Front Page  »  

Grocery union members approve new contract

September 26, 2011

Workers at Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons grocery stores ratify a new contract, bringing an end to labor negotiations that dragged on for more than eight months and brought tens of thousands of workers to the verge of a strike. [LATimes]

Union members voted in favor of a contract this weekend that included some wage increases and helped prevent a potentially devastating blow to the state’s already shaky economy.

The primary obstacles in contract talks had been health care costs, worker scheduling and future staffing levels.

“This deal protects our members’ healthcare and pension and provides modest increases in wages,” Rick Icaza, president of UFCW Local 770 in Los Angeles, said in a statement.

Kendra Doyel, a spokeswoman for Ralphs, told the LA Times, “Ralphs is glad the contract has been ratified, and we look forward to doing what our great people do best: serving our customers.”


Loading...
Subjects:
Related:


11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“included some wage increases”


Nice thorough coverage. Not.


What reductions did the new contract include?


0

r0y, any smart parasite knows not to kill their host.


0

As any reailer, increased costs are passed on to the consumer. Perhaps now the union can increase their portition towards the employee’s health benefits since they don’t know what to do with all those millions they saved by not going on strike.


0

Cost living increases go up around the board. Are grocery store employees not supposed to get cost of living increases? My med insurance went up two months ago (@#%&!@$ Blue Cross) and our customers will see that in our bids.


0

Hey, just think… if we stopped printing or digitally-creating money, and did not give it away willy-nilly, there may not be a cost of living increase! Alas, that will never be, will it?


0

This what a union is supposed to do, good job!


0

I wish that I could blame my typos on drinking or drugs. Instead it’s just me typing too fast.


0

I’ll believe you if you say they’re because you’re drinking drugs, typo…. I’ll believe you!


0

I’ll bet you would!

Actually drinking, drugs or drinking drugs might help my typing.


0

I agree. It *is* a union’s job to try and get as much as they can for their members; however, what unions need to realize is that sometimes it’s too much, and if they keep pushing, it might get real ugly real fast for their members.


I am all for the give-and-take, push-and-pull of contract negotiations in the private sector. I am adamantly against unionized public labor, as “the greedy boss” is NEVER represented in the negotiations, it’s all one-sided. Besides, in the private sector, I have a CHOICE to go to Ralphs/Vons/Albertsons (or whatever unionized shop) to show my support, or go to a non-union shop if they are more competitive (hello Spencer’s). Unfortunately, the “customers” of the public employee unions have no choice.


Freedom of choice: it’s what we want. Freedom from choice: is what we got. (to paraphrase Devo)


0

The employees have the right to work at non union stores. Sorry for being redundant but not all unions are as pushy as others. Some do push too much (ask too much), some don’t consider both sides of the coin. But they’re not all like that. If there wasn’t a union involved in this then the employees would have had to settle for less and I’ll bet that the CEOs and execs aren’t making less. If I were an employee without a union rep to help me then my voice would only be heard on the unemployment line. I have worked for two companies that in retrospect I wish that I would have had union protection. Unions have to have to represent all the employees hence the name ‘union’. They need that power or else again, thier voices wouldn’t get heard.


0