Retail Watchers

Looks like Teamsters accomplished what UFCW has failed to succeed at doing for decades... and in Salt Lake City no less.

Surprised this wasn't more publicized.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/business/20 ... n-employee

storewanderer wrote: ↑March 9th, 2024, 12:03 pm Looks like Teamsters accomplished what UFCW has failed to succeed at doing for decades... and in Salt Lake City no less.

Surprised this wasn't more publicized.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/business/20 ... n-employee

YAY!!!!

veteran+ wrote: ↑March 9th, 2024, 1:32 pm

storewanderer wrote: ↑March 9th, 2024, 12:03 pm Looks like Teamsters accomplished what UFCW has failed to succeed at doing for decades... and in Salt Lake City no less.

Surprised this wasn't more publicized.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/business/20 ... n-employee

YAY!!!!

Attitude at WinCo is not good. I am not too surprised by this.

WinCo in Reno still has signs up saying hiring at 13.50/hour. It is a mystery to me how they staff at that wage. But they are staffed with a lot of 40-50+ year old employees. Not all that many young employees at WinCo unlike most other retailers. They do provide health benefits at $20 per month or some nominal amount, not sure how many hours you have to work to get that benefit.

At one point, it was common to see people picketing outside of WinCo stores in the Portland/Vancouver, WA area. They were picketing about the fact that WinCo did not have a union contract. This seems to have stopped as I have not seen those pickets in years. I am not sure if the picketers were from UFCW or not, but they also targeted some Grocery Outlet locations as well as the Fred Meyer locations that opened in the mid 1990s in Vancouver, which, at the time, did not have union contracts.

Super S wrote: ↑March 10th, 2024, 12:07 pm At one point, it was common to see people picketing outside of WinCo stores in the Portland/Vancouver, WA area. They were picketing about the fact that WinCo did not have a union contract. This seems to have stopped as I have not seen those pickets in years. I am not sure if the picketers were from UFCW or not, but they also targeted some Grocery Outlet locations as well as the Fred Meyer locations that opened in the mid 1990s in Vancouver, which, at the time, did not have union contracts.

Given that Portland UFCW came out in support of the Kroger/Albertsons merger even talking up the C&S divest plan, breaking from various other UFCW locals, including the surrounding WA UFCW local, I can think of a variery of reason$ why they may have $topped picketing WinCo, Grocery Outlet, Wal Mart, or any other non-union retailer in the area. Not sure what to say about that UFCW there in Portland, but for me, no credibility after they came out in support of the Kroger/Albertsons merger and specifically talked up that C&S divest plan after they lived through the Haggen mess... really bad.

Had it been a UFCW that didn't live through the Haggen mess or any other divest mess such as Raleys/Las Vegas, Ralphs NorCal, etc., I'd maybe give them a pass for just flat out not knowing... but that Portland UFCW lost multiple stores due to Haggen. No excuse.

Vesting used to be 5 years in, so this is an example of how even an "esop" company has made some changes to retain (?) younger workers.

Long ago, I had a friend working for this company and she stated that mysterious things always seemed to happen to folks at her store(s) right before they hit that 5 year 'full vested' mark. Also, mysteriously, the company would only provide one copy of the labor contract on a clipboard in the break room. One couldn't photocopy it or have a personal copy. For a time they were also working without an agreement reached between management and the hourly associates, though that was resolved.

Yes, her health insurance was very solid, with decent low cost co-pays and allowed her to have a medical procedure without too much burden on her household as a single mother.

SamSpade wrote: ↑March 10th, 2024, 9:01 pm Vesting used to be 5 years in, so this is an example of how even an "esop" company has made some changes to retain (?) younger workers.

Long ago, I had a friend working for this company and she stated that mysterious things always seemed to happen to folks at her store(s) right before they hit that 5 year 'full vested' mark. Also, mysteriously, the company would only provide one copy of the labor contract on a clipboard in the break room. One couldn't photocopy it or have a personal copy. For a time they were also working without an agreement reached between management and the hourly associates, though that was resolved.

Yes, her health insurance was very solid, with decent low cost co-pays and allowed her to have a medical procedure without too much burden on her household as a single mother.

In past materials I saw UFCW put out, they called them out for basically scheduling people "just slightly too few" hours to qualify for the ESOP and making it harder for newer employees to get into the ESOP than employees who were able to enter it back in the 90's. This does not sound unlike what you see a lot of retailers do with having so many part time employees and so few full time employees, to avoid paying out health benefits.

There are some hourly employees at the store I shop who are obviously long vested in the ESOP and have done extremely well.

storewanderer wrote: ↑March 10th, 2024, 9:12 pm

SamSpade wrote: ↑March 10th, 2024, 9:01 pm Vesting used to be 5 years in, so this is an example of how even an "esop" company has made some changes to retain (?) younger workers.

Long ago, I had a friend working for this company and she stated that mysterious things always seemed to happen to folks at her store(s) right before they hit that 5 year 'full vested' mark. Also, mysteriously, the company would only provide one copy of the labor contract on a clipboard in the break room. One couldn't photocopy it or have a personal copy. For a time they were also working without an agreement reached between management and the hourly associates, though that was resolved.

Yes, her health insurance was very solid, with decent low cost co-pays and allowed her to have a medical procedure without too much burden on her household as a single mother.

In past materials I saw UFCW put out, they called them out for basically scheduling people "just slightly too few" hours to qualify for the ESOP and making it harder for newer employees to get into the ESOP than employees who were able to enter it back in the 90's. This does not sound unlike what you see a lot of retailers do with having so many part time employees and so few full time employees, to avoid paying out health benefits.

There are some hourly employees at the store I shop who are obviously long vested in the ESOP and have done extremely well.

This bodes very poorly for the moribund DFW/Oklahoma stores, which opened in the early 2010s.

pseudo3d wrote: ↑March 11th, 2024, 8:25 pm

storewanderer wrote: ↑March 10th, 2024, 9:12 pm

SamSpade wrote: ↑March 10th, 2024, 9:01 pm Vesting used to be 5 years in, so this is an example of how even an "esop" company has made some changes to retain (?) younger workers.

Long ago, I had a friend working for this company and she stated that mysterious things always seemed to happen to folks at her store(s) right before they hit that 5 year 'full vested' mark. Also, mysteriously, the company would only provide one copy of the labor contract on a clipboard in the break room. One couldn't photocopy it or have a personal copy. For a time they were also working without an agreement reached between management and the hourly associates, though that was resolved.

Yes, her health insurance was very solid, with decent low cost co-pays and allowed her to have a medical procedure without too much burden on her household as a single mother.

In past materials I saw UFCW put out, they called them out for basically scheduling people "just slightly too few" hours to qualify for the ESOP and making it harder for newer employees to get into the ESOP than employees who were able to enter it back in the 90's. This does not sound unlike what you see a lot of retailers do with having so many part time employees and so few full time employees, to avoid paying out health benefits.

There are some hourly employees at the store I shop who are obviously long vested in the ESOP and have done extremely well.

This bodes very poorly for the moribund DFW/Oklahoma stores, which opened in the early 2010s.

Why is that? Is there word of a union drive in those OK/TX Stores? I have not heard of one.

storewanderer wrote: ↑March 10th, 2024, 1:31 pm

Super S wrote: ↑March 10th, 2024, 12:07 pm At one point, it was common to see people picketing outside of WinCo stores in the Portland/Vancouver, WA area. They were picketing about the fact that WinCo did not have a union contract. This seems to have stopped as I have not seen those pickets in years. I am not sure if the picketers were from UFCW or not, but they also targeted some Grocery Outlet locations as well as the Fred Meyer locations that opened in the mid 1990s in Vancouver, which, at the time, did not have union contracts.

Given that Portland UFCW came out in support of the Kroger/Albertsons merger even talking up the C&S divest plan, breaking from various other UFCW locals, including the surrounding WA UFCW local, I can think of a variery of reason$ why they may have $topped picketing WinCo, Grocery Outlet, Wal Mart, or any other non-union retailer in the area. Not sure what to say about that UFCW there in Portland, but for me, no credibility after they came out in support of the Kroger/Albertsons merger and specifically talked up that C&S divest plan after they lived through the Haggen mess... really bad.

Had it been a UFCW that didn't live through the Haggen mess or any other divest mess such as Raleys/Las Vegas, Ralphs NorCal, etc., I'd maybe give them a pass for just flat out not knowing... but that Portland UFCW lost multiple stores due to Haggen. No excuse.

I still am not sure about this specific UFCW situation. Haggen was a good example of a chain that failed because of bad private equity ownership. They seem to be making a Devil's Advocate argument that is sadly realistic: that Albertsons will be sold eventually whether we like it or not, that no qualified Union buyer will be able to acquire it due to antitrust regulations, and thus the only companies that could acquire it will be the horrible Private Equity firms. They are betting that a Kroger monopoly is better for their workers than a evil PE firm that does not care at all, will attempt to circumvent union contracts, slash wages and benefits, and close many stores. The ideal situation for everyone is for no merger and no sale of Albertsons, but the fact is that no charity is going to come along and write a check for billions to Cerberus' and Apollo's shares then send them both packing. A transaction will eventually happen in conjunction with selling their shares and the fact is if private equity is involved then it will be a far worse outcome specifically for their employees than the Kroger, C&S etc. debacle ever could be. That is their argument, and it's a more realistic view of the situation than the idealistic "no mergers period" view of their union parents. Honestly, are they wrong? I don't think they are. They know that if Albertsons goes to private equity their union will be destroyed.