to be given it. I work for somebody. I am not an owner or a CEO. I have hated what bosses have done to me in the past, so I got another job. I didn't whine about being treated unfairly. Didn't your mothers ever tell you that life isn't fair. I am told by my father that the contract stipulates that after 90 days of a strike the stores can replace the workers. I think that is pretty soon isn't it. If he is right, I hope that losing your jobs was worth fighting against a modest increase in medical costs for what is probably one of the best medical plans out there.

Actually, the purpose of a company is to provide a service to their customers that WARRANTS a profit. They don't have a RIGHT to a profit, any more than the workers have a right to wages. If the customers don't like the company's service or product, they will go elsewhere, and no customers = no profits.

The last major employer in LA to replace their workers after a strike was the LA Herald-Examiner. Didn't work so well. The customers woun't put up with it, and the Herald lost its critical subscription base and went out of business.

The stores, coming off a major consolidation phase, where many competitors were merged into one or two chains in any given neighborhood, have reduced customer choice. Customers don't like this much -- stand in some line 8 deep at Ralph's where only 5 out of 13 registers are open and listen. They'd go somewhere else, but their only choice is another Ralph's. The stores started this strike with a minimum high regard from the public. Firing all the workers and hiring inexperienced and often incompetent replacements will not improve things one bit.

THe most likely result would be anti-trust and breakup legislation. It was already clear that the consolidation neither reduced prices nor improved service -- quite the contrary -- and this strike has only hardened attitudes.

Firing all the workers in the 3 companies would only reinforce the public perception of a lack of alternatives in the marketplace.

Case in point: I usually don't care much for unions or strikes -- I would have fired the MTA mechanics on day 2 -- but in this case, I say screw the stores, they deserve it.

Imagine what the liberals think.

Cindy, thank you for being personally accountable! I think that's what this all really comes down to. Personal accountability. That is, as you said it Cindy, at the end of the day, nobody is going to take care of us but ourselves and nor should they! Where do people get the idea that someone or somebody OWES them something? Nobody owes any of us sh*t! To many of the respondents who missed Cindy's point, I believe that what she was saying is that even more highly skilled jobs that require a degree (which requires work, money and at least a four year commitment to obtain) don't give free benefits to their valuable employees. What Cindy and I realize is that we are replaceable. REPLACEABLE. I can go to my boss and bitch that I pay $162.00 per month for my benefits alone (twice that to include my husband, and another $200 for children) but I guarantee that I would be met with a resounding, "take it or leave it!" Not because my employer is heartless or greedy, but because that is what is MARKET. I'll get no better elsewhere because all employers have realized these types of increases in healthcare costs. I make $63,000 a year and my benefits cost my employer over $14,000 per year. That's right. Not only do they have to pay me to show up every day and work so that I can support myself, but they also have to pay for all my benefits, etc. on top of that. Keeping in mind that I also make a contribution towards my benefits, what do you suppose it would costs and employer to give me FREE coverage? Perhaps as a percentage of my pay, $14,000 is not bad, but what if you're a grocery store employee who works the minimum 24 hrs/wk is it? At roughly $12.00/hr their annual pay is about $25,000 per year. It’s insane to think that they should receive free benefits. It’s NOT market and they ARE replaceable!….even more so than Cindy and myself. I say they should count their blessings that they’re being offered what they are and snap it up while it’s still on the table. I consider them lucky.
Tim, I loved what you said. It seems that the first ones to open their mouths and complain about what they don’t have, are the last ones to put it out there and assume the risk, hard work, responsibility and perseverance required to create upside for oneself. And I too, have hated what bosses have done, so when determined that I could find a better deal elsewhere, I moved on! I didn’t complain, I took a risk.