CalItalian wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 10:36 pm
It was 36 hours of near non-stop negotiations. There would have been a strike this weekend if a deal had not been reached by tomorrow. I think the article says 30 hours but that is not correct. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/ ... -pavilions
After Stater reached an agreement to give to membership to vote on, it certainly lit a fire under everyone's chair to get an agreement they could give to their members. This shows the threat these other 2 chains see Stater as at this point in time...
Good to see the one SoCal based/locally controlled/privately owned chain do the right thing... and indirectly or directly help force the publicly traded national chains to follow.
CalItalian wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 10:36 pm
It was 36 hours of near non-stop negotiations. There would have been a strike this weekend if a deal had not been reached by tomorrow. I think the article says 30 hours but that is not correct. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/ ... -pavilions
After Stater reached an agreement to give to membership to vote on, it certainly lit a fire under everyone's chair to get an agreement they could give to their members. This shows the threat these other 2 chains see Stater as at this point in time...
Good to see the one SoCal based/locally controlled/privately owned chain do the right thing... and indirectly or directly help force the publicly traded national chains to follow.
You may see it that way but the union certainly does not. The threat of a strike this weekend is what lit the fire.
You may see it that way but the union certainly does not. The threat of a strike this weekend is what lit the fire.
[/quote]
Well, maybe it was a combination of the two factors. The strike threat obviously is a big deal. Still, at the end of the day, whatever it takes to get an agreement reached...
You may see it that way but the union certainly does not. The threat of a strike this weekend is what lit the fire.
Well, maybe it was a combination of the two factors. The strike threat obviously is a big deal. Still, at the end of the day, whatever it takes to get an agreement reached...
[/quote]Stater Bros. agreement exposed the union to what they would accept in a contract. It wasn't the smartest thing for the union to do.
CalItalian wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 4:21 pm
Stater Bros. agreement exposed the union to what they would accept in a contract. It wasn't the smartest thing for the union to do.
I think getting a contract to take to membership for a vote was very important. If the contract is bad enough, the membership can always vote against it.
Stater runs in lower cost markets than the others, so in theory the wage structure with Stater in Moreno Valley would be expected to be lower than a Ralphs in Los Angeles.
CalItalian wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 4:21 pm
Stater Bros. agreement exposed the union to what they would accept in a contract. It wasn't the smartest thing for the union to do.
I think getting a contract to take to membership for a vote was very important. If the contract is bad enough, the membership can always vote against it.
Stater runs in lower cost markets than the others, so in theory the wage structure with Stater in Moreno Valley would be expected to be lower than a Ralphs in Los Angeles.
Union members will not be able to review the entire contract before voting. Only if it is ratified will the full contract be released. You'll be shocked how little they got.
CalItalian wrote: ↑April 8th, 2022, 8:22 am
Union members will not be able to review the entire contract before voting. Only if it is ratified will the full contract be released. You'll be shocked how little they got.
I'd be a firm NO vote for that reason alone. I've voted in several mail in ratification balloting elections and we were always sent a summary sheet along with a COMPLETE copy of the Contract. I'm a Union man but wow the UFCW sure does some shady things.
CalItalian wrote: ↑April 8th, 2022, 8:22 am
Union members will not be able to review the entire contract before voting. Only if it is ratified will the full contract be released. You'll be shocked how little they got.
I'd be a firm NO vote for that reason alone. I've voted in several mail in ratification balloting elections and we were always sent a summary sheet along with a COMPLETE copy of the Contract. I'm a Union man but wow the UFCW sure does some shady things.
Let me blindfold you. You vote Yes because we recommend that you do. Once we get a majority Yes only then will we take the blindfold off and show you how badly you've been screwed (or not... I guess you have to have a bit of potential positive). Does the UFCW want their members to see what they are actually voting on? Or is everyone trying to get a Yes vote to show how everyone (UFCW, grocery chains, other involved parties) is "working so hard" for the workers? This is partly cynical but at the same time like TW-Upstate NY said, who votes on something the don't have full details on? The herd mentality can't be that bad.
CalItalian wrote: ↑April 8th, 2022, 8:22 am
Union members will not be able to review the entire contract before voting. Only if it is ratified will the full contract be released. You'll be shocked how little they got.
What do they have to gain from not seeing the entire contract before voting? Why would the union spend the money and time to take a vote before their members are able to see the entire contract? It is as if they are hiding something.
Appears the last ditch negotiations after the strike threat was made (was that just an empty threat?) aligned the unions and chains vs. the employees.
Similar to what happened in Denver and Pacific Northwest recently... appears union is fighting then boom, they cave to a terrible contract.
