Strike!!!!

[rightwinger]

SIERRA VISTA — Thousands of workers in the state are set to strike tonight if a deal is not reached between union leaders and two grocery chains.

If an agreement between Safeway Inc., Fry’s owner Kroger Co. and the United Food Commercial Workers Union Local 99 is not reached by 6 p.m., about 25,000 union members in the state could walk out.

Fry’s and Safeway, which together employ more than 400 people in Cochise County, have hired thousands of temporary workers in preparation for a strike.

Striking union members would receive $100 a week, said Jim McLaughlin, president of the union.

In September, union members rejected the most recent offer from the employers and voted to authorize its leadership to call a strike if their demands, which include health care coverage without premiums, are not met.

The offer by the two companies would see employees pay up to $15 a week for coverage.

“The employers want to shift more health care costs onto the workers by forcing them to pay new premium fees in addition to the co-pays, deductibles and other costs they already pay,” union spokes woman Ellen Anreder said in a statement earlier this week.
Showdown looming for union, two grocers | The Sierra Vista Herald

.

Why is it that people assume that their health insurance is their EMPLOYER'S responsibility rather than THEIR OWN responsibility? Why shouldn't employers be required to provide all personal insurance? Auto insurance.. homeowners insurance..renters insurance or life insurance. Are employers the new parents once you leave your Mama and Daddy's house?

I agree.. Why should we rely on our employers to choose which healthcare is best for us? They should be in the business of making money like in other countries. Healthcare used to be a low cost benefit for employers. Now it is driving them to bankruptcy

This is why we need the government to step in and fill the employers role. It is how every other industrialized country has resolved the problem

 

[Vel]

SIERRA VISTA — Thousands of workers in the state are set to strike tonight if a deal is not reached between union leaders and two grocery chains.

If an agreement between Safeway Inc., Fry’s owner Kroger Co. and the United Food Commercial Workers Union Local 99 is not reached by 6 p.m., about 25,000 union members in the state could walk out.

Fry’s and Safeway, which together employ more than 400 people in Cochise County, have hired thousands of temporary workers in preparation for a strike.

Striking union members would receive $100 a week, said Jim McLaughlin, president of the union.

In September, union members rejected the most recent offer from the employers and voted to authorize its leadership to call a strike if their demands, which include health care coverage without premiums, are not met.

The offer by the two companies would see employees pay up to $15 a week for coverage.

“The employers want to shift more health care costs onto the workers by forcing them to pay new premium fees in addition to the co-pays, deductibles and other costs they already pay,” union spokes woman Ellen Anreder said in a statement earlier this week.
Showdown looming for union, two grocers | The Sierra Vista Herald

.

Why is it that people assume that their health insurance is their EMPLOYER'S responsibility rather than THEIR OWN responsibility? Why shouldn't employers be required to provide all personal insurance? Auto insurance.. homeowners insurance..renters insurance or life insurance. Are employers the new parents once you leave your Mama and Daddy's house?

I agree.. Why should we rely on our employers to choose which healthcare is best for us? They should be in the business of making money like in other countries. Healthcare used to be a low cost benefit for employers. Now it is driving them to bankruptcy

This is why we need the government to step in and fill the employers role. It is how every other industrialized country has resolved the problem

In other words.. Let the government be your Daddy. Should the government provide my auto, homeowners, and life insurance as well?

 

[noose4]

Why is it that people assume that their health insurance is their EMPLOYER'S responsibility rather than THEIR OWN responsibility? Why shouldn't employers be required to provide all personal insurance? Auto insurance.. homeowners insurance..renters insurance or life insurance. Are employers the new parents once you leave your Mama and Daddy's house?

I agree.. Why should we rely on our employers to choose which healthcare is best for us? They should be in the business of making money like in other countries. Healthcare used to be a low cost benefit for employers. Now it is driving them to bankruptcy

This is why we need the government to step in and fill the employers role. It is how every other industrialized country has resolved the problem

In other words.. Let the government be your Daddy. Should the government provide my auto, homeowners, and life insurance as well?

if your home is damaged in a natural disaster(ex. Katrina) you will be taken care of or if you die and leave behind children and a spouse they will receive social security benefits, so the government already provides you a type of life and home owner insurance.

 

[Vel]

I agree.. Why should we rely on our employers to choose which healthcare is best for us? They should be in the business of making money like in other countries. Healthcare used to be a low cost benefit for employers. Now it is driving them to bankruptcy

This is why we need the government to step in and fill the employers role. It is how every other industrialized country has resolved the problem

In other words.. Let the government be your Daddy. Should the government provide my auto, homeowners, and life insurance as well?

if your home is damaged in a natural disaster(ex. Katrina) you will be taken care of or if you die and leave behind children and a spouse they will receive social security benefits, so the government already provides you a type of life and home owner insurance.

Well where the hell is my car insurance? I'm tired of paying for it. Send a note to Obama for me will you?

 

[Darkwind]

In a time when Unemployment is topping 10% and people are struggling to pay bills, again we have a Union management that cares little for the people it represents as they always have other than collecting dues and is urging these people to strike for a benefit that many Americans do not get and thats not having to pay for your health insurance. I have an idea, why not take some of the money you take from these people that are making only 10 dollars an hour in the first place and use that to buy them health insurance rather than pay your over bloated Union management salaries. The fact is there people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs if they strike as the companies are all set to replace them. Arizona law is on the companies side in this issue and the only people who are going to lose here are the good people who work at these stores because of an outdated 19th and 20th Century thinking that believes that when you don't get your way go on strike that will solve everything. You would think, after Steele, Textile, Auto, Toys, Aerospace, Computers, etc have all left this nation because of it that eventually someone might learn a lesson.

Would it be a good idea to have a universal health care scheme? That might help in this situation.

I have an idea, what if the taxes these people are paying could be used for a universal health care scheme?

As for the other parts of the post - what are you suggesting? Workers shouldn't be able to bargain????

don't you think that the Union leadership and the members should exercise a little common sense here and realize that under the current economic climate they won't be getting everything they want this time around?

 

[rightwinger]

Why is it that people assume that their health insurance is their EMPLOYER'S responsibility rather than THEIR OWN responsibility? Why shouldn't employers be required to provide all personal insurance? Auto insurance.. homeowners insurance..renters insurance or life insurance. Are employers the new parents once you leave your Mama and Daddy's house?

I agree.. Why should we rely on our employers to choose which healthcare is best for us? They should be in the business of making money like in other countries. Healthcare used to be a low cost benefit for employers. Now it is driving them to bankruptcy

This is why we need the government to step in and fill the employers role. It is how every other industrialized country has resolved the problem

In other words.. Let the government be your Daddy. Should the government provide my auto, homeowners, and life insurance as well?

Exactly

As long as insurance companies penalize individual ratepayers we need a daddy. We also need a daddy to force them to cover pre-existing conditions and not cancel people who get sick.

 

[Darkwind]

I agree.. Why should we rely on our employers to choose which healthcare is best for us? They should be in the business of making money like in other countries. Healthcare used to be a low cost benefit for employers. Now it is driving them to bankruptcy

This is why we need the government to step in and fill the employers role. It is how every other industrialized country has resolved the problem

In other words.. Let the government be your Daddy. Should the government provide my auto, homeowners, and life insurance as well?

Exactly

As long as insurance companies penalize individual ratepayers we need a daddy. We also need a daddy to force them to cover pre-existing conditions and not cancel people who get sick.

Are you being serous?

 

[Vel]

I agree.. Why should we rely on our employers to choose which healthcare is best for us? They should be in the business of making money like in other countries. Healthcare used to be a low cost benefit for employers. Now it is driving them to bankruptcy

This is why we need the government to step in and fill the employers role. It is how every other industrialized country has resolved the problem

In other words.. Let the government be your Daddy. Should the government provide my auto, homeowners, and life insurance as well?

Exactly

As long as insurance companies penalize individual ratepayers we need a daddy. We also need a daddy to force them to cover pre-existing conditions and not cancel people who get sick.

Gee why not. After all, it's the insurance companies job to take care of you. That's what they were founded and exist for so that you don't have to worry about the future. It's not like insurance companies were private businesses that were formed to make a profit or anything. Stone the crows.

 

[Navy1960]

Godspeed to the United Food Commercial Workers Union Local 99, save America, beat a scab.

YouTube - Talking Union - Pete Seeger The Legend

Too bad in Arizona they don't have scabs as we are a right to work state and as such Union or not, it means that the Employer can bascially hire whomever they wish and employee's can work whereever they wish regardless of it being a Union or not. While that word may apply, in those states that have strict Union laws it does not apply here. One more thing, this strike was settled before it started for many reasons, among them the great number of Union members who expressed that they were willing to accept managements offer of 15.00 a week for health insurance and leave the Uinion.

 

[Thinman]

There seems to be two types of thought that separates us politically. One side believes that anyone can meet their goals through individual effort, and the other side believes in the collective, where everyone gets the same regardless of individual effort.
On the collective side we have labor unions, which stifle individual effort, because there is no reason to work hard. You are going to get paid and you are going to get all your benefits whether you are a productive employee or not. You become a liability to the company you work for, but they can’t fire you. You could lose your job if the company went broke, example, car companies, or the union calls a strike because the company would not or could not meet union demands. Other examples include social security and unemployment compensation. All of these stifle individual effort and people in these circumstances will always be just as they are. Elitists want to keep you right there because you are their voting block.

 

[Diuretic]

In a time when Unemployment is topping 10% and people are struggling to pay bills, again we have a Union management that cares little for the people it represents as they always have other than collecting dues and is urging these people to strike for a benefit that many Americans do not get and thats not having to pay for your health insurance. I have an idea, why not take some of the money you take from these people that are making only 10 dollars an hour in the first place and use that to buy them health insurance rather than pay your over bloated Union management salaries. The fact is there people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs if they strike as the companies are all set to replace them. Arizona law is on the companies side in this issue and the only people who are going to lose here are the good people who work at these stores because of an outdated 19th and 20th Century thinking that believes that when you don't get your way go on strike that will solve everything. You would think, after Steele, Textile, Auto, Toys, Aerospace, Computers, etc have all left this nation because of it that eventually someone might learn a lesson.

Would it be a good idea to have a universal health care scheme? That might help in this situation.

I have an idea, what if the taxes these people are paying could be used for a universal health care scheme?

As for the other parts of the post - what are you suggesting? Workers shouldn't be able to bargain????

don't you think that the Union leadership and the members should exercise a little common sense here and realize that under the current economic climate they won't be getting everything they want this time around?

This is a particular situation and it should be seen that way. If there has been a deleterious effect on the companies involved then that will be seen when the books are examined.

The relationship between a unionised workforce and its employer is symbiotic. I have to be careful here and not get into metaphors about "parasites" and "hosts" but a union that bargained a company into the ground would be killing its members' jobs and hence its own financial interests.

The state of the economy may well have a negative effect on a company's finances but it pays to not assume that if you are entering a collective bargaining situation.

If it has been affected badly then the evidence will be there.

A union official going iin to a bargaining round with a fixed idea that they have to wind back their claims because of the general economy is going in with a defeatist attitude.

 

[Diuretic]

There seems to be two types of thought that separates us politically. One side believes that anyone can meet their goals through individual effort, and the other side believes in the collective, where everyone gets the same regardless of individual effort.
On the collective side we have labor unions, which stifle individual effort, because there is no reason to work hard. You are going to get paid and you are going to get all your benefits whether you are a productive employee or not. You become a liability to the company you work for, but they can’t fire you. You could lose your job if the company went broke, example, car companies, or the union calls a strike because the company would not or could not meet union demands. Other examples include social security and unemployment compensation. All of these stifle individual effort and people in these circumstances will always be just as they are. Elitists want to keep you right there because you are their voting block.

Thinman I think the premises of your argument are faulty in the sense that you believe that the collectivists want everyone to get the same, regardless of individual effort. As someone who would be considered a collectivist I have to disagree that people should get the same regardless of effort (and other factors) that would be unfair.

More skilled and more productive workers should be paid more because they are adding more value to the company. Slackarses should be dealt with by management. A union should protect any worker by insisting on due process, but a union should not protect a slackarse who is bludging off his or her mates. In my country we have pretty strong unions and a fair industrial relations system (which is legislatively biased towards the employer but that's another issue). But workers get sacked here all the time – but for good cause. Any worker here has the right to litigate for unlawful/unfair dismissal but they better have a very good case.
And that's how I like it.

I have worked for our union in a senior position and I was (among other things) involved in arguing for the jobs of members who fell foul of discipline. Sometimes I won, sometimes I lost but I can tell you the cases I lost were lost because the member should have been sacked and that's all there was to it.

 

[noose4]

Godspeed to the United Food Commercial Workers Union Local 99, save America, beat a scab.

YouTube - Talking Union - Pete Seeger The Legend

Too bad in Arizona they don't have scabs as we are a right to work state and as such Union or not, it means that the Employer can bascially hire whomever they wish and employee's can work whereever they wish regardless of it being a Union or not. While that word may apply, in those states that have strict Union laws it does not apply here. One more thing, this strike was settled before it started for many reasons, among them the great number of Union members who expressed that they were willing to accept managements offer of 15.00 a week for health insurance and leave the Uinion.

just because the law in right to slave states like Arizona favor the scumbag scabs doesnt make these pieces of shit scabs honorable.

 

[Navy1960]

Godspeed to the United Food Commercial Workers Union Local 99, save America, beat a scab.

YouTube - Talking Union - Pete Seeger The Legend

Too bad in Arizona they don't have scabs as we are a right to work state and as such Union or not, it means that the Employer can bascially hire whomever they wish and employee's can work whereever they wish regardless of it being a Union or not. While that word may apply, in those states that have strict Union laws it does not apply here. One more thing, this strike was settled before it started for many reasons, among them the great number of Union members who expressed that they were willing to accept managements offer of 15.00 a week for health insurance and leave the Uinion.

just because the law in right to slave states like Arizona favor the scumbag scabs doesnt make these pieces of shit scabs honorable.

You mean like the scabs that are in the Unions in Arizona that want to stay on the job?, those scabs? Or perhaps the people that do not want to contribute part of their wages to a Union management structure that does little or nothing for them? In fact right to work is a lot more friendly for the worker that those so called Union States that you advocate, because it gives the workers the right to choose when and where they want to work free of someone digging into their hard earned wages to pay for the salaries of professional managers who do nothing for the members except collect salaries. So call it what you will, but I submit that the states that don't let the workers make the choice for themselves are the real slave states. I find it interesting that in states like Arizona where workers both Union and non-Union work along side one another that the scab label can be tossed around so easily only because those worker make a choice under OUR form of Govt. to not be represented by a Union.

 

[Care4all]

So are you saying these people working for the Union believe that their salaries and benefits would be as good as they were when they went to work for them if there was no union, ever?

 

[Navy1960]

So are you saying these people working for the Union believe that their salaries and benefits would be as good as they were when they went to work for them if there was no union, ever?

What I'm saying Care is that these people that work in these jobs be they Union or non-Union have the right to choose if they wish to contribute their wages to support a Union. Further, they should also have a right as an employee to accept any offer they deem fair for themselves and their families rather than accept what some nameless, faceless Union negotiator say's they should take. Do I think that the wages they have now would be as good if there were no Union, it depends on the company and who they are in competetion with. If a company is in market where the compete for employee's then they will have wages and benefits that reflect that, Union or not. While in the days when chlld labor was used, and workers had no safety regulations, or worked until they dropped. All that was changed largely due to labor Unions, however those days are long gone and the Industrial Revolution is over Care. So it's time to consider what the employee's want rather than what the Unions want or forcing organized labor on those that do not want it.

 

[Care4all]

If the employee is willing to accept the lower wages and fewer benefits the employer is offering them, then by all means, they should be able to work for this employer under those conditions and not be part of the union for the other workers nor have to pay those fees.....I can understand that and accept something like that....

 

[Navy1960]

Thats the point Care every employee should be able to decide for themselves whats best for them and their familes. If the wage and benefits that the company is offering them is acceptable to them then they should be allowed to accept it without any go between. On the flip side of that, if someone wishes to be part of a Union, then by all means do so, but simply by doing so, should not automatically enroll everyone that does not wish it to be part of that Union and have dues taken from their wages as a a term of employment. Further, if someone wishes to no longer be a member of the Union then that should not have any impact on the job they have. As I said before, labor Unions were at one time very beneficial when employment circumstances called for them, like protecting workers against unfair practices such as 20 hour work days and child labor. Today though, labor Unions must adapt to the fact that this economy does not end at the borders of this nation and recognize that companies must be competetive in order to survive or the need to have a Uinion or represent employee's will be totally mute as they will all be gone as can be seen in more cases that I care to count.

 

[Care4all]

well, that would be a little unjust if the guy that wants to drop the union is making the same money the union negotiated for...don;t you think?

 

[Navy1960]

well, that would be a little unjust if the guy that wants to drop the union is making the same money the union negotiated for...don;t you think?

Not if it's the same wage the employer is offering all the employee's no if the Union makes a contract with an employer and neglects to add a clause that the wage increase does not include non-Union employee's or the employer so decides to match wages for all it's non -Union employee's then no I don't see an issue with it.