| February
27, 2004
A War with No
Winners
By Carl J.
Luna/HispanicVista.com
In the Great
California Grocery Strike, neither labor
nor management can claim victory. The
labor unions can take solace in the fact
that they received as much public support
as they did and, more importantly, that
they survived the longest grocery strike
in California history. But the damage
done to the pocketbooks of both
individual workers and grocery
corporations has outweighed the gains
either party can claim .
The grocery unions
are accepting a final contract package
that is not that much different than the
one they walked out on four months ago-at
least not different enough to justify
months of walking picket lines for a few
hundred dollars a week. Increased
co-pays for medical insurance, two tiered
hiring system with new workers getting
less than old, all the things the Unions
struck on are there, if somewhat
softened. If labor's goal was to
bring management to its capitulative
knees, it failed.
But grocery managers
and, most importantly, stockholders, have
nothing to crow about, either.
The strike has been a revenue and PR
nightmare for the three big chains.
While there is debate about what
percentage of shoppers respected the
picket lines, the simple fact so much
business went elsewhere (note
to Trader Joe's and Costco stockholders
– do send a nice note to Safeway
& friends for giving you all those
new customers) shows the strike enjoyed a
strong base of support. News
reports that 10%-20% of the grocery
chains' customers may not come back now
that the strike is over and many more may
reduce their shopping at the chains
now that they've had months to establish
new shopping patterns is going to
be a long term hit on profits .
The Grocery chains
had two objectives in this labor dispute.
They ostensibly sought to reduce labor
costs so as to stay competitive with
superstores stores like Costco, Sam's
Club and the coming Wal-Mart superstores.
But, once the Unions refused to accept
compensation reductions, the Chains
raised the stakes, seeking nothing less
than the union-busting. The
lockouts by two of the chains were more
than just corporate solidarity in the
face of a labor action - they were
declarations of war on the unions
themselves. Right wing talk radio
quickly latched on to this aspect of the
strike, talking not about which side was
right in the strike, but instead
questioning why unions existed at all.
The big hope of the
Chains was to come out of all this freed
entirely of union wage demands so they
could compete head to head on cheap
labor costs. But
grocery management misjudged the
willingness of the public to support
striking workers at levels that inflicted
real and potentially lasting pains on the
chains. While the
renegotiated contracts with labor will
shift some costs onto workers, the
savings to the chains are now more than
offset by the real costs of lost sales
and the future costs of a disaffected
customer base. In short, the chains
have also failed to achieve either of
their principal goals in the
strike.
Except for one
thing. Ever since Ronald Reagan
busted the Paternal Air Traffic
Controllers' Order in 1981, public
support for unions and striking workers
has plummeted. The great grocery
strike of 2003-2004 marks the first time
in years a strike generated real public
support. Tens of thousands of consumers
chose individual inconvenience in
respecting a strike- something that
wouldn't have happened ten or twenty
years ago. Perhaps, after two decades of
downsizing and outsourcing, reduced or
deferred pay raises, disappearing
pensions and rising benefit costs,
average households are getting a little
fed up with our "New Economy."
The union's basic message of "hey,
what's happening to us is happening to
you," seems to have resonated more
strongly this time around.
Corporate management
should take note. For the last
generation Americans have been living in
the "Ben Hur" economy, where
corporate profits have been driven by
beating the labor drum faster and faster
to make their corporate employee galley
slaves row harder and harder. The
result has been higher productivity and
economic growth, but at substantial cost
to the body and soul of America's work
force.
America's political
class might also take note. Right-wing
pundits railed all through the strike
that all the workers had to do was go out
there and work harder and they'd make it
big in an America of limitless
opportunity. For an increasing number of
households-working ever increasing
numbers of hours , sacrificing
weekends to the job, evenings to the job,
vacations to the job--the idea that
working ever harder is the only option is
no option at all. Thus
for the first time in a long while, a
strike by some workers was actually
supported by a big hunk of the population
at large.
Maybe working
Americans are ready to embrace a new
paradigm. Call it "Network
2004": they're mad as hell and
aren't going to take it any more.
_______________________________________________
Carl J. Luna, Ph.D.,
a HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com)
contributing columnist, is Professor of
Political Science at San Diego Mesa College.
Contact at cluna@sdccd.net
|
