Workers fight to retain middle-class status

Daily Bruin: What is the basic situation surrounding the
(supermarket labor) dispute?

Kent Wong: Los Angeles, out of all major cities, has the largest
disparities between rich and poor. And the supermarket jobs
represent middle-class jobs for a diminishing middle class in our
society. These workers work very hard at the checkout counters, the
meat counters, the produce department. And they have come to expect
certain wages, health care benefits for their families, and
vacation pay.

These benefits are largely expected in middle class jobs, yet
due to the increase of economic polarization, and the proliferation
of low-wage jobs with no benefits, employers are increasingly
trying to take the low road. They are paying workers substandard
wages and providing substandard benefits. It’s really a cap
on the middle class. Supermarket workers are really trying to hold
on to a middle-class income, benefits and lifestyle.

DB: Have there been any breakthroughs in the
negotiations?

KW: There have been no breakthroughs in the negotiations. The
last offer the supermarkets put on the table was rejected by 98
percent of the workers and there have been no further
proposals.

DB: How can workers afford to go on strike?

KW: For the last year, the union has been developing a strike
fund in anticipation of a strike. The indications were that the
employers were going to be requesting severe concessions at the
table and most likely the employees were not willing to take these
concessions. So the strike fund provides a modest subsidy for the
workers during the strike, but it’s not anywhere near what
they make on the job and can only last as long as the strike fund
is there.

DB: How does a union decide to strike?

KW: Their membership vote on whether to approve the contract
proposal the union management submitted was rejected. Next they
voted overwhelmingly to authorize the strike.

DB: Will the Wal-Mart supercenters be a real threat to the
existing supermarket chains?

KW: I think Wal-Mart presents a national threat because it is
the largest employer and it pays such poor wages and offers such
substandard benefits, including a very meager health care plan.
Many of the workers don’t even take advantage of the plan
because it’s inadequate and they can’t afford it. I
think Wal-Mart sets a very bad example in the retail industry where
it is the largest employer, and the way Wal-Mart conducts its
business makes it “acceptable” to pay workers bad
wages.

I think in this instance, however, the supermarket industry is
using Wal-Mart as a scare tactic, saying that it can’t
compete with Wal-Mart, therefore we have to reduce health care
benefits and we have to reduce pensions. I think Wal-Mart
doesn’t really enter into this contract negotiation scenario
but for a kind of national threat.

DB: How does Wal-Mart keep its costs so low?

KW: Wal-Mart is a fiercely anti-union company. Any attempts at
organizing unions have been met with fierce resistance on the
company’s part. They are aggressive at keeping labor costs
down, paying workers very poor wages and substandard benefits. The
annual turnover rate at Wal-Mart is 45 percent, which gives you an
understanding that they can’t hold on to their workers.
They’re such poor jobs and they are paid so poorly that it
makes it very difficult to survive on a Wal-Mart salary.

DB: Do other businesses provide similar or fewer benefits
for their workers, compared to supermarkets?

KW: On average, unionized companies provide health care benefits
at a rate 42 percent higher than non-union companies. Health care
is something generally accepted in a union environment. Workers
have come to expect they will have their health care needs cared
for. Within the retail industry overall, however, most companies do
not provide health care benefits. Or if they do include health care
benefits, they are at dramatically lower levels than those in the
supermarket industry.

So what we find is that in industries where there are relatively
high levels of union density, it has a positive impact on the
workers. Even in the non-union supermarkets, they have to pay
relatively better wages. Conversely, in industries with low union
density, the wages tend to be poor.

DB: What options do union workers and the businesses have if
the negotiations continue to be unsuccessful?

KW: In my view, the supermarket corporations forced this strike.
They came in with a very harsh proposal calling for wage freezes.
This in turn calls for drastic reductions in benefits and pensions,
which calls for a two-tiered structure where workers who are hired
later on will be paid at a substandard wage and benefit level, and
calls for the development of non union supermarket stores.

So I think they very well knew this was going to lead to a
strike, and their attempts are really to try to depress their
workers’ wages and benefits. They’ve recruited
thousands of strike breakers to try to fill in for the striking
workers. They are on a very aggressive track.

On the other hand, you have a union representing supermarket
workers that is generating broad-based community support, getting
unions to support and respect its cause, and making appeals to the
public. A lot of people are not crossing the picket lines. So it is
a high-stakes campaign.

DB: What would it take for the government to get involved?
Would the government ever force a solution on the parties
involved?

KW: The government has both state and federal mediators who are
sometimes called in to resolve these disputes. In addition, public
officials will sometimes put pressure on various parties to settle
disputes. In the highly publicized Longshore workers lockout
earlier this year, the federal government invoked the Taft-Hartley
Law, whereby they basically suspended the strike and ordered that
the workers go back to work and brought in federal mediators.

Taft-Hartley can only be used in the case of a national
emergency ““ when the strike is damaging and devastating to
national security or the national economy. I don’t think
anyone can make that argument about these particular strikes. A
more likely scenario would be that they would pressure both
sides.

DB: What is the significance of crossing a picket
line?

KW: The workers who are striking and the workers who are locked
out are asking that people respect their picket lines. (Actually it
was only the Vons workers who struck and the Ralphs and Albertsons
workers were locked out by the employers.)

They are trying to work together collectively for the
maintenance of their wages and benefits, and they are calling on
the public to respect their picket lines. The impact of crossing
the line and violating that is essentially to undermine the workers
and the strike.

Compiled by Derek Lazzaro, Daily Bruin Senior Staff. Wong is
the director of UCLA’s Center for Labor Research and
Education.