Save Mart
Posted: April 12th, 2023, 6:48 am
I suspect that these folks and their lawyers know that Save Mart is positioning itself to acquire hundreds of stores, and it's a really bad look to have this matter outstanding which would cost so little to resolve. That's why they're making a lot of noise right now. The cost is minimal (420 employees X $600/month). I expect this is going to get settled, and fast. Can't easily make the argument that you're a fiscally responsible operator who will do a good job taking over all these stores with this matter in the headlines.storewanderer wrote: ↑April 12th, 2023, 11:04 pm This... was bad. Really bad. And, THIS is why you need something that keeps your post-employment benefits outside your employer to ensure you actually get them (like, a union).
This was a pretty small group of employees who basically moved into management (most of them were union before) and basically promised a similar benefit program to if they had stayed union... Save Mart under the family ownership despite struggling for years honored this promise to the employees.
The problem is Bob Piccinini promised this to employees and he upheld his promise but he wasn't there forever. But even his granddaughter continued the benefit after he left. It wasn't until the private equity that they cut this.
This is why it is unfortunately sometimes best to step back and do something to ensure the benefits you promise to people will still be there regardless if your company is no longer yours anymore. Again, like a union. This to me is the best selling point of unions, government jobs, etc.
I agree, it is strategic of them to raise this issue now. But who will fight for these employees other than the lawyers? They are non-union. I wonder if they will settle or hold their ground that they were within their rights to cut it. Seems nothing in CA State Law stopped them from cutting it either.ClownLoach wrote: ↑April 13th, 2023, 12:45 amI suspect that these folks and their lawyers know that Save Mart is positioning itself to acquire hundreds of stores, and it's a really bad look to have this matter outstanding which would cost so little to resolve. That's why they're making a lot of noise right now. The cost is minimal (420 employees X $600/month). I expect this is going to get settled, and fast. Can't easily make the argument that you're a fiscally responsible operator who will do a good job taking over all these stores with this matter in the headlines.storewanderer wrote: ↑April 12th, 2023, 11:04 pm This... was bad. Really bad. And, THIS is why you need something that keeps your post-employment benefits outside your employer to ensure you actually get them (like, a union).
This was a pretty small group of employees who basically moved into management (most of them were union before) and basically promised a similar benefit program to if they had stayed union... Save Mart under the family ownership despite struggling for years honored this promise to the employees.
The problem is Bob Piccinini promised this to employees and he upheld his promise but he wasn't there forever. But even his granddaughter continued the benefit after he left. It wasn't until the private equity that they cut this.
This is why it is unfortunately sometimes best to step back and do something to ensure the benefits you promise to people will still be there regardless if your company is no longer yours anymore. Again, like a union. This to me is the best selling point of unions, government jobs, etc.
Perhaps the California Labor Commissioner might help in some way?storewanderer wrote: ↑April 12th, 2023, 11:04 pm This... was bad. Really bad. And, THIS is why you need something that keeps your post-employment benefits outside your employer to ensure you actually get them (like, a union).
This was a pretty small group of employees who basically moved into management (most of them were union before) and basically promised a similar benefit program to if they had stayed union... Save Mart under the family ownership despite struggling for years honored this promise to the employees.
The problem is Bob Piccinini promised this to employees and he upheld his promise but he wasn't there forever. But even his granddaughter continued the benefit after he left. It wasn't until the private equity that they cut this.
This is why it is unfortunately sometimes best to step back and do something to ensure the benefits you promise to people will still be there regardless if your company is no longer yours anymore. Again, like a union. This to me is the best selling point of unions, government jobs, etc.
I am sure that if they learn they have any chance of acquiring the stores they're interested in they will settle this in a heartbeat, quietly, with the case sealed and NDA's all around. They'll make it like it never happened. They are not going to trip on pennies while they're chasing big dollars.storewanderer wrote: ↑April 13th, 2023, 9:37 am I was actually surprised to see this case still outstanding. I thought sure there was something in CA labor laws that would have gotten this resolved in favor of the retirees. But I'm not seeing much on that front.
But will this impact their ability to purchase divested stores? It and the pharmacy closures are definitely topics worth being brought up by any concerned parties.
Almost all state-level regulation of private sector employee/retiree benefit plans is pre-empted by ERISA. Only the federal government has jurisdiction over these things.