Strike!!!!

[Navy1960]

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.

http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2009/11/13/showdown-looming-union-two-grocers

Code Section 23-1302, et seq.; Ariz. Const. Art. XXV
Policy on Union Membership, Organization, etc. No person shall be denied opportunity to work because of nonmembership in a union.

Prohibited Activity Threatened or actual interference with person, his family, or property to force him to join union, strike against his will, or leave job; conspiracy to induce persons to refuse to work with nonmembers; agreements which exclude person from employment because of nonmembership in union.

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.

 

[tigerbob]

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.


Code Section 23-1302, et seq.; Ariz. Const. Art. XXV
Policy on Union Membership, Organization, etc. No person shall be denied opportunity to work because of nonmembership in a union.

Prohibited Activity Threatened or actual interference with person, his family, or property to force him to join union, strike against his will, or leave job; conspiracy to induce persons to refuse to work with nonmembers; agreements which exclude person from employment because of nonmembership in union.

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.

$15 a week for health insurance? Holy crap - I'd be all over that deal!

 

[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????

 

[Navy1960]

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????

What I'm suggesting is that in this case like most other cases, Union management has become professional management and has little or no interest in its members welfare. A person should be able to bargin with their employer, however I do not think because a person or a group of person do so, that those that are not subject to that agreement between that employees agreement should be made to do so. As I pointed out, many good people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs over a political issue that the UFCW is pushing and I find this typical of an out of touch management structure that does little but collect dues from its membership for salaries.

 

[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????

What I'm suggesting is that in this case like most other cases, Union management has become professional management and has little or no interest in its members welfare. A person should be able to bargin with their employer, however I do not think because a person or a group of person do so, that those that are not subject to that agreement between that employees agreement should be made to do so. As I pointed out, many good people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs over a political issue that the UFCW is pushing and I find this typical of an out of touch management structure that does little but collect dues from its membership for salaries.

You don't like unions. You don't think individual workers should be able to organise and collectively bargain. Why not come right out with it and stop using weasel words?

 

[Ringel05]

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????

What I'm suggesting is that in this case like most other cases, Union management has become professional management and has little or no interest in its members welfare. A person should be able to bargin with their employer, however I do not think because a person or a group of person do so, that those that are not subject to that agreement between that employees agreement should be made to do so. As I pointed out, many good people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs over a political issue that the UFCW is pushing and I find this typical of an out of touch management structure that does little but collect dues from its membership for salaries.

You don't like unions. You don't think individual workers should be able to organise and collectively bargain. Why not come right out with it and stop using weasel words?

I'll say it Di. I've never liked labor unions. While they served a specific, good purpose at one point in time they have, for the most part in this day and age, become unrealistically parasitic.

 

[Navy1960]

Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.

 

[Diuretic]

What I'm suggesting is that in this case like most other cases, Union management has become professional management and has little or no interest in its members welfare. A person should be able to bargin with their employer, however I do not think because a person or a group of person do so, that those that are not subject to that agreement between that employees agreement should be made to do so. As I pointed out, many good people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs over a political issue that the UFCW is pushing and I find this typical of an out of touch management structure that does little but collect dues from its membership for salaries.

You don't like unions. You don't think individual workers should be able to organise and collectively bargain. Why not come right out with it and stop using weasel words?

I'll say it Di. I've never liked labor unions. While they served a specific, good purpose at one point in time they have, for the most part in this day and age, become unrealistically parasitic.

And thank you Ringel05 for being forthright, it's refreshing.

 

[Diuretic]

Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.

It's interesting that you should cite labour unions and the “doing things for the nation”. I am assuming that you realise that unions don't act for the nation but for their members.

From that would you consider that corporations should be made to do things for the nation?

 

[tigerbob]

Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.

It's interesting that you should cite labour unions and the “doing things for the nation”. I am assuming that you realise that unions don't act for the nation but for their members.

From that would you consider that corporations should be made to do things for the nation?

Like creating wealth and jobs you mean?

 

[Charles Stucker]

This looks to be the same sort of fiasco that the strike at Bell Helicopters was earlier this year. Management made a contract offer, a good offer, and the union rejected the offer. Then went on strike for a couple of months. Then the union accepted a contract worse than the original offering.
One wonders what the union negotiators got "under the table"
A rumor went through the Bell plant that anyone scabbing would see family members hurt. Of course it was just a rumor, no one was ever told to their face it would happen, so the criminals in charge of the union, you know organized crime, could deny it was a threat.

Unions were needed in the early 20th century. Now they are parasites and should be replaced or eliminated.

 

[Diuretic]

Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.

It's interesting that you should cite labour unions and the “doing things for the nation”. I am assuming that you realise that unions don't act for the nation but for their members.

From that would you consider that corporations should be made to do things for the nation?

Like creating wealth and jobs you mean?

Bob, why does anyone create a business?

 

[tigerbob]

It's interesting that you should cite labour unions and the “doing things for the nation”. I am assuming that you realise that unions don't act for the nation but for their members.

From that would you consider that corporations should be made to do things for the nation?

Like creating wealth and jobs you mean?

Bob, why does anyone create a business?

Some to fill a gap in the market, some to exploit an opportunity, some to provide a service, some to do something they believe in, and a host of other reasons.

Oh, most to make money. Though not all.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Your assumption that steel, textiles & etc. left this country due to the presence of unions is short sighted at best, a pure canard at worst. If that was indeed the case, all those union contracts must have been designed exclusively to drive business out of the U.S.A. at the benefit of union workers. In reality, there are two sets of signatures on those contracts. One by the union representatives, the other by management. And if management felt they could no longer turn a profit, they would not have signed those contracts.

Look instead at what is touted as "free" trade agreements. They may be "free" trade, but they are hardly "fair" trade agreements! After steel collapsed, I personally watched mills here get boxed up and sent to Asia where workers get pennies on the dollar and there are few if any workplace and environmental regulations which protect not only the workers, but those living on this planet. All for the cause of profit!

 

[Navy1960]

Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.

It's interesting that you should cite labour unions and the “doing things for the nation”. I am assuming that you realise that unions don't act for the nation but for their members.

From that would you consider that corporations should be made to do things for the nation?

Really? I find your first statement interesting, considering the fact that Unions like the UAW, SEIU, and may others are out there not only supporting presidential campaigns and national political campaigns but they are currently involved in "lobbying efforts" from watering down NAFTA to "Buy American" to how children should be educated in schools. So Unions do take an interest in the nation more so that their membership these days.


What do you think, companies like Boeing, and Lockheed Martin do for this nation and many others. In fact, ask GM who is now owned by the Govt. what they are being made to do for this nation in the form of products and services. So your point is what exactly? Unions are just out there representing the interest of its membership? I'm sure those the several thousand Union members who have lost their jobs in recent years might disagree with you.

 

[Diuretic]

Like creating wealth and jobs you mean?

Bob, why does anyone create a business?

Some to fill a gap in the market, some to exploit an opportunity, some to provide a service, some to do something they believe in, and a host of other reasons.

Oh, most to make money. Though not all.

I'd think it was about making money, that I can understand.

 

[KittenKoder]

You need to link it and review our copyright policy Navy.

 

[Diuretic]

Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.

It's interesting that you should cite labour unions and the “doing things for the nation”. I am assuming that you realise that unions don't act for the nation but for their members.

From that would you consider that corporations should be made to do things for the nation?

Really? I find your first statement interesting, considering the fact that Unions like the UAW, SEIU, and may others are out there not only supporting presidential campaigns and national political campaigns but they are currently involved in "lobbying efforts" from watering down NAFTA to "Buy American" to how children should be educated in schools. So Unions do take an interest in the nation more so that their membership these days.


What do you think, companies like Boeing, and Lockheed Martin do for this nation and many others. In fact, ask GM who is now owned by the Govt. what they are being made to do for this nation in the form of products and services. So your point is what exactly? Unions are just out there representing the interest of its membership? I'm sure those the several thousand Union members who have lost their jobs in recent years might disagree with you.

You didn't answer my question regarding corporations doing things for the nation.

The activities of unions in PACs isn't relevant to that question.

Do you think corporations do what they do for the nation? Do you think when they move operations offshore to take advantage of cheaper labour that they are acting in the interests of the nation?

 

[Navy1960]

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.

Your assumption that steel, textiles & etc. left this country due to the presence of unions is short sighted at best, a pure canard at worst. If that was indeed the case, all those union contracts must have been designed exclusively to drive business out of the U.S.A. at the benefit of union workers. In reality, there are two sets of signatures on those contracts. One by the union representatives, the other by management. And if management felt they could no longer turn a profit, they would not have signed those contracts.

Look instead at what is touted as "free" trade agreements. They may be "free" trade, but they are hardly "fair" trade agreements! After steel collapsed, I personally watched mills here get boxed up and sent to Asia where workers get pennies on the dollar and there are few if any workplace and environmental regulations which protect not only the workers, but those living on this planet. All for the cause of profit!

Granted that trade agreements are not always fair, one thing that these Unions failed to recognize is that in order to compete in the world economy and like it or not, that is what a company must do in order to survive, they must have the ability to keep costs down and that includes labor costs. When it costs sometimes 20 to 30 times more to produce a product here than it does to produce it elsewhere its very simple why a company will go offshore. Not only is a company faced with high labor costs here, they are faced with environmental regulations, high taxes, and in some locations a business environment that is hostile and often times stuck in the 1950's mode of doing business when it comes to labor practices. Take for instance Toyota, why do you think Toyota is closing down it's only Union facility and moving it to a non-union right to work state. With health benefits added and pension costs it costs more to produce the product therefor making it less competetive. The same can be said for every industry, including steele. While Steele was being dumped on the market here. Union management was stuck in the mode of being inflexible when it came to salary and benefits and often times these companies simply folded. While not blaming the workers themselves for this and Unions completely they are a large contributing factor and there is a large amount of data to support this.

At a time when the average American company requires workers to pay more than $2,000 a year toward family health insurance premiums, the auto industry is among the 4% of employers that offer free family health coverage. Retirees, who outnumber workers by more than 2-to-1 at General Motors and represent significant percentages at the other major U.S. automakers, get the same deal.
USATODAY.com - Ailing GM looks to scale back generous health benefits

GM says health expenditures -- $1,525 per car produced; there is more health care than steel in a GM vehicle's price tag -- are one of the main reasons it lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2005. Ford's profits fell 38 percent, and although Ford had forecast 2005 profits of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion, it now probably will have a year's loss of $100 million to $200 million. All this while Toyota's sales are up 23 percent this year and Americans are buying cars and light trucks at a rate that would produce 2005 sales almost equal to the record of 17.4 million in 2000
George F. Will - What Ails GM - washingtonpost.com


Yes there are 2 parties to a labor agreement and this does not excuse any of those companies from their part in making poor business decisions.

 

[midcan5]

Philadelphia Transit workers just settled their strike. I say bravo, if the top has all the money there is hardly any possibility that we will have a just and equitable society. Need to unionize more companies, bravo again.

And the piece below is old and now even more skewed for the rich.

Boston Review | Edward Wolff: Time for a Wealth Tax?

"In 1995, Forbes magazine counted a record 129 American billionaires. Though the super-salaries of athletes and entertainers more frequently grab the headlines, their $5-10 million deals are dwarfed by the accumulated wealth of the richest Americans: Microsoft's Bill Gates -- $12.9 billion; investor Warren Buffet -- $10.7 billion; the duPont family -- $10 billion; the Rockefeller family -- $6 billion; Micromedia's John Kluge -- $5.9 billion; and Microsoft's Paul Allen and Intel's Gordon Moore -- $5.3 billion each.1 An average American family, in contrast, is worth $52,200.2 So it would take a city of almost a quarter of a million such families to match the net worth of Bill Gates."



"The conclusion is that, if anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run. Reductions in government spending on goods and services, or reductions in transfer payments to lower-income families, are likely to be more damaging to the economy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families. In any case, in terms of how counter-productive they are, there is no automatic preference for spending reductions rather than tax increases."

Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01