On its face, the conflict is over demands by the companies to cut health and pension benefits, freeze wages and establish a markedly lower pay scale for new hires. But behind these sticking points are rapidly changing economics for the supermarket sector.
The argument is, in a nutshell, that competition from Wal-Mart is forcing them to cut costs to remain competitive. The workers have to barer their burden to maintain their jobs.
This argument really pisses me off, for two reasons.
1) There is a disconnect between those responsible for the companies' problems and those paying the cost for those problems. The same LA Times article discusses three chains that operate in Southern California and compete against Wal-Mart -- Albertsons, Safeway (Von's owner), and Kroger (Ralph's owner). Of those three, only Kroger was doing well financially. How? They cut their prices to compete with the non-union stores. The other two companies had done poorly in their financial dealings. Because of competition from non-union work? No, because of a series of ill-advised mergers and acquisitions. As they gobbled up smaller chains and forced their brand upon them, they lost customers and brand loyalty. Albertsons, additionally, was plagued by a lack of a centralized acquisition system.
In other words, managerial incompetence at the top (the mergers, poor internal organization, etc.), not price competition from non-union workers has played a large role in the mis-fortunes of these companies. The workers, then, are being forced to sacrifice for the incompetence of their bosses, while the bosses do not have to sacrifice. The management is covering their collective ass and shifting the cost to the workers, all in the name of anti-unionism.
2) Even if the problems were price competition, why should the workers have to bear the brunt of the costs? According to the Albertsons' 2002 proxy report (available here in PDF form from the Albertsons' web page), the CEO of Albertsons, Lawrence R. Johnson, earned in 2002:
$1,288,269 in salary
$ 644,644 in bonus
$ 111,056 "other annual compensation"
$9,999,733 in "restricted stock awards
$ 0 in "securities underlying options"
$ 179,640 in "all other compensation"
That comes out to over $12 million dollars. Albertsons wants to put a cap on the wages of new workers, versus old workers who can make "up to $17.90 an hour." I'm not saying that the CEO should make $17.90 an hour, but when you're making $12 million a year, it seems like you should be able to sacrifice a lot as well. This is even more disgusting given my previous point.
So, don't cross the picket line!
___________________________________________________________________________
Current Music: Mull Historical Society - Public Service Announcer